Artist/writer/game designer Doug TenNapel has caused some controversy in recent days with some comments he made on the site that houses his “Ratfist” web-comic.  I’m not going to bother rehashing the specifics of what he posted other than to say – from the get-go – that I think they’re obviously offensive and small-minded.

They are also not at all surprising to people who have followed his work over the years.  Doug has never hidden his political/moral views from public view.  While he’s best known (apparently) as the creator of Earthworm Jim, he’s also put together an impressive and diverse array of graphic novels over the years, many of which have included (with varying degrees of nuance) ideas and concepts that are obviously drawn from his religious and political views.  And in case those were too subtle, his website has always been a clear and obvious vehicle for his specific opinions.  Even a cursory consideration of his regular posts there would make clear his positions in a way that should have rendered his recent comments unsurprising, if not necessarily acceptable.

In his comics, more often than not, I have found his communication of his religious/moral/political views to be deftly handled and his presentation – even of things I don’t happen to believe myself – to be pleasant and attractive.  On only one occasion have I found content in his professional work that was so offensive that I could not, in good conscience, recommend it to friends.  In that latter case, I disposed of my copy of the book and went back to enjoying the rest of his work.

Which brings me to my major point.  Can you enjoy the work – creative or otherwise – of a person who you know harbors views that dramatically conflict with your own?  Can you enjoy their work SELECTIVELY?

This is an issue I’ve struggled with over the years.  I have friends who are “moral absolutists” when it comes to this sort of thing and they will permanently cordon off anyone who they consider to have offensive political, religious or moral views.  In some ways, I appreciate the purity of that position.  Without question, supporting ANY of the work of a person who has an offensive philosophy winds up subsidizing the rest of their efforts, so completely cutting them off makes sense in that regard.

*MY* problem is that I really, REALLY like some of the things that certain people (artists, mostly) have created who happen to have gone on to say or create fairly offensive things later.  The best example I can think of is Dave Sim.  The first hundred issues of his epic Cerebus series are astonishing, glorious and beautiful – filled with wit and humanity and great insight.  The fact that Sim went on to become a loopy, misogynistic, religiously fanatical hermit simply cannot undo the FACT that his earlier works were amazing, valuable achievements.  Even when the main narrative ran off the rails into strange, rambling metaphysical gibberish, I was able to enjoy the occasional oasis of sanity that popped up from time to time in the later volumes.

If I opt for the “absolutist” position, I can never watch a movie with Charlton Heston in it.  Or listen to Wagner’s operas.  Or ride in a Volkswagon.  Or ever watch a Mad Max film again (the horror!).  For me, that price is too high.  While there are obviously exceptions, I generally find it best to separate a creator’s WORK from a creator’s LIFE.

Now, I will admit that I have a dog in this particular race.  I make my living trying to get people to pay me for the things I help create.  I also have a fairly public persona and I don’t shy away from making my political views clear.  I hope and trust that the VAST majority of people judge my work on its own merits and judge my beliefs separately.

I know I have plenty of conservative fans who enjoy the games I make despite being aware of my rather Lefty tendencies.  I know I have religious fans who don’t use my lack of faith as an excuse to boycott my work.  I WOULD, however, expect them to refuse to purchase or support something I made if it was an explicit, ideological manifesto of some kind.

Which leads me to a final (admittedly fussy) point:

Some of Doug’s supporters are upset about calls for boycotting his work – going so far as to claim that it’s censorship or a violation of his rights.  This is silly and wrong.

While I don’t intend to do so, it is entirely right and proper to boycott someone’s work – for ANY REASON – if that seems like the best course of action to you.  It is not censorship.  It is not an abridgment of the target’s right to free speech and expression.  You have a RIGHT to speak your mind.  You do NOT have a right to do so unopposed and you DEFINITELY do not have a right to an audience.  If you bang offensive drums long and loud enough, people will eventually hear you and many of those people will decide they never, ever want to hear from you again.

For my part, I hope Doug keeps making excellent books for many years to come.  I am sure I will continue to disagree with him on nearly everything politically, morally and religiously, but I will always at least give his stuff a chance because his work has enriched my life greatly in the past.

So… what am I up to these days BESIDES working on [SECRET], which is a [SECRET]-style game about [SECRET] set in a [SECRET]?

Why, I’m running for President, that’s what!

I assure you, this is only PARTLY a shameless act of self-promotion. Stay tuned for more (but stay tuned on the other site, since… ya know… I’m lazy).

It’s all over, except for some (mostly) insignificant recounts. More revolting than revolutionary, the 2010 Campaign was the rank capstone on the pustular lunacy of the past two years of American panic-politics. Once the new Congress is sworn in, we can look forward to major change – specifically, we can look forward to things not getting done because everything fails to get a majority vote in the Senate instead of everything dying because of Republican filibusters. Truly, they shall do the People’s work!

Anywho, during the 2 1/2 months between now and the 2012 Campaign Season beginning, we’ll be left to reflect on What It All Means. My thoughts:

Democrats – It could’ve been worse, I suppose.

• Hanging onto the Senate means the President can be spared from constantly vetoing insane Tea Party legislation and the Democrats in general can keep things in check without resorting to constant filibustering.
• Harry Reid winning soundly is a big deal and strips the TPGOP of what would have been a very impressive trophy.
• The Blue Dogs have been nearly wiped out with over half of its coalition going down last night. This will make presenting a unified front much easier. This isn’t the 1950s and 60s. The current American political climate punishes “Big Tent” parties – sad, but undeniably true.

Republicans - It’s hard not to tip your hat to the sheer audacity and focus with which they’ve conducted the last two years of business.

