Why I’m a Politically Conservative Artist

July 17, 2010

I got this fan letter from a reader where he wonders why I’m a Conservative:

I’ve been a fan for awhile now. I played Earthworm Jim as a kid and bought Creature Tech when it first came out. I love your style: you, Shrab, Edlund, and Allred are my favorite. However something perplexes me… I guess I’m a pretty liberal person, I don’t mind your religious views in your comics in fact I think there subtle and great,

… if you like the religious views in my comics, then you can’t be that liberal. But that’s for another day.

but your views on politics… I’m surrounded by liberal people and was wondering if you could tell me why it is exactly your a conservative? I know politics has nothing to do with art and Imagination, but I can’t help feel confused by the fact that one of my biggest influences is a conservative. So clue me in if I’m missing something.

If it helps at all, most of my biggest influences are liberal, so we’re both coming from a pretty cool place.

There are certain aspects of conservatism that directly effect and interact with the arts. It’s an old feminist wive’s tale that somehow the GOP is void of creativity. There are a lot of reasons why conservative people don’t participate in the arts, but none of them are because we’re less artistic, or have a harder time with being creative. But that’s another rabbit trail I won’t go down here either because I want to give you the reasons why I’m politically this way.

The word Conservative is the most important and obvious part, it implies that there is something so worth keeping that I want to identify myself with its preservation over discovering something new to progress to. One also has to believe that we are generally trapped in some form of slavery that we need to liberate ourselves from to identify with a progressive, anti-conservative, political world view. This gets philosophical so forgive me for getting into the deep sauce, but liberals don’t generally believe in ideals, while conservatives do.

Materialism is the view that we are only made up of materials. Particles, molecules, matter in motion, it has a lot of names but leftists like Marx did not believe in an immaterial world. Things that are immaterial can be thought of as states of being, love, values, souls, supernatural beings and ideals. It’s not that Marx didn’t believe in love, it’s that the Materialist will undermine the idea by claiming it’s just an illusion presented by the gear-like workings of the materials. This hideous philosophy found a foot-hold in Modernist thinkers and changed the good form of Liberalism held by greats like JFK.

I consider myself a classic liberal, which has almost nothing to do with modern liberalism. Likewise, a modern liberal can’t be a completely saturated liberal because they at the very least try to conserve their own liberal philosophy. Is anyone trying to progress beyond Green Environmentalism? No, my political opposition wants to conserve it, even proselytize others to that brand new mandate.

An ideal is an invisible form that we hold as a goal. Plato believed in ideals because he could think of a perfect circle, though he knew there was never a truly perfect circle constructed in the materials. How can we all know what a perfect circle is if it doesn’t even exist? Further, why is it that though a perfect circle is an immaterial ideal do we all know to judge imperfect circles? If there were no ideals we wouldn’t even know to challenge the imperfect.

A liberal finds the freedom from ideals, traditions and norms true progress because their philosophy tells them these things don’t really even exist, and were probably only forced on the people by some patriarchal oppressive rich guy who wanted to control the wombs of womyn. So my first and most germane reason for being a conservative is that I believe in ideals, and think they’re worth conserving. There’s a great deal more right about America that we risk losing than we would gain by throwing them off to find a utopian heaven on earth.

You’ll see these two opinions on ideals in the different ways we think of the Constitution. One side sees it as a miraculous document that reflects self-evident, absolute truths about immaterial ideals like being created, the right to the pursuit of happiness and having the freedom to own a big fat gun. The other side sees it as an old fashioned document that prevents the benefit of cultural evolution so it is declared “a living breathing document”. Often, our one-time support of slavery by our highest courts is sited as proof that our morals and ideals evolve, but slavery is a new idea, and it was predated by man’s right to freedom. When the Rev. Martin Luther King sought Civil Rights for the black man he didn’t claim a new idea, he claimed the black man was promised freedom by the very words of the Constitution. Treat that document as a living, breathing thing at our peril.

I see the last election as exhibit A in this way of thinking. We were in the second term of a president that pop-culture sought to discredit and destroy, our prosperity came easy, and a spoiled nation hoped for change. But when the new guys took over we’re watching how good we had it. This isn’t about bashing Obama, but he ran on how crappy our country was and he sought to fundamentally change America. While no lefty loves unemployment, all of them agree that we should raise taxes on the rich, give every person cradle to grave healthcare and recover our reputation with the world’s left. They champion only green jobs, penalize coal and oil drilling without taking into account what we could lose by implementing these plans. Their first priority is progress and liberating the country from the old fashioned that shackle our person.

My parents handed me a freer country than I will hand to my children, and Bush handed Obama a freer country than will be handed to the next guy. The left has little interest in conserving freedom, they liberate by regulation, redistribution and forced equality of outcome. These principles go against my political leanings, so I vote Republican. Now you have lots of liberal friends, so you probably hear that we want to oppress black people, take away a woman’s freedom, destroy the middle class and create a theocracy. Most liberals aren’t exposed to true conservative ideals, but most conservatives get indoctrinated by liberal philosophy in entertainment, mainstream media and our universities. In L.A. I even get it from my church.

As an artist, I make my living off of Intellectual Property rights, and the libs regularly seek to undermine and reduce IP rights, while the GOP seek to protect and conserve them. The idea that if you are a worker who dies and you can pass on your money or property to your offspring is radical enough, and a complete assault to Materialist philosophy because their thinking doesn’t even embrace immaterial structures like property ownership, much less intellectual (immaterial) property ownership. I should be able to pass on the Earthworm Jim property to my family in the same way I could pass on a bar of gold to them. I made it, it’s mine so I should be able to do what I want with it.

My dad once gave me a car. I was thrilled to get a car, but I suspected that he might be trying to keep parental control over me by giving me something I wanted. So I said that I would only take the car if I was free to sell it, wreck it, or keep it. He wasn’t endorsing my ability to crash a car, but he gave me the keys without reservation and said it was mine to do with however I wanted. I knew at that point that the car was really mine. It was my responsibility, and that is true freedom and true trust of the individual. The GOP trusts us with a gun. It says a lot about our opposing visions of freedom.

Finally, I’m a commercial artist. That is, I make money off much of my art. I still draw in my sketchbooks for pleasure or other artistic reasons, but I like to get paid to draw so I don’t have to dig ditches or pour cement and make an honest living. That makes my art a job and the political party that is friendliest to job creators is the one that gets my loyalty because they’re going to allow me to do what I love for income. Artists aren’t hired by poor people, and commercial artists are generally hired by the richest businessmen of all.

Go to your local fine art gallery and look at those price tags. People who work for the census, ACORN and struggling college students don’t buy those paintings and installations. The arts always enjoy the biggest expansion, stability and prosperity in a good economy. When companies get hit by financial hardship, the art department is usually the second to go right after the in house masseuse. A rip roaring richie-rich economy employs all of my art friends, who are all liberal and demonize the rich. They regularly vote for the very people who actually brag about how they’re going to hurt their employer. No matter if you’re an animator, a painter, a director or a sculptor there’s a good chance the only guy who will hire you makes at least 250k a year… the bracket this administration wants you to feel good about taxing at five times the rate of the previous administration.

