At the Washington Post Dan Drezner predicts a substantial decline in the popularity of the motif of the “zombie apocalypse” during a Trump presidency:
If you support Trump, then it’s going to be hard to hold onto an apocalyptic mind-set come Jan. 20. A president Trump, GOP control of Congress and the ability of Trump to alter the federal judiciary means that the very people who warned that the world was going to hell will be in charge of not letting that happen. Trump and his acolytes will have less of an incentive to talk about how bad things are once they are in charge. And his supporters will likely respond to those cues, as we’ve seen in attitudes about the direction of the U.S. economy. For 2017 at least, conservatives who were attracted to apocalypse narratives in the Obama years might find them less appealing with such a conservative administration in office (though it is possible that Bannon might want to continue the apocalyptic talk as a means to further his revolution).
As for liberals, the problem is that the modern apocalypse narrative ain’t terribly friendly to them. As I wrote back in April, “The problem with these shows is that they seem unable to escape a single, unrelenting theme: The post-apocalyptic world is a Hobbesian nightmare that forces surviving humans to evolve into nihilistic killing machines.†Liberals neither survive nor thrive in such a narrative. To be sure, George Romero’s older zombie films had a decidedly more liberal bent. But at the risk of offending people, I’l just say that “Day of the Dead†ain’t a good film.
My hunch is that if politics really drives viewership, the apocalypse narrative will find a rival in the Trump years, which is some variation of a resistance narrative. Liberals will flock to narratives in which a plucky band of diverse characters resists domination by some authoritarian stand-in for the Trump administration.
The only thing I have to add to this is that while the “zombie apocalypse” may be unique in its depiction of “the breakdown of modern society in the wake of an external threat” that isn’t the only sort of societal breakdown. The world of Mad Max is either in collapse due to nuclear war (external threat), running out of gasoline, or just plain giving up. The three Mel Gibson movies offer differing explanations for their world.
If apocalyptic motifs continue to have appeal Mad Max is one direction that might take without zombies.
Personally, I think we’d all be better off with variety shows featuring young, pretty boys and girls singing and dancing and dumb comics—the escapism of the 1930s—than we are with the endlessly violent and depressing post-apocalyptic narratives of the last several years. More Marx Brothers and less Karl Marx, that’s what I say.
It’s been personally annoying. I’ve been working on a new superhero universe and was writing the first book during the election. When you’re writing a year out from publication you’re making certain assumptions about the zeitgeist. In times of rapid change you don’t know what world you’re writing for. It’s a bit like not knowing whether you’ll be performing at the Kennedy Center or a rowdy titty bar.
At the poli sci level this is going to be fascinating. My sense is that the battle lines are drawn, with the Right owning politics and the Left owning culture. Last time things got this way was the 60’s, with Nixon and his Silent Majority vs. long hair and the Beatles. That one was a clear win for culture – everyone today likes the Beatles, no one likes Nixon.
I wouldn’t be surprised by a new alternative future vision along Star Trek lines – which came out first in the late 60’s when all hell was breaking loose. When things are bad and people are scared and upset they want a happy vision. Part of the reason we’ve been so apocalyptic especially over the last decade in young adult stuff (Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Divergent, Gone) is that life looked stable and settled and easy. Now it looks dark and disturbing, and eliminating civilization looks less attractive.
So, if I were clever I’d probably go looking to create something optimistic and forward-looking and then hold onto it for, say, two years until the gloom really settles in.
The gloom and doom of the 60s, more a product of the Kennedy assassination and the Viet Nam War escalation, brought LBJ’s Great Society and a naive notion of societal/government solutions. By time Nixon showed up we all had Revolvers and Rubber Souls.
Once again, the Messiah didn’t make the earth heal, racial tensions subside or bring economic prosperity and international peace for all. In fact, it was a dismal failure. Strike two.
Despite all the handwringing and petulant “just you wait and see” faux prognosticating, none of knows what the next few years will bring. Early indications are an upbeat mood has taken hold, if not from the grumbling progressives. It’s probably fleeting, as emotional swings are. All we can say is that thenfailur of the Obama Administration is just about behind us. The same may be said four or eight years from now.
Perhaps more Marx Brothers wouldn’t be so bad.
Trump’s unfavorables are higher than his favorables, under water by 5 points, while at the same time Obama’s favorables have risen to a plus 12 points. (RCP averages.)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-polling-transition-232656
The notion that an upbeat mood has taken hold is without any basis in fact.
The propaganda surrounding an Obama jobs recovery certainly is:
//www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-23/top-white-house-economist-admits-94-all-new-jobs-under-obama-were-part-time
And with propaganda like that you can generate “popularity.” You certainly can’t get your successor elected. You may have heard about the results Of a recent election…..
And the hits just keep coming –
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/optimism-on-economy-stocks-surges-since-trump-election-cnbc-survey.html
I’m sorry your candidate lost Michael. You shouldn’t take it so personally. She was and is a miserable person, and terrible political candidate. You will feel better when you get through the anger stage.
It’s not anger, it’s nausea.
And since I was not polled, it’s hard to make a case that I’m responsible for polls showing that the country is scared and pessimistic. I realize the swine in high finance are giddy with anticipation of more tax cuts and greater opportunities to screw the lower classes, but it is absurd and utterly out-of-touch with reality to suggest that the American people are even remotely optimistic compared to previous presidencies. Bush-Gore was an exceedingly contentious election and the public was far happier about that, and far more united.
I’d have thought the refusal of every talent in the United States to be seen anywhere near Trump’s inauguration, and the apparent rejection by the two living Republican ex-presidents to attend, would be a bit of a clue. Guess not.
That’s an interesting theory. I wonder how Drezner would explain the 1990’s obsession with aliens and the occult.
Couldn’t care less about the, ahem, “talent.” (Snicker)
As for the pols, you miss the entire point. He’s shaking things up, from media to the entrenched players to the way to do things “as everybody knows.” After 8 years of schlerotic sameness I doubt he will do harm.
So, in other words you’ve gone from, “Everybody is excited and happy!” to, “Of course the polls are bad because…” Completely wrong, as usual, and as usual refusing to admit it in the face of actual facts.
As for the talent, the malicious, insecure, way-out-of-his-depth toddler you elected against the clear wishes of the American voter, clearly is desperate for snicker snicker ‘talent.’ Snicker. And he’s snicker not gettin’ any snicker because the snicker snicker Leader of the Free World lacks the juice to get Garth snicker Brooks to show up. Trumpolini can’t get Andrea snicker Boccelli to show up, for God’s sake – an opera singer. Because snicker Trumputin’s snicker the great snicker negotiator.
Yeah. This is going to be fun.