Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 1, 2009 in Arts & Entertainment, Politics | 7 comments

The National Parks: America’s Best Socialism?

Ken Burns just announced a follow-up to The National Parks:  America’s Best Idea.  The film is tentatively titled, “The Baldwin Brothers:  Not So Much.”  Ironically, the Wayans brothers will be doing the voice-overs.  

“In the late 1900s a boisterous band of Baldwin brothers headed for southern California, packing their Ford Pinto full of hopes, dreams, and hair products.  Their enigmatic leading man charm would soon change the landscape of Hollywood forever.  Or at least until they started gaining weight.”

Unfortunately, Burns’ Baldwin saga is years from completion.  This is primarily because of the extensive archival footage.  For example, there exists more head shots of Alec Baldwin than photos of the Civil War.  Even though the film is in early production, Burns confidently asserts his film will be the best Baldwin brother film ever made with two or more Baldwins.

Until then, we will have to settle for The National Parks:  America’s Best Idea.  This is a shortened version of the even longer and more awkwardly titled, The National Parks:  America’s Best Idea is to DVR This Thing if You’re Ever Going to Make it Through All Twelve Hours.   

There’s a fine line between boring and therapeutic.  The difference depends on how you feel right before you go to sleep.  Ken Burns is the master of therapeutic film making.  I am entranced by his gentle folksy guitar soundtracks and calmly annunciated voiceovers.  I am hypnotized by the rhythmic sway of his every panning camera; slowly zooming in and out, back and forth, revealing every nuanced detail of a carefully chosen black and white photo or vivid painting.

The films of Ken Burns create both narrative and narcotic tension.  On one hand we are swept into the details of a forgotten story.  On the other hand, we are lullabied to sleep.  Consequently, we find ourselves nodding off at the turning point of a Civil War battle or in the middle of a John Muir Sequoia soliloquy.  This places the work of Ken Burns within the realm of pleasant dreams.  When we awake, we are comforted, yet not quite able to remember.  

I haven’t yet watched the entire series (the DVR is stacking them up as I write), however, I’m already intrigued by the series’ overarching theme of democracy.  One would expect an exhaustive treatment of The National Parks to be rooted in an environmentalism motif.  Although Burns deals with conservation, his National Parks thesis is rooted in the issue of democracy.

In our current political climate, democracy has become a euphemism for “freedom from collective responsibility.”  When politicians hint at collective stewardship, accusations of socialism are soon to follow.  Thus democracy has become freedom to go it alone or to be left alone to do as one pleases.  Within this definition, the greatest threat to democracy is government advocating or administrating a shared mission.

In recent months, thousands upon thousands of protestors have gathered together to unite against the government uniting us.  It appears that a large portion of the populace would rather endure the ills and excesses of capitalism than accept the tyranny of governmental regulation.  

Within our present dialogue and definition, Ken Burns inserts the reenacted voices of Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, and many other past champions of democracy.  As I listened to their words, I began to realize the modern world has lost a portion of democracy’s definition.  It’s as if a page has been torn, removed, or simply forgotten.

In reference to the National Parks Roosevelt observed “It is the preservation of the scenery of the forests and the wilderness game for the people as a whole, instead of leaving the enjoyment thereof to be confined to the very rich.  It is noteworthy in its essential democracy.  One of the best bits of national achievement which our people have to their credit.  And our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children’s children forever.  With their majestic beauty all unmarred.”

For President Roosevelt and many other God fearing, flag loving, patriotic Americans democracy was more than just the freedom to go it alone.  Democracy was also the promise of equal access to God’s creation.

Unlike Europe, America embraced a concept of national land ownership that was thoroughly democratic.  In fact, some of the most majestic portions of our land were set aside for the collective and common good.  

Through the National Parks, Americans became co-stewards of God’s creation.  We took on a collaborative responsibility to preserve, protect, and share our national treasures with each individual in every generation.  This equal access to America’s natural wonders was, and is, a thoroughly democratic ideal.   

It is common for protest groups to champion the protection of country.  In recent months there has been a resurgence of the phrase “Give me back my country!”  Ken Burns’ film points out the complexity of answering such a demand.  If one’s country is defined as the ability to go it alone, then a collective vision is nothing more than tyranny.  However, if one’s country is defined as common access to common treasures, then the answer must be found in shared responsibility and collective stewardship.

As with almost all uniquely American enigmas, the answer most likely lies somewhere in the middle.  Or maybe I’ll discover the answer by the end of the series, if I can just stay awake long enough to find it.  

www.fairlyspiritual.org


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • Father_Time

    I think “National Parks: America’s Best Idea”, is excellent. I especially like the historical parts where greedy business men are crushed under the power of the Sovereign Federal Government. It gives, “and Justice for All”, meaning.

  • JSpencer

    “In our current political climate, democracy has become a euphemism for “freedom from collective responsibility.”Nailed it! That euphemism by extension also means we are miserably failing the collective, ongoing national IQ test. Good thing the national parks are already in existence, could you imagine the ensuing madness if there was an effort to establish them today? Cries of socialism would be the very least of it.

  • DLS

    Yep, we know about leftist whining about compulsive “responsibilities” or “duties” (which are in alternative “improved” versions here and there of our constitution). I’m not surprised that this is how dissent from PC conformity (as well as, for example, opposition to metropolitan area unification, putting everything, and all tax revenues, into the hands of old central cities) is once again mischaracterized.

  • JSpencer

    You raise a good point: The taking of responsibility seems largely antithetical to modern day rightist philosophy these days . . . various attempts at interference running and obfuscation notwithstanding. 😉 A widening of the focus might help with that.

  • JeffersonDavis

    “It appears that a large portion of the populace would rather endure the ills and excesses of capitalism than accept the tyranny of governmental regulation.”

    A few of us Tea Partiers don’t mind regulation. We mind socialism and the tyranny of overtaxing. Since you pay more than 50% of your pay to taxes (income, FICA, sales, excise, fees,etc) I would think all of us would be protesting.

    As for Ken Burns…. I’ve liked most of his films – especially “The Civil War”.
    You’d expect as much with my name, right?

  • DLS

    “The taking of responsibility seems largely antithetical to modern day rightist philosophy”

    I’m not surprised that you would fail to grasp or to honestly describe the related truth here.

  • DLS

    “The Civil War”

    That was a good film. The voice-over even then (by the end of that film) became a stupid gimmick, but he put it on the map as a (subsequently highly abused) technique. The liberal and Sclerotic Blue Nation nature of subsequent stuff by him was inferior. (Nobody normal really cares what Mario Cuomo or Doris Kearns Goodwin has to say about baseball, and the USA was not the evil sinful earth and Jackie Robinson was not Jesus!) What’s most interesting about the voice-over gimmick was that it was abused at least once by Nina Totenberg on her low-quality coverage of a Supreme Court event, actually descending so low as to have voice-over gimmickry imitating arguments and statements by various Supreme Court Justices. Our tax dollars, misappropriated once more. [sigh]

    As to the national parks themselves, it touches on a long history of related items, the colonialist manner in which the Northeast has treated the West (and still does with federal land lockup and so much land in the hands of the federal government rather than owned more locally as it ought to be), which is augmented by post-1960s radicalism and misuse of wilderness designations and restrictions on land use to satisfy more openly political (and extreme) objectives, while in an earlier time (earlier in the 1960s), some astute observers noted the population distribution in the country versus where the parks are, and said, for example, that more national parks in places like Pennsylvania would be of more value than more in the more-remote and less-accessible and less-close-to-people parts of the West. Food for thought, for those who can and will think…

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com