The next time you hear President Obama talk about how the GOP is in bed with Wall Street instead of main street I want you to think about your dream employer… Paramount, Dreamworks, Disney, Nickelodeon, Marvel, Pixar, Google, Apple, and look at their ticker on the stock market. That’s right, every entertainment job is tied to some giant company that trades on Wall Street and Obama just announced that the GOP is on the side of these corporations. I didn’t say it, he said it. I like it when my art buddies get paid boat loads of money to draw. Don’t you? Well, they aren’t hired by solar power welfare jobs.

But corporations are evil! Let’s assume for a second that they really are evil. If you are an evil executive making 50 million dollars a year and the government taxed and punished you so you only made a paltry 25 million a year, do you think that an evil guy is going to just take the hit? He’s going to cut enough employees to make up the difference. He’s evil, remember? And unlike the last few administrations, corporations are really good at cutting spending to survive. The only way you can get a corporate executive to create more jobs is by rewarding him with more money for needing expansion. You will never be able to tax him into being a charitable citizen.

Liberals have some tough decisions to make. They need to decide if they hate high unemployment numbers more than they hate the rich. We have another name for the rich, they’re called employers of every artist I know.

I could give you a lot more reasons for why I’m conservative but I couldn’t give one for being liberal. The more I experience in life and study about politics and even art the more conservative I get. The great minds of the past grasped profoundly good, freedom expanding ideas, and they have more goods than what the new minds keep claiming are the big new way of thinking.

If you ever choose to study the past, you will find that our best ideas we hold today are old ones not new ones. When you choose to conserve these ideas you’ll take a step toward being a conservative. It’s not so strange the more you think about it.

Sorry for the lack of brevity. There’s probably a real good chance I didn’t even answer your question. With apologies.


54 Responses to “Why I’m a Politically Conservative Artist”

  1. Paul Says:

    Wow! Very well said! You basically said what I always TRY to say to my liberal friends but as usual you said it much better.

    Of course good luck on getting a true liberal to listen. Good luck getting them to listen when you tell them that true tolerance isn’t approving of every vice or lifestyle but is disagreeing with someone’s views or lifestyle and still treating them with respect and dignity. Good luck getting them to listen that we look at 3D ultrasounds and see a real baby and not a reason to control women. Good luck getting them to listen when we say that we really do want to invite EVERYONE to the table of prosperity and opportunity.

    It saddens me when I see the level of hate and vitriol they level against conservatives in the name of tolerance. It angers me when I see them take away the freedoms of various demographics under the guise of equality. It sickens me when they continue to take more freedom and more property away from us all the while telling us that it’s for our own good.

    • uh by my experience many conservatives DON’T want everyone to be prosperous. They see gay people as subhuman animals who need to be cured of a disease, blame black people for being poor by virtue of blackness etc.

  2. I agree with you completely. You are a huge inspiration, Doug :)

  3. Beautiful essay on what it means to be a conservative and an artist! It’s difficult to be in the closet and work in any of the fine or performing arts. Your post gives us hope we can “come out,” and be respected for our work instead of ridiculed for our beliefs. And maybe, just maybe change a few minds in the process. Thank you!!

  4. Martin L. Shoemaker Says:

    Conservatism says, “We have something good. If we change, we might lose it.” Classical liberalism says, “We can have something better; but if we don’t change, we can’t get it.” Both are healthy perspectives, in measured doses; and indeed, this generation’s conservatives are usually trying to conserve the benefits won by last generation’s liberals. Small, incremental changes that are then tested, evaluated, and rejected or accepted based on the results are the healthiest way for a society to grow.

    But progressives/modern liberals aren’t interested in incremental change and conserving what works. They want to remake everything in vast, sweeping changes. And if they have to throw out a few million babies with the bathwater to get their changes, well, that’s just the cost of change.

  5. Martin L. Shoemaker Says:

    Picking up my thoughts from before I was interrupted…

    Complicating these discussions is a tendency among all parties to equate disagreement on methods with disagreement on motives. If you disagree with my methods, it must be that you disagree with my motives. It couldn’t be that you agree with my motives but think my methods will yield the wrong results; because after all, my methods are infallible! Aren’t they?

    Although I see this on all sides, I see it much more often on the progressive/liberal side for a simple reason: most conservative methods consist of doing as little as possible — nothing when possible — so it’s harder to disagree with that. You can argue, “That won’t change anything,” and the conservatives will agree with you; but it’s harder to argue, “That will make matters worse.” The liberal side, meanwhile, advocates larger changes; and the progressive side advocates sweeping changes. Large, sweeping changes are more prone to the Law of Unintended Consequences: you don’t get what you expected; and what you do get is worse than where your started. (Actually, I think the name should often be changed to the Law of Vehemently Denied Consequences: many of the consequences of President Obama’s economic actions were predicted and expected by economists, but vehemently denied by the left. Now that we’ve actually seen the consequences, we’re not supposed to discuss them. That’s looking backwards, and we should all be looking forwards!)

    Since people are usually blind to flaws in their own thinking, it’s natural to assume that someone finding fault with your methods is REALLY trying to undermine your motivations. And that, finally, gets to what your reader is really asking: “Hey, Doug, all my liberal friends tell me that conservatives are nothing but racist, hompohobic, anti-science Christianists; but I don’t see any of that in your comics. How can a cool guy like you hang with such troglodytes?” The fact that he asks means he’s at least open to the possibility that what he knows about conservatism as an intellectual movement is all wrong. Conservatives and classical liberals are ALL motivated by improving the human condition; they just don’t always agree on the methods. Sometimes “change for the sake of change” is worse than “no change at all”; but sometimes a carefully factored change is indeed an improvement.

    Progressives, meanwhile, are interested in the perfectibility of the human condition. That’s a noble motive; too bad it has never worked out that way, and likely never will. And too bad it’s a motive that’s easily feigned or subverted by those who simply want raw, naked power. As long as things are still imperfect — and things will always be imperfect — the progressives always have a motivation for even larger changes. And they’ll seldom recognize when their changes are the very cause of the imperfection they seek to “fix”. Witness the Dodd-Frank bill to correct the earlier mistakes of Fannie and Freddie and FHA that were largely the result of pressure from Senators Dodd and Frank. The bill largely consists of more of the same mistakes, only squared and cubed.

  6. lukekeith Says:

    “Change” is such a vague term. I really hate it when people toss around words without any clue what it means, much less taking the time to define it.

    What exactly is “Change”?

    I think we all need to be careful how we say things. Let’s be specific and talk about the issues. My definition of “change” on the subject of economics might be different than your definition of “change” on the same subject.

    One of the things that really rubs me wrong from the left is their general inability to define their terms or get specific on the issues. They speak in broad generalizations using terms that sound good like “Change”, “Progression”, “Better”, etc. without really saying what it means in the first place. It creates an emotional response within the listener without any logical explanation.

    For example, during the HCR debate, the conservatives would ask simple questions like “Who is going to pay for it?”, while the left would respond with questions like “Don’t you want people to get help when they need it?”.

    Of course conservatives want to help people, that’s unrelated to the topic at hand. Everyone wants to help those in need. The difference between us is the way in which we do it.