• Last night’s sweep of the House presents a victory for their rhetoric and strategy, if not for their ideas (vague, at best) and agenda (likely going nowhere for at least 2 years).
• It’s hard to say whether or not getting in bed with the Tea Party was really beneficial. While it helped them develop a strong narrative to campaign around and that certainly helped with some races, it also cost them the Senate by replacing more moderate Republicans with wingnuts like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle who tanked dramatically in the general contest. Personally, I think the GOP would have found an equally effective voice without the Tea Party.
• Time will tell if the Tea Party will be good for them moving forward. The actual overlap between Tea Party “ideals” and anyone with real authority is pretty slim, but they may be able to keep the TPers riled up and in their pocket through 2012 by blaming gridlock on the Democrats.
• Wiping out the Blue Dogs basically kills any chance of Democratic defections on most issues, meaning that it will be nearly impossible to ever build a filibuster-proof coalition on any significant TPGOP legislation.

The Tea Party - Life in the Echo Chamber probably feels pretty sweet today. They managed to knock “Washington Insider” Nancy Pelosi out of leadership in the House and have replaced her with the fresh-face of John Boehner – a man who JUST arrived in Washington a scant quarter of a century ago. Enjoy it while it lasts, because now that the election is over, the GOP very much needs you to be quiet (at least until it’s closer to 2012 and they need you again).

• They had some wins – most notably Rand Paul – but they also lost races that a better, moderate candidate almost certainly WOULD have won. Because of the Tea Party, the GOP doesn’t get to crow about taking seats held by the Vice President and the Majority Leader.
• The overall “performance” of the Tea Party seems to mirror what happened with Ross Perot and his “Reform Party” in 1992. They’ve captured the support of an angry, disaffected 20% of the population and have managed to achieve a kind of “insurgent influence” as a result.
• As Perot’s supporters can attest, this is not an easy kind of movement to maintain once the initial cycle of energy and “revolution” passes. The novelty wears off, the cracks and foibles of your leaders become more apparent, things change and people just… wander off. The chances of Tea Party “rage” still resonating broadly in two years are slim and there won’t be nearly as many easy targets next time around because the majority of Blue Dogs have been purged from the Democratic Party.
• The actual Tea Party “agenda” is unlikely to see much movement over the next two years. Repealing health care reform, seriously rolling back stimulus funding, dramatic cuts of government spending or federal programs, etc. are ALL dead on arrival. And not just because of the Democrats. It’s politically toxic for the GOP to get too close to any of those issues because – while you CAN rail against them in general and survive – you can’t actually make any real proposals aimed at tackling them without committing political suicide. The best they can hope for are occasional, hilarious swipes at things like the NEA (which will fail) and occasional lip-service regarding “earmark reform” (which will pass easily, but be toothless and unenforceable).

President Obama - Let’s be honest – the next two years can scarcely be MORE frustrating than the last two have been. I’d love to believe that this will snap him out of his phlegmatic diplomacy and send him after the throats of the TPGOP, but that seems unlikely. He’ll wander further to the center and “pull a Clinton”, probably solidifying his chances of at least avoiding the embarrassment of a primary challenge in 2012.

The Next Two Years – Potentially a hilarious gridlocked disaster. If Boehner sticks to his “no compromising” rule, then nothing of substance will take place. If, on the other hand, he decides to actually lead and serve, there are decent chances of some compromise legislation making it to the President.

• The GOP’s easiest “win” would probably be tort reform. It’s a mostly useless bit of fluff that the Democrats don’t mind but that the Right Wing Radio World has been yammering for for years now.
• Taxes are tough, but not impossible, to work out. The Democrats would probably be willing to up the income ceiling on rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts to $1 million if the GOP is willing to concede that no billionaires are actually “small businessmen”.
• Health Care repeal won’t happen. The GOP will make some obnoxious, Quixotic runs at it, but nothing will change.
• The GOP will not make a serious effort to curtail or revoke TARP or the Stimulus because 1) they voted for it and 2) it serves their REAL constituency (big business).
• The GOP will continue to pretend it cares about the Tea Party – at least until it starts to fizzle and ceases to be politically useful to them.
• The TPGOP won last night largely because a HUGE percentage of progressives stayed home. Much of the frustration with health care reform came from liberal voters who wanted to see a Democratic Supermajority ACTUALLY use their mandate to push through a paradigm-shifting, single-payer, universal health care system. And when it comes to the economy, the bloodless, toothless “regulation” of the financial industry was an embarrassment.
• Democrats have a chance to circle the wagons and remember that they’re ACTUALLY a progressive party (at least in theory). With the Blue Dogs mostly dead, it’s time to take a few pages out of the GOP handbook and start seriously demanding loyalty and good behavior from its membership. I’m not suggesting a “DINO” hunt along the lines of the GOP’s targeting of moderate “RINO” members, but at least wielding sufficient influence over your own damn party to say that it expects buy-in from everyone on certain, key issues.
• Voters don’t ACTUALLY want weak, compromise legislation. The GOP knows this and uses it as a weapon. The Democrats ignore it and get punched in the face over and over again as a result. You’re the progressive party. BE PROGRESSIVE.

  Remember:

  Left side of the road – safe. Right side of the road – safe. Middle of the road – SMOOSH.

UPDATE – 11:43 PM: I know I mentioned the wipe-out in the Blue Dog caucus a few times, but how did the other side of the Democratic Party fare? Of the 80 members of the Progressive Caucus that faced challenges yesterday a total of 4 lost their seats. FOUR.

Tomorrow (well, technically later today since it’s just past midnight) is the “Rally to Restore Sanity” in my old home town, an event hoping to cool the boiling blood of the American body politic by drawing attention to the fact that – despite our differences of opinion – we’re all in this together and should maybe be a little nicer from time to time.

While I can’t attend in person, I can attend in spirit. With that in mind, here’s a tribute to the folks on the Right – the list of my Top 10 favorite Republicans: