If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

January 28, 2009

by Jennifer Roback Morse

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar Let us state it at once: Revolutionary Road is a bad movie, despite the awards it garnered from its Hollywood peers. The story is Hollywood's fantasy of the stultifying life in the 1950's suburbs. Unbelievable storyline, unsympathetic characters, and a socially irresponsible message: evidently these are the requirements for Hollywood awards.

The storyline: April (Kate Winslet) and Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) are living meaningless, hopeless lives in the suburbs. He goes to a pointless job he hates. She raises two children whom we don't see enough of to care about. She proposes that they sell their house and move to Paris.  She will support the family by working in a government secretarial pool and he will do something meaningful and find himself.  He agrees. Then he gets a promotion he wants and she gets pregnant. He backs out of the plan to go to Europe. She gives herself an abortion and dies. Why? Don't ask me. There is no particular reason for any of these characters to do any of the things they do.

The characters are not only unbelievable, but completely unsympathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio has an affair with a brainless girl in the secretarial pool. Kate Winslet has sex in the car with a neighbor. When the main characters quarrel, we can't figure out whom to root for: they are both self-absorbed and narcissistic. Throughout, the one and only consistent motivation for these characters is their desire to feel "special" and that they are somehow not like everyone else.

We are supposed to believe that abortion should be legal so that women like April are not so desperate that they kill themselves through self-induced abortion. The scene in which she plans her abortion is so overwrought, I couldn't bring myself to care about her. I considered abandoning my disapproval of euthanasia: please, put this character out of her misery so we can end this movie.

But what makes this movie so bad is not just the hackneyed storyline, but the socially irresponsible message the movie conveys. I am talking about the thinly veiled hostility to children, combined with the nauseating narcissism of the adults. In an era of demographic decline, the message that children are the problem and abortion is the solution is grotesque. And the story itself doesn't even accurately portray what it seems to portray.

There are no real children in this movie, even though the protagonists have children. The children are mere props in the story. There are no bicycles in the driveway, no swing sets in the backyard, no screen doors slamming, no children careening through the house with a half dozen other kids from the neighborhood.

The aborted child bears the full weight of the adults' disappointments. April blames the child for her frustration that the family is not moving to Paris after all. But the child is not really to blame: Frank would have refused to go to Europe even if his wife weren't pregnant. The abortion solves none of her problems. She still is living with a husband she doesn't like very much. Her husband wants his promotion.  She is still living in the suburbs. And above all, she is still normal. There is nothing special about her.

In the meantime, society has moved on since the Dreaded Fifties. Hollywood may not have noticed, but the birth rate among college educated white women, like the characters in Revolutionary Road, is down around 1.7 babies per woman. The modern problem is not too many children, but too few. The modern problem is not that society forces women to stay home in the suburbs to raise children, but that society makes it almost impossible for them to do so. Between financial pressures, career goals, social attitudes and government policy, many women have fewer children than they want, and spend less time at home with them than they want.

In contrast to this glitzy Hollywood production, Demographic Winter is an independently produced film describing the consequences of the population collapse of industrialized countries. The film argues that falling population will mean a diminished quality of life for the aging generation and for future generations. For instance, pensions, both private and public, have to be paid for. When the retired population is too high relative to the working population, paying the promised pensions becomes an enormous burden. Either the young pay crushing taxes, or the elderly will not get what they expected, or both.

Consumer spending keeps the economy humming and the stock market climbing. When population shrinks, the demand for goods and services of all kinds shrinks. I have been thinking about demographic decline while I drive through my San Diego neighborhood. Out of forty-two homes, we have four foreclosures. Yes, the housing prices ballooned up and people took on mortgages they couldn't pay. But there is more to the story than the credit crunch: there simply are not enough people at the right age, with enough income, to afford these houses. Because the Baby Boomers didn't replace themselves, there are not enough people to buy their homes. Falling demand translates into falling home prices.

The Chattering Classes can not bring themselves to take the Demographic Winter thesis seriously. The Left dismisses it as a hysterical racist rant. The Libertarian Right wants to talk about how the modern world has given men and women more choices, which is a good thing. And Hollywood keeps dishing up a very thin fantasy of Life in the Fifties, dreamed up out of a screen writer's hallucinations of Betty Friedan's version of hell.

Yet demography really will be destiny. We are placing our children in a bind, from which they may not be able to extricate themselves.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Responses to Obama and Post-Racist America:

I agree with Dinesh's analysis. A point often missed though is the defectiveness of racism itself as a moral category. Decompose racism into traditional moral categories of hate, malice, favoritism, fear, slander, intolerance, pride, and so forth, and the only thing left is a preoccupation with race. In other words, racism requires vice be judged either more or less odious depending upon the ethnicity of its target- and that prejudice is just as necessary for who exhibit racism as for those who oppose it. This is not moral progress- it is moral regress. Emergence of racism as a moral category has not raised moral horizons- it has lowered them. It has not broadened the scope of moral concerns- it has narrowed them. It has not elevated the quality of moral discourse- it has debased it. Race hustlers love it, but better people flee. The ultimate irony is that no one can preach against racism without unwittingly engaging in it- hence the unmistakable disutility of the whole idea. Perhaps Obama can help bring an end to the use of racism as a legitimate moral category, prompting a return to classic categories of vice and virtue- categories that operate to clarify the moral imagination rather than cloud it. - Bill Brewer

I find D'Souza's thoughts in "Obama and Post-Racist America" a bit simplistic, unrealistic and racist in their assessment. This is like saying that if Hillary had won it would be the end of gender bias, chauvinism and machismo. So, does this also mean that anti-Muslim sentiment is over because Obama's father was a Muslim by religion and Obama himself has a Muslim middle name? So, does this mean that anti-immigrant sentiment is over because Obama's father was an immigrant? How unreal is that! All of us still have fresh in our memories how the Republican Party, riled up by Sarah Palin, card-tagged Obama as a friend of terrorists -- ergo he was one of them. The same Vice-presidential candidate then asserted that the "real Obama" wasn't "like the rest of us real Americans". Palin, and even McCain himself pointed out Obama's "otherness" as a way of exacerbating America's fear of those who are "different". Isn't that something more than just "episodic racism"? The notion "that someone is not racist to be wary of African Americans who behave badly, or any ethnic group for that matter, as long as they are well disposed toward those who conduct themselves admirably" is simply disturbing for it implies a member of a minority group has to reach the level of becoming "admirable" to deserve the acceptance of whites who will decide where the threshold is going to be. - N. Blackman-Richards

Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
The Pro-Life Movement as the Politics of the 1960s
Atheist Bus Ads Spread to More Countries
"The Nation" Thinks Demographic Winter is a Pro-Natalist Conspiracy
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Jennifer Roback Morse
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. brings a unique voice to discussions of love, marriage and the family. A committed career woman before having children, she earned a doctorate in economics, and spent fifteen years teaching at Yale University and George Mason University. The devastating experience of infertility changed her life and her research program, for the better! In 1991, she and her husband adopted a two year old Romanian boy, and gave birth to a baby girl. She left her full-time university teaching post in 1996 to move with her family to California. She was a Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. She is now a part-time Research Fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and writes and speaks about love, marriage and the family. Until August 2006, Dr. Morse and her husband were foster parents for San Diego County, where they now reside.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org