    There is a wonderful story which illustrates my personal beliefs on this matter. It is a conversation between David Crockett and Mr. Bunce.

    (assuming this lets me post links) You can read the story here.

    And I think Doug hit the nail on the head. It’s like the old saying, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. And last time I checked, it wasn’t poor people doing all the hiring.

    A little tidbit from my own personal experience. I was in a HORRIBLE car accident two years ago. Broke my jaw into three pieces, my pelvis into two pieces, my femur into three pieces, collapsed a lounge, broke my ribs, pinched a few of my major nerves, etc. Point being, I was in bad shape and in desperate need of immediate care.

    The doctors were uncertain if I would survive. I was alive, but could have gone at any moment.

    If you were in my shoes, which doctor do you want working on you?

    A. The orthopedic surgeon who went through government training who makes the same 70k as every other orthopedic surgeon as long as he made it through school.

    B. The orthopedic surgeon who drives a Ferrari because he is the best in the state.

    I don’t know about you, but I have been in the Air Force since 2003, and I can tell you that compassion is not the government’s greatest quality. I would rather have Doctor B handling my case any day of the week.

    I want my doctor to be well compensated for the work he does, and I would never ever want to put anyone else in my situation under in the hands of somebody who has no reason to be better.

    I am a conservative, and I praise God that I still am alive to tell everyone why.

    • Martin L. Shoemaker Says:


      Yes, the unspoken assumption is that “change” automatically means “improvement”. It’s a rhetorical trick well known to Madison Avenue, where slapping “New and Improved!” on a box is a well-practiced sales booster.

      Today, we’re all supposed to be so world-weary and cynical that we don’t fall for “New and Improved!” on the cereal box. We’ve seen it so many times before. But slap “New and Improved!” on your political slogans, and the rubes will line up to follow you — even if your policies were old and discredited nearly a century ago.

      • lukekeith Says:

        Unfortunately for the “rubes”, they would have to read and potentially even comprehend history first. History is not the best subject in American schools, and even when it is taught, the most important details are left out or slanted to a political perspective.

        One of my favorite quotes, by Ravi Zacharias, “There are no such things as new problems, just old problems happening to new people.”

        It’s a shame we can’t learn from history.

  7. bvac Says:

    Wow, could you have conjured up a more ridiculous caricature of Conservatives and liberals?

    Conservatives = wealthy hard working man that create jobs for the poor lazy liberals who hate rich people and want to steal everything (oh and they looooove taxes)!

    OH, and it’s hilarious that you think accepting your dad’s welfare is some kind of embodiment of your Conservative ideals just because you were allowed to ding it up.

    • tennapel Says:

      So I’m unclear on this. You’re saying you agree with everything I said?

      I didn’t get a chance to get into actual conservative people or liberal people since I primarily brought up our ideals and voting generalities. The post dragged on a bit… okay, a lot so I had to wrap it up. But if I could expand it I would talk about how your average conservative and liberal have almost no idea about the ideals that drive their philosophies. Go up to your average GOPer and they likely won’t have a clue about Conservatism outside of “limited government”. Go up to your average Liberal and you won’t get much farther than, “Equality for all!” Most of my friends are liberal, I don’t disparage them as evil or mean. People don’t become liberal by having a bad heart. They’re some of the nicest, most generous, friendly people I know. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

      And while I espouse Conservatism, I’m not a good Conservative. I fail every day at the high standard set by greater generations past. I don’t live up to their charter, nor do I embrace their values enough. So this isn’t a political “I’m better than you.” It’s meant to be an explanation to a fan for why I’m a Conservative. If you have a problem with that, then there you go.

      • bvac Says:

        I don’t have a problem with anything you said per se, I just find it _____ (I want to say funny but I’m not sure thats the right word) that your self-described beliefs are based on these cartoonish abstractions of what a conservative and liberal are.

        This, however, is just flat out wrong on so many levels: “Bush handed Obama a freer country than will be handed to the next guy.” Seriously, what were you thinking when you wrote that shit?

  8. tennapel Says:

    “I don’t have a problem with anything you said per se”

    If you don’t a problem with what I said, then cut me some slack. I already wrote a blog that would choke most people who casually read on the internet, if I had to describe Cons and Libs with a proper level of subtlety and portents I’d have to write a Moby Dick.

    As for the freer country thing, just know that equality and liberty are at odds with each other. You can’t force equality of outcome by government mandate then claim to be for freedom. Banks aren’t free to fail. AIG, auto companies or banks taken over by the government may be the poster-boy for regulation, but they aren’t for freedom. We’ve lost the freedom to not purchase healthcare.

    We lost 6% of our economic freedom with that single pen stroke. We’ve never been forced by the government to purchase anything and this is a new precedent that is an atrocious assault on the Constitution. I’m not talking about the virtue or downside of providing healthcare for all, it might be morally good, the same way that forcing everyone to give to charity could be a moral good, but it’s not freedom.

    Every tax we pay, be it for Bush’s war or Obama’s government expansion is an incremental redistribution of wealth from the individual, to the state. You can’t spend it so that they can. Just on pure numbers, Obama has expanded the size of government spending just about ten times as that under Bush. We’ll lose even more freedom when the Bush tax cuts are up this fall… that’s when the employers of artists get another 30% of their income taken away in taxes. They are no longer free to hire their own employees because the government has better ways of spending that money. Better, but not freer.

    • bvac Says:

      I’m not going to dive into the minutiae, but do you find it the least bit embarrassing that our grandparents endured things like segregation, internment camps, mccarthyism.. real, tangible government overreach that affected their day to day lives, and the best we can do is whine about the marginal tax rate being raised 3% and not having the freedom to die from cancer because we can’t afford treatments?

      • tennapel Says:

        Well, that is diving into the minutiae. Segregation is in a different category of those other things because it really was immoral, and I’m proud to be in the party that opposed the Democrats on that front. But I’m as embarrassed by our grasp of segregation as much as I am proud that we completely reversed it in one generation and elected a black president. America is the least racist country in the history of Earth, period. We can do better but nobody has done better so far so hats off to us.

        Internment camps and McCarthy hearings were necessary and perfectly reasonable, though the over-reach in both were bad. But if you want to stand against those then you’re making my point that government is best when it’s as small and limited as possible. The expansion of the leviathan state of this current administration should give you a bad case of shrinkage, but something tells me it doesn’t bother you enough to shake up any branch of a mono-party government.

        You’re a liberal and I’m a conservative. We’re not going to find agreement on much other than hopefully that we need to tolerate each other with as generous of a spirit as possible.

  9. bvac Says:

    Well, thanks for ignoring my point. Say what you will about any one of those things, they were all examples of atrocious government intrusion into the lives of its citizens. As in, it destroyed their lives. The top 2% of income earners having to pay a higher tax rate on a portion of their income is not in the same category by any stretch. If they crave “freedom” that much, they can go get beach front property in Somalia.

    There’s an article in the Washington Post about the massive surveillance state that grew in the wake of 9/11. Go read that, then tell me how much better the world was when insurance companies had the freedom to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

    (Good remark about the southern Democrats who were against civil rights. I’m proud that they subsequently fled the party and became Republicans.)

    • tennapel Says:

      I get it. The people who pay 60% of our taxes don’t pay enough. Keep ignoring that they are employers and I see your point.

      I also understand why you’d mourn the Patriot Act that thwarted the West Coast Hijack Plot, the East Coast Hijack Plot, the Jose Padilla Plot, the British Urban Bombing Plot, The Heathrow Airport Plot, and at least 10 others. I don’t know how many children with pre existing conditions would have been killed in those, but I get your point that Conservatives want them killed even though there are more deaths than USA due to cancer in every Western nation that has nationalized healthcare.

      While you repeat the lazy academic canard that the Dixiecrats become republicans there are only 2 known to switch parties being Thurmond and Helms. The Dixiecrats who found a prosperous home among liberals being William Fulbright (Clinton’s mentor), Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. The GOP made inroads into southern politics when non-Dixiecrat northerners like Newt Gingrich moved south. Few other party switches took place after the Civil Rights Act. It’s a bumpersticker Dems hide behind to safe face with their black constituents.

      But you’re exhibit B that liberals don’t know the first thing about conservative principles. Keep the faith!

      • bvac Says:

        You know what, you’re right on all accounts. I am now a conservative. Thanks.

      • bvac Says:

        By the way, I like how you copy and pasted that list of Scary Terrorist Plots from NewsMax et c. It shows a lot of academic rigor on your part :-)

      • tennapel Says:

        Bvac, I could have culled that list from any number of sources, so siting Newsmax as some form of plagiarism is a point made somewhere between obfuscation and the genetic fallacy. Plus, I figured now that you’re a fellow neo-con you wouldn’t mind my quoting from Newsmax, our Bible.

        The point being, you can’t possibly care about the tentacles of an octopussian government that monitors the phone calls of terrorists then champion the government owning the intimate medical details, including blood work of every American citizen. Do you care about privacy or not? Or do you only care when it makes political points. By any standard, the left is less concerned with freedom than the right.

      • cinameng Says:

        apologies for jumping in to the middle of this, so late in to the conversation but, unless I’ve read this wrong, if the richest 2% of people in the US pay 60% of the total tax revenues then there is clearly something wrong.

    • Patrick Says:

      Check out this video if you want to educate yourself how Dems have managed to convinced blacks that they have always supported the African American community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ

      And if you think the Left is without racism, think again: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/14/anti-semitism-and-anti-israel-hatred-on-the-huffington-post-part-1-by-huff-watcher/

      Also here: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/06/20/radicals-islamists-and-longshoremen-blockade-israeli-ship-in-oakland/

      The difference between the Left and right is that the right is embarrassed when the minority of racists among its members are exposed and is quick to condemn them. The Left, on the other hand, denies any of its members could be racists, hides the signs of racism from news broadcasts of rallies, and demonizes anyone who exposes the deep vein of racism running through much of their constituency.

      BTW: I capitalize “Left” because it is a religion; the right is mostly made up of people who already have a perfectly good religion and don’t need an all-powerful State to fill that role for them.

  10. tennapel Says:

    Now, you too, will want children to die of cancer. Welcome to the fold.

  11. bvac Says:

    Now I can talk to liberals with a baseball bat!

    • tennapel Says:

      I’m sending you our internal pamphlets on how to disenfranchise voters.

      • bvac Says:

        I’m glad I live in a country where I still have the freedom to question the eligibility of a person of color to vote at a polling station and have them fill out a provisional ballot that will never get counted!

  12. bvac Says:

    Oh yeah, Death Panels et c.


  13. Zach Says:

    Hey thanks for this…
    Really encourages me in the face of all the bullcrap I go through for being a conservative at college.

    • tennapel Says:

      College is one of the worst places for free thinking… and education for that matter. Keep fighting the Borg ship. You will not be assimilated.

  14. Guy Says:

    Hey Doug, thanks for answering my question! I really feel you put you put yourself out there for us. It is very nice to hear a viewpoint like yours, its fresh, at least to me. I disagree with several key points, I think liberals have more ideals than you think and wouldn’t it be nice if there were more earnest businessmen? However, who am I to disagree? I think you answered my question and gave me somethings to walk away with. I just wish more people could be open minded, I’m talking to you Bvac. Thanks for helping this dude (me) crack his skull open a little wider.

    • tennapel Says:

      Ryan, you’re one of the good ones. It’s easy for me to collect fans who share my views, but it takes a special kind of person to swallow big differences with me and still follow my work. I’ve been the victim of jerk liberals in Hollywood who screwed me out of work for my religion or politics, but I’ve been a far bigger benefactor of great libs who completely disagreed with my politics and religion and worked with me just fine. Even higher up the chain than Lib or Con is the demarcation of the decent and indecent, and both parties can be equal opportunity employers of indecency.

      I’m happy to make a case for my views, and it’s a rare opponent who gives me a chance to even make a case. Thanks for that.

      As for more earnest businessmen, it would be great if there were more of them! But being a businessmen is just one other category a dishonest person can fill. We need more earnest homeless people, writers, politicians, teachers, pastors and Census takers. I’ve met greedy poor people and the most selfless, humble, insanely rich people. I worked with Stephen Spielberg and he was one of the humblest, generous, men I’ve worked with and he has to work ten times harder than most to stay that way. It’s not automatic that one of the most powerful men in Hollywood is somehow a regular guy. And it’s immoral for us to assume it’s easier for him because of his nature. For all I know, he might be naturally the worst person on earth. Contrast him with low level pages and grips who were the scummiest jerks I’ve met in the biz.

      Businessmen have their fair share of problems to deal with that go with the territory of power and wealth. That’s their epic battle. My battle is just as epic but will likely be in a different place. Shoe me a mechanic who doesn’t work on his problems and I’ll show you a non-rich, non-business man who is a 13-time rapist (a recent case in the news). It’s human nature for us to point to other people, and the rich, father figures and people who traverse in high places are easy targets. I don’t want to be so quick to find easy fault in others because it’s almost always a tell that I don’t want to look inward. We have a society that dog-piles on the rich, we take their money, use it to fund everything in our country, then still call them pricks instead of saying ‘thank-you’. America is really lucky to have the businessmen we have. I wouldn’t trade them for Saudi Arabia’s businessmen for all the freedom in the world. Even our rich jerks are pretty dang good.

  15. Bill MacDougal Says:

    If you think people who get paid to draw don’t make an honest living, why do you support intellectual property rights so strongly?

  16. SKoch Says:

    Pretty sure ol’ Doug was calling his occupation something other than an “honest” living to show humility. Or some sort of ironic point.

    Either way, I agree with the point of the blog post, and won’t deny him the right to be a tidbit flustered that anynonomous repliers get to call his beliefs into question while this, being his blog, strips him of the same anonymity.

    It’s not a peer to peer arguement here; we can attack him below the belt here all we want and sleep easy tonight. If he decides to be a flaming asshole in response, his real world reputation suffers.

    I am a conservative, and the biggest beef I have with my own party is that most of our biggest spotlight holders are such douches about being “correct.”

    There’s this old saying about honey attracting more flies…

    • Martin L. Shoemaker Says:

      I saw it in the same light as when Heinlein said he went into writing to avoid “honest work”, since that was defined by a shovel, a bent back, and a ditch.

      It’s 100% true that those of us who make our living with our brains are working; but it’s just not in the same league with ditch digging. And if we’re honest with ourselves, even when the work is hard, we admit that it’s hard in a qualitatively different way from the shovel and the ditch.

  17. David Entriken Says:

    Doug Thank you for writing this. I agree with you. As a Union Electrician I am often asked why I am conservative.

    Well first I believe this is the greatest country in the world. I believe abortion is murder under any circumstance. And I too have never worked for a poor man and depend on the “evil RICH” for my pay checks. I the union has never payed me to be a good union man and never will.

    That is but a few reasons why I am a conservative.

    David William Entriken II

  18. You’re full of crap. Bush didn’t hand Obama a freer country; he handed Obama a country deep in tyranny, debt, elitism, and corruption. It’s tiresome reading these so-called Americans who claim to honor the Constitution but have no understanding or respect for the Bill of Rights and these so-called Christians who have no understanding of the Gospel. It is a straight-out Big Lie to claim that Bush’s government served the cause of liberty; the truth is that under Bush, America became known for torture, extraterritorial violations of law, unjust aggression, violations of privacy and excessive extensions of government regulation in the name of “security”, setbacks for women’s and minority rights, and trillion-dollar ponzi-style transfers of wealth from consumers and homeowners to self-serving private-sector bureaucracies.

    Truth is that while a lot of people in the creative professions may ultimately work for someone at the top of the income scale, quite a large number of those people at the top are not conservatives; they apply the same liberal ideals (yes) and ideas to their work and their lives as their creative employees. Outside of the energy sector, and particularly inside the information and media sectors, a lot of industry leaders are turning away from the party of No and turning to centrist leadership. A lot of businesses see the Clinton era, one of the most prosperous times in US history, as the good old days that Obama is starting to bring back.

  19. Rick Says:

    Hello Doug,
    I followed you over to your site from Big Hollywood.com.
    I recently read Creature Tech and I cannot wait to read your other books.

    Keep up the great work!

    Rick Garcia

  20. […] 32.     Why I am a politically Conservative artist […]

  21. irrelevant customer Says:

    Interesting blog post.

    Good to know that you’re a conservative because your employers are rich. That’s about what it boils down to. I, as a poorly paid person currently unemployed but not receiving unemployment or any other assistance, am irrelevant. I buy your books, and I try to find you at SDCC when I can afford to go yet haven’t done so… I am irrelevant. Because the rich cut jobs for people like me rather than cut into their stock dividends, it’s a good idea to let them keep more of their money? That’s only logical IF the rich DO in fact keep those jobs instead of pocketing that money and cutting the jobs anyway. People with money only want one thing–MORE money. Letting them have it through tax cuts will not result in more jobs because they’ve already proven that they can do just fine without them. Only a bad business person would spend money they don’t have to. Conservatives and Liberals are both subject to the real political power in this country–Corporations and their rich members. I have no problem making them pay for it.

    For those of us that haven’t created blockbuster video games, life is hard. But all you seemingly care about is that your corporate overlords are so rich that they keep funding your department, so I as an irrelevant comic book customer of Doug TenNapel graphic novels can take my money elsewhere since I am not a rich employer of graphic artists et al.

    All I want is to be middle class. Corporate greed has all but eliminated the middle class. So even if I did acheive my life goals and became middle class, I’m still irrelevant because I am not some rich bastard that can throw money at an art department.

    And yeah, I want universal healthcare…not because I need it but because it’s the right thing to do.

    Rich or poor, conservative or liberal…an honest, trustworthy person is impossible to find. As long as we’re all just in it for ourselves, we’ll never PROGRESS as a species. As long as the top 1% own most of the wealth in this country, Conservative will be a bad word.

    And keep in mind that most of these rich people that employ artists are only rich because the rest of us buy the products they sell and create that huge pile of profit to begin with. Usually on credit with money we don’t have and then end up losing our houses because we had to buy that Xbox…before our kid was diagnosed with a disease that somehow isn’t covered by the insurance we’ve been paying over a decade for….and now need government assistance to eat and not live on the street…. but yeah, let the rich CONSERVE all they like because it’s easy not to give a crap about others when you’re in an ivory tower and born with a silver spoon etc. Doesn’t matter at all that their pocket change can feed several normal households for a year.

    It isn’t a problem with the conservatives or liberals. It’s a problem with people. So, you know, we’re all screwed. Except the rich because they can afford to buy and sell the rest of us.

    • W.S. Says:

      Do you think that Doug was born rich?

      He was a struggling artist once too, got lucky, worked really hard, and was about to get something of his produced and able to springboard that towards more work.

      Doug used to draw murals at Seaworld, he didn’t become a famous artist overnight with no help, he toiled in obscurity for years, and continued working harder every year since.

      He was being facetious in regards to the “Evil Corporate Overlords”, because he was dealing in the caricature of what pop-culture says that people who own corporations are like.

      If people who own corporations really ARE evil, if you tax their brains out, they aren’t going to try to expand their business and hire more people, they are going to cut fat from the bottom, so thus with really high-taxes you’re by extension punishing a lot of poor people, to (unsuccessfully I might add) hurt rich people.

      It’s quite a bit more complicated than that, but having an antagonistic attitude with anyone that is successful has just always reeked of immaturity to me.

      You AREN’T irrelevant, you’re only as irrelevant as you allow yourself to be. Want to meet Doug? He’s out on the floor with anyone that wants to talk to him, walk up and shake his hand, he isn’t in an ivory tower, and was far from being born to a rich family.

      So stop acting like such a wet blanket, pull yourself up and push forward, you aren’t irrelevant.

      • irrelevant customer Says:

        “If people who own corporations really ARE evil, if you tax their brains out, they aren’t going to try to expand their business and hire more people, they are going to cut fat from the bottom, so thus with really high-taxes you’re by extension punishing a lot of poor people, to (unsuccessfully I might add) hurt rich people. ”

        They are.

        Whether or not they get taxed, they still cut fat from the bottom and sides if it means it makes their paychecks bigger. High taxes don’t always equal job cuts, and low taxes almost never equal new jobs. The tax to job ratio only works for small businesses, and I’m not for taxing SMALL businesses more. However, I am for taxing the hell out of corporations and corporate employees that make more in a year that I make in 10 and no it’s not because they work harder than me; it’s because my evil ex-employer doesn’t pay people a livable wage.

        And if lower taxes are so great, why did we suffer the worst economic downturn in years during the Bush administration after they gave tax cuts to the rich which are still currently in place? Because the two are unrelated, yet here, there and everywhere people keep talking about how lower taxes create jobs. Wrong. Most recent new jobs were created by the government (oh no!) to encourage economic recovery and stimulate the economy because when regular people make money they tend to spend it all but when rich people make more money because of lower taxes they tend to pocket it all and remove it from the economy…not give it to people as a result of jobs they created because all this extra money from lower taxes suddenly makes rich people generous. All I’ve read about tax increases indicate individuals making over 200k/yr and couples making over 250k/yr are going to pay another 3-5%/yr in taxes…like they were doing during the Clinton administration…which was a genrally good economic time resulting in lowered defecits, etc. If that applies to businesses as well, I don’t see a problem. And if 200k/yr makes you “middle class” in California, you can always move. California may as well be its own country, but if that were the case, it would be a bankrupt country asking for help from the US to stay afloat.

        “having an antagonistic attitude with anyone that is successful has just always reeked of immaturity to me”

        Are you referring to me? In response, not having an antagonistic attitude with any successful people reeks of subservience to me. I am not angry at successful people. I am disgusted by decadence and how owning everything stacks the deck against the rest of us. Also, I have the personal opinion that once a company gets so big that the owner doesn’t know all of his/her employees’ names and faces, it’s too big, but I’m not advocating laws that would break up or prevent those companies from existing. I am for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and everyone making less than 200k/yr should be too.

        As far as this blog is concerned, I am still irrelevant. As far as the rich are concerned, I will stay that way. Calling me names doesn’t really do much for your case.

      • W.S. Says:

        But they AREN’T. That’s just the thing, I know people who own corporations, they are hardly evil, starting a business doesn’t make you start leaking morality.

        Most people aren’t “evil”, or out to hurt other people. Since Corporations are made up of people, most of whom just want to have a better life, most corporations aren’t “evil”, whatever that means to you.

        Regardless, if you want to talk about statistics, if corporations are so evil, why in the last century and a half, with the development of the modern corporation have we see massive expansions in economic growth, a great decrease in the amount of poverty, amazing technological growth that is unprecedented in history, and a huge growth in human lifespans?

        If Corporations only ever cut jobs no matter if taxes or cut or not, then how are jobs ever created at all? Companies do expand, and new companies are created, it’s not a finite amount of corporations constantly cutting jobs, while just a few guys on top make money.

        That is simply a generalized and shortsighted perspective of what corporations are, and the kind of people that operate them. I have individual friends whose little homemade soap businesses are incorporated. Corporation isn’t a dirty word, and people who want to make money and improve their lives aren’t some kind of group of sociopaths.

        Also, it’s impossible to really “remove” money from the economy. They put their money into banks, and banks USE the money, that’s how they pay for the interest you gain on savings accounts, and it’s why doing a “run” on the banks is a bad thing.

        Furthermore, the Clinton times were a period of continual deficit rises, the supposed “Clinton Surplus” is a myth.

        Those only existed because of powerful Republican control of the house, a divided government meant slower government spending because they would fight one another on what to spend the money on.

        Likewise, the economy actually grew under Bush, the contention isn’t about that, it’s about the speed at which it would grow over the long term. Regardless, the tax cuts are useless if not also met with reduced restrictions and incentives to actually create jobs, neither of which have happened. It gets harder and harder to start a job thanks to all of the loopholes you have to jump through.

        As for you, i’m not calling you names, I am trying to offer you advice on how to make your life better. I am saying you’re acting like a Wet Blanket, i’m not calling you a name, I am saying that calling yourself irrelevant, taking an oppositional approach to wealthy people, talking in the terms of class warfare, and more or less being a defeatist aren’t ways that will lead you to success, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You say that THEY are keeping you down, and that you have the decks stacked against you.

        That’s just not true, we are an open society where a wealthy person can come from any walk of life.

        And how are you irrelevant to this blog? We read what you say, we respond to you, we take the time to consider and respond to what you have to say, you’re on an equal footing with everyone here.

        You’re not Irrelevant unless you allow yourself to slip into Irrelevance.

  22. Cat Says:

    “However, I am for taxing the hell out of corporations and corporate employees that make more in a year that I make in 10 and no it’s not because they work harder than me; it’s because my evil ex-employer doesn’t pay people a livable wage.”

    The fact of the matter is the more you “tax the hell” out of corporations the more jobs will be lost. Additionally, those big, evil, scary corporations would raise their costs. Families struggling to survive and depending on places LIKE Wal-Mart, etc. would thank you I’m sure. Taxing the rich will hurt the poor.

    “Are you referring to me? In response, not having an antagonistic attitude with any successful people reeks of subservience to me. ”

    First off, ridiculous statement. Quick digression, he never said anything about not having an antagonistic attitude towards ANY successful people. At any rate, living your life and not being outwardly antagonistic towards the successful does not make you subservient…it means you are more concerned with your own goals and aspirations.

    “Calling me names doesn’t really do much for your case.”

    When did he call you a name? Please, point it out to me. Trying to argue logically with you when you attempt to discredit an argument by such a childish accusation seems to mean that whatever anyone says to you will be seen as a personal attack.

    “As far as this blog is concerned, I am still irrelevant. ”

    Only when you use logical fallacies and discredit yourself.

  23. Tony Says:

    If you ever have purchased gas, shopped at Wal-Mart or Target, hell even grocery stores, you sir are a hypocrite. You cannot claim to believe that large corporations are always evil, that companies are too big when the owner doesn’t know everyone’s name, and that they are too rich and pocket all the money, AND then give them your monetary support.

    “As far as this blog is concerned, I am still irrelevant.”

    If you believe you are irrelevant, than fine, be irrelevant. Don’t feed the evil corporations that made possible the media that you enjoy. Don’t feed evil, rich Doug. I’m sure he will get by financially just fine without your assistance.

    • dave Says:

      Doug, like the fan who first sparked this post. I have loved your work for an age but struggled with your conservatism. Your argument that “artists are employed primarily by wealthy people and therefore that is what is best for them is best for you” is sound (from a survival perspective). But to me that seems like a selfish motivation and one that is at odds with your Christianity. I am in a (vaguely) similar situation to yourself in that I work in animation/illustration and most of the people I work for are almost certainly in the $250k+ bracket you mention. Further more, I earn enough money doing this that I would likely be paying less tax under a conservative government than I currently do under a more liberal one. However I feel strongly that it is important for a society to look after its elderly, its sick and those others generally unable to look after themselves. And to this end I am prepared to sacrifice whatever the tax difference is between the conservative/liberal stand points (and doubly happy for my potential employers to do the same and if I lose a couple of contracts here and there…so be it). I have a fairly comfortable life and I am happy to compromise that to some extent to help other people in our society who are less fortunate than myself. I know you raised a few points and this is only one of them but for me that is the biggest contradiction. How do you align your Christianity with the idea that you’ve got to look after the rich guy because he is the one who is going to look after you.

      Thanks for listening…I will feel a lot more comfortable in future enjoying your work knowing that I have cleared the air between us (you may not have noticed that unclear air but I certainly did).

      • tennapel Says:

        Theft is no more “Christian” than selfishness. While I can make an argument that creating a tax structure to encourage job creators to create jobs is more like self interest than selfishness, I can’t find any support anywhere in the Bible where we should create a system where money is extracted from others (the rich) to take care of the poor on my behalf. Of the two views I think taking other people’s money is more selfish than preserving my own job.

        Wanting a job isn’t classically characterized as something selfish. A job isn’t coveting 10% of a wealthy man’s income after all. A job is just an opportunity for me to work and earn my own way in a free society. Further, if we don’t preserve jobs we will create more poor. Under evil Bush-Cheney-Rove we were 5% unemployed. It’s over double that in most parts of the country. This throws 5% more into poverty by attacking he rich. Our values are supposed to help the poor, not create more poor.

        Finally, the church calls you not your government to take care of the poor, the widows, the needy. THis is also why Liberals are the ones who harp about a Separation of Church and State but are the first to preach a practical Theocracy when it comes to taxation.

        Your 250k a year boss is the good guy when it comes to jobs. The people who attack his business so that he can’t hire more people are the bad guys.

      • P Mike Says:

        Probably to late to be meaningful, but mentally equating society with government is part of the problem. I tend to think society should be taking care of the poor, not government. Society does it willingly, the goverment takes money not freely given, as close to theft as you can get.

  24. irrelevant customer Says:

    “But they AREN’T”

    It was a glib response. Technically, any stockholder owns a piece of a corporation. I don’t even believe in the concept of evil.

    “Regardless, if you want to talk about statistics, if corporations are so evil, why in the last century and a half, with the development of the modern corporation have we see massive expansions in economic growth, a great decrease in the amount of poverty, amazing technological growth that is unprecedented in history, and a huge growth in human lifespans? ”

    You didn’t use any actual statistics, by the way. Depends on what you mean by “growth.” In the last century and a half we’ve also had 2 stock market crashes and The Great Depression.

    “If Corporations only ever cut jobs no matter if taxes or cut or not, then how are jobs ever created at all?”

    You’re the one that inserted the word “only.” I said they cut them no matter what the tax situation because it increases profits. Whether those increased profits are to counter higher taxes or to fatten their wallets is irrelevant. Jobs are created to fill a need… like when I giant corporation decides to crush a locally owned business and opens a location directly across from it… that location needs new staff, so yay jobs… poor small business owner. He/She can always go work for the giant corporation that destroyed his/her life’s work, though, right? That’s what they get for not selling out to the giant corporation when they offered a buyout, right? Not evil at all, no.

    “Also, it’s impossible to really “remove” money from the economy. They put their money into banks, and banks USE the money, that’s how they pay for the interest you gain on savings accounts, and it’s why doing a “run” on the banks is a bad thing. ”

    Depends on what you view as the economy. If money is in a bank (let’s ignore the safety deposit box full of cash example for a second), it in fact isn’t circulating within the economy because it is’t being used to buy and sell things which is what fosters economic growth. It’s gaining interest which gets compounded which removes even more money from the economy. Banks aren’t paying JACK in interest right now because they’re getting ZERO interest loans from the government which is designed to encourage people to spend their money because it’s not really making them any just sitting there. It’s not working. Everyone is too afraid to spend their money, rich people included, because the economy is so bad that they don’t know if they’ll get it back. We all need rich people as much as we need poor people, but we’re all slowly figuring out that we don’t need SO MANY rich people and we have TOO MANY poor people. Rich people stay rich by being rich. That’s not the picture of the hard working highly paid professional. The money is doing all the work. Doing a “run” on the banks is a bad thing because they don’t have enough actual cash on hand to cover all of the “money” on their books, and they don’t want people to know that. Even cash isn’t “money”.. it’s a “federal reserve note” which represents confidence that the government will back it up with actual money if they had to. The “economy” is a carefully constructed web of promises and lies. That’s not conspiracy-laded doomsaying; it’s obvious truth. And we’re all complicit.

    “Furthermore, the Clinton times were a period of continual deficit rises, the supposed “Clinton Surplus” is a myth. ”

    Nope. You know what was a myth? WMDs in Iraq.

    ” taking an oppositional approach to wealthy people, talking in the terms of class warfare, and more or less being a defeatist aren’t ways that will lead you to success, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You say that THEY are keeping you down, and that you have the decks stacked against you.

    That’s just not true, we are an open society where a wealthy person can come from any walk of life. ”

    yes it is true. We are NOT an open society, and it depends on what you mean by wealthy. Especially when the top 1% of Americans own 40+% of the country’s wealth. How is that NOT a stacked deck? The bottom 80% own 7% of said wealth… how is the bottom 80% supposed to enter the top 1%? Other than luck and lotto, what is there? People that make 250k/yr probably won’t even make it into that 1% through hard work alone. Honestly, I kinda feel like 250k is a bit low to be increasing taxes, but it’s 3-5%! We’re talking at most another 12.5k in taxes. I didn’t even make 12.5k BEFORE TAXES this year. If you make between 9-30k a year your taxes go up 5% than if you made less than 9k a year because you can bloody afford it! IT’S 5%!!! Frickin SALES TAX is more than that! Geez.

    There’s a difference between being a defeatest and being in the real world. You seem to live in this fantasy land where America is a magical land that allows for anyone to do anything because everyone is equal and blah de blah de blah. It’s not. If you are born poor, you’ll probably stay poor. If you’re born rich, you’ll probably stay rich. That’s a stacked deck. You’re free to keep pretending otherwise.

    Me being irrelevant was directed at Doug TenNapel because he was touting his corporate benefactors while ignoring the fact that low paid and chronically screwed over poor people give him money too. It gives the impression that those of us without art departments that don’t pay him thousands to do work for us yet buy his funny books are irrelevant. That was pretty clear in my post. By “this blog” I meant the paramaters set by its wording (in other words, rich people that pay artists), and since I’m not one I’m irrelevant according to the specific blog post and what it covers.

    Different person now: “The fact of the matter is the more you “tax the hell” out of corporations the more jobs will be lost. Additionally, those big, evil, scary corporations would raise their costs. Families struggling to survive and depending on places LIKE Wal-Mart, etc. would thank you I’m sure. Taxing the rich will hurt the poor. ”

    You say that as if the rich are powerless to decide against cutting those jobs. They’re not. They just love it when people like you blame the government and taxes for their greedy decisions. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich, though… not at 3-5% it doesn’t. The rich don’t give a crap about the poor, taxes or no, so don’t give me that BS. That may not be true of every rich INDIVIDUAL, but in general, the plebs are irrelevant…like me. Everything hurts the poor because the poor don’t matter. It’s the way of the new American aristocracy. More of a Plutocracy, really. For every one executive you cut, a company could keep about 100 employees…conveniently ignored truthyness. But they never cut from the top, oh not… THAT’S why taxing the rich hurts the poor… not because of the taxes but how the rich handle the higher taxes…which means screwing over other people.

    “First off, ridiculous statement”

    Oh, I didn’t know we were playing spot the ridiculous statement. I thought we were playing “try to answer another person that writes with implied and overt absolutes where the only option is to create another absolute to address or we’ll be here all day playing ‘that’s not what I said, you’re putting words in my mouth’ as well.” See what you wanna see. You’re off to a great start.

    “When did he call you a name? Please, point it out to me. Trying to argue logically with you when you attempt to discredit an argument by such a childish accusation seems to mean that whatever anyone says to you will be seen as a personal attack.”

    sweet! Passive-aggressive name-calling! I love this game too!

    “Only when you use logical fallacies and discredit yourself.”

    HA! oh, that’s good. I’m going to say I never did that, but even if I did, it’s not the first comment here that would be playing fast and loose with the logic. As with most hot topics, people don’t want to think beyond regurgitating some bon mot from Fox News or MSNBC which justifies their entire stance on whatever it is and it’s not about finding the truth anymore because it’s about proving you’re right at all costs. That’s why I hate politicians and our broken system. They all suck and none of them know how to fix it. That’s why I try to argue the issues instead of the politics of it all, but even with the issues these days it’s you’re either with me or against me and none of that middle ground commie pinko compromising stuff. You know what, we have to raise taxes AND cut spending, but we can’t do that right now. What we CAN do is let Bush’s rich crony gift tax cuts expire and get some money flowing from the really rich because they’re the only ones ABLE to spare it, and when our budget is balanced again and the debt might actually start getting reduced, maybe THEN we can talk about giving the only people with money MORE money through tax breaks. Lowering taxes on the rich is called VOODOO ECONOMICS for a reason. Because it’s not REAL. It DOESN’T WORK. As soon as the conservatives step away from the far right, maybe I’ll consider some less combative stances on some issues. But as long as it’s Thunderdome out here, stop pretending I’m the only one in the cage because you’re all in here with me.

    And if you have to pay another 10k or so in taxes, that means you can bloody afford it so stop crying about it. You’re not going to be on the street over it, and if you are somehow on the street over it, then you need some help learning how to manage your finances.

    “If you ever have purchased gas, shopped at Wal-Mart or Target, hell even grocery stores, you sir are a hypocrite.”

    Wrong. Corporations, through influence and greed, have made it so they’re unavoidable. Furthermore, I’ve learned that when you’re irrelevant, it’s unwise to take a stand on principle… that usually leaves you unemployed and broke. The corporations always win because they’ve stacked the deck. Like it or not, I need those cards to live, so I either play from the stacked deck or I don’t play. Not playing essentially equals death. So you’re saying I’m a hypocrite because all I can afford to do is shop at Wal Mart because I’m unemployed and living off savings yet dislike Wal Mart’s corporate greed and capitalist culture and questionable treatment of employees etc. instead of letting myself die? I say you’re being intentionally absolutist and silly. Just because I’m environmentally conscious by using flourescent lights and re-using shopping bags doesn’t make me a hypicrite for liking my damn A/C on all the time so it’s always 70 in my apartment. It’s called doing what you can. I’ll shop at Wal Mart, but I vote for policies that would hurt Wal Mart. Then Wal Mart buys my congressperson with the 3 cents per item profit it makes from me and everyone else because the deck is stacked not because I’m hypocritical. It’s a cycle of subjugation which is the whole basis for Big Business capitalism. Hypocrisy would be anti-corporate sentiment toward Wal Mart and continuing to shop there even though the locally owned store across the street has the same prices and selection. But that can’t happen because Wal Mart put the locally owned store out of business by undercutting their prices and creating a competition free zone because of their corporate structure and its ability to float loans for a longer period of time and spread out any possible losses company-wide unless poor Mr. Smallbusiness across the way. Seriously… what don’t any of you get about there being a stacked deck?

    “that companies are too big when the owner doesn’t know everyone’s name, and that they are too rich and pocket all the money, AND then give them your monetary support.”

    Yes I can. One is a personal belief and the other is typically an unfortunate circumstance as a result of them removing the other options through corporate largess.

    “Don’t feed evil, rich Doug. I’m sure he will get by financially just fine without your assistance.”

    No kidding! I think it’s pretty obvious that I believe he made that abundantly clear already.

    “Under evil Bush-Cheney-Rove we were 5% unemployed. It’s over double that in most parts of the country. This throws 5% more into poverty by attacking he rich.”

    Dude, under Busy-Cheney we had a financial meltdown which RESULTED in that doubling of unemployment. What is with this revisionist history?! Obama walked into a no-win situation caused by billions wasted on 2 unnecessary wars and financial mismanagement at home by some of the richest people in the country…who then were bailed out and received bonuses for their failures. We didn’t create another 5% in unemployment by “attacking the rich”; we got it by ignoring the rich and letting them get away with shady deals and borderline fraud… and actual fraud as well. Everything ground to a halt when the investment firms imploded due to their own screw-ups and letting them go under would have meant a second Great Depression…that’s a highly probable scenario (notice I didn’t say fact like a lot of other people here that pass off opinions as fact). Because of the financial failures and the mergers which brought federally insured banks closer into bed with investment firms, the banks were hurt by this as well… so they had to stop lending money…which means businesses couldn’t get loans for payroll and inventory…which means the had to cut jobs or shut down which means loss of revenue including sales taxes collected…which means a crapload of unemployment…. ALL UNDER BUSH. The unemployment numbers didn’t increase heavily at first, but just because Obama is stuck with the statistic doesn’t mean he’s stuck with the blame. The blame isn’t even on Bush. I’m just belaboring that point because you made a false statement about what happened under his Presidency. Obama and Congress saved us from another Great Depression… so far. Yet you’re acting like it’s his screw up that caused it. It wasn’t. That’s all on Wall Street and the government bodies charged with monitoring it failing to do their jobs like the SEC. Likely because Republican control of the lawmaking bodies led to passing more lenient regulation allowing this to happen…but I have no proof of that. I just know how much Republicans love money. NONE of this was brought on by “attacking the rich” and if you refuse to believe that, then there’s no hope for you. If a 3-5% tax correction is “attacking” to you, then I’d hate to see you calculating the tip at a restaurant.

    “The people who attack his business so that he can’t hire more people are the bad guys.”

    That is a biased, slanted, misrepresentation of the facts. Because reverting taxes to where they were under Clinton is not an attack, and it doesn’t necessarily prevent a business owner from hiring more people nor make people in favor of higher taxes for the rich bad people. That’s just shallow, paranoid absolutism. The tax cuts expire. Obama has to do NOTHING and it happens. There is NO ATTACK. And there’s nothing wrong with allowing more tax income from the very rich to help balance the budget and hopefully pay off some of that debt by not signing a piece of paper that lets the very rich keep rolling in hundreds. (it’s called hyperbole). This country is screwed up, and letting the people that view 10k as 5% of what they make in a year pay that little bit more in taxes to maybe hopefully unscrew it a tiny amount is hardly an attack and could very well be classified as civic duty.

    But whatever… and you are giving me crap about an antagonistic view. An antagonistic view is a mild response to having to deal with this attitude from you people.

    And Jesus was a communist.

  25. Raissa Gabriel Says:

    “Irrelevant Customer” is in desperate need of a good lay. Poor bastard.

    Doug TenNapel, thank you for your July 17th post. Well done!

  26. CB Says:

    Great post !
    I am new here so I am not sure if you have touched on Obama’s FATCA law. Average Americans thinks it is about catch taxes cheats ( Fat Cat) but it is actually destroying all kinds of opportunities for average middle class Americans trying to work and create companies overseas.
    Boris Johnson , the mayor of London, last week said he refused to pay Fatca taxes.
    Fatca is paying foreign banks to spy on their US customers for IRS.

  27. turleyknives Says:

    I just want to say thank you for being one of the few creators that doesn’t belittle my beliefs at every turn. I’ve pretty much stopped reading comics because I’m absolutely sick of being indoctrinated by the left everytime I crack open a comic. I love your work, I’m a fan for life. Thanks again, my friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: