# Conservative agenda in The Incredibles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 12, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506 "2004-12-12T22:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/201 "2004-12-22T13:09:28Z")
The more **spoke-** tries to defend the indefensible, the more he sounds like he’s Witnessing in Great Debates. And yes, I know that the neurotic Ms. Rand was an athiest. I _also_ know that she didn’t believe in psychiatric medicine, which is a pity, given her alcoholism. **spoke-** , pay attention– > [@](#): > > hero > > n 1: a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength; “RAF pilots were the heroes of the Battle of Britain” 2: the principal character in a play or movie or novel or poem 3: someone who fights for a cause [syn: champion, fighter, paladin] 4: Greek mathematician and inventor who devised a way to determine the area of a triangle and who described various mechanical devices (first century) [syn: Hero, Heron, Hero of Alexandria] 5: (classical mythology) a being of great strength and courage celebrated for bold exploits; often the offspring of a mortal and a god 6: (Greek mythology) priestess of Aphrodite who killed herself when her lover Leander drowned while trying to swim the Hellespont to see her [syn: Hero] 7: a large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments); different names are used in different sections of the United States [syn: bomber, grinder, hero sandwich, hoagie, hoagy, Cuban sandwich, Italian sandwich, poor boy, sub, submarine, submarine sandwich, torpedo, wedge, zep] > Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University Several of these definitions apply to Mr. Incredible & company, but none of them apply to anything Ms. Rand wrote. She misused the word “hero”, solely to exploit the positive emotional context it provides. Her notions are often diametrically opposed to what the word “hero” means, and I **strongly** suspect that she knew it. I have reservations about her ethical standards in this matter. I object to the dragging of the word “hero” through the mud of Ms. Rand’s distateful execise in selfishness, every bit as much as I object to its misuse as a synonym for “celebrity”. I genuinely revere the word “hero”; what it stands for; and the men & women who have _earned_, through _self-sacrifice_, the right to be called by that title. I find your misuse of it strongly offensive. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/202 "2004-12-22T13:13:25Z")
::: Moderator rings a little tinkly bell to attract atttention :::: Just a reminder that it’s OK to insult the movie makers, the characters, the actors… but NOT the other posters. The whole thing about art (and animated film is certainly a form of art) is that it’s open to many interpretations, and no one can say that any one interpretation is right or wrong. You can only say that some interpretations are “stronger” or “weaker.” Frankly, even if the artists says “No, no, I didn’t mean that”, I wouldn’t always believe it. I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s denial that there was any meaning in _Huckleberry Finn_. Or Alfred Hitchcock, being asked why the jazz band is playing “Most Unusual Day” at the beginning of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, saying it was “just a coincidence.” Trust the tale, not the artist. Even the artist does not always know what he/she has wrought, and that’s especially true in film where there are many creative hands contributing. So, polite and well-mannered disagreement is possible and indeed encouraged in this forum. Let’s just be sure it remains polite and well-mannered: no name-calling, no finger-pointing, no misquoting. If you’re going to paraphrase and summarize someone else’s position, don’t distort it to make your own point (unless you tell us that’s what you’re doing.) We all agreed on this? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/203 "2004-12-22T23:14:43Z")
To try and get the civility level of this thread back on track, here’s an interesting [counter-argument](http://www.longstoryshortpier.com/vaults/2004/11/21/atlas_leans_back_everywhere) to the OP: > [@](#): > > As with any superhero work, there are echoes and resonances, responses and repudiations of Rand and Nietzsche. That stuff’s built in, like the secret identities and the underwear on the outside: even if you try not to do them, you have to take the time to let the audience know you’re not doing them, which means you end up doing them. Whoops. — So, yes: there’s a _there_ there in The Incredibles, sure, but mostly because it is what it is. Brad Bird wanted to tell a story with superheroes in it; along with that genre comes certain baggage; that he hauls it about without complaint does not mean he’s crafted a candy-colored piece of crypto-Randian propaganda. > > For instance: to read the conflict with Syndrome, the villain, as a “class war” of _Übermenschen v. Lumpen_ is to miss the whole point of his costume, his tropical island, his lava curtain, his expendable henchpeople, his Heat Miser hair, his zero-point energy gauntlets. Syndrome doesn’t want super powers. He’s had super powers ever since he was a wee tot: he’s the mad inventor, the kid genius, the gadgeteer: a super-powered archetype with a long and pulpy pedigree. What it is that Syndrome wants is to be a _superhero_—without, y’know, the pesky bother of all those _superheroics._ He doesn’t get the altruistic end of the stick; he just wants to shortcut straight to the adulation. > > So Syndrome isn’t an unpowered drone with delusions of acting above his station. Syndrome’s an _asshole._ > [@](#): > > Of course, at the end of the movie, the status quo is mostly resumed: the Incredibles return to incognito, and though Dash gets to run track, he can’t do it full-out, y’know? Rational, egotistical Objectivism is not followed to its seemingly logical conclusion: they _don’t_ end up living in their supersuits, imposing the super-powered diktatoriat that is their Nietzschean due. —Their secret identities are lies, yes, but not lies to be repudiated: they’re roles, to be put on and taken off as needed—necessary compromises we _all_ must negotiate with the expectations of the world around us. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/204 "2004-12-22T23:32:26Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Good point on **Frozone** ’s remark. But it is a throwaway laugh line, so I’m not sure how much weight I’d give it. Could also have been inserted by another writer, for that matter. So let me get this straight–you’re investing significant meaning into a throwaway visual that had the greater likelihood of being added by someone other than Bird, but are eagerly willing to dismiss an actual line of dialogue by an actual principal character that was less likely to be added by someone other than Bird? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/205 "2004-12-28T21:05:18Z")
**Brad Bird** sez: > [@](#): > > Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing. It seems to render achievement meaningless. That’s a weird goal. [Cite.](http://www.republic-of-gilroy.com/fear_of_ambition.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/206 "2004-12-28T23:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **spoke-** > Brad Bird sez: Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing. It seems to render achievement meaningless. That’s a weird goal. And he’s right. Bird is worried about a modern cultural trend and made it a theme in **The Incredibles**. Fine. That doesn’t mean he’s conservative, or promoting a conservative agenda, or a Randian. I think Liberals (or anyone) who celebrate mediocrity are wrong-headed. But that doesn’t make me a conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/207 "2004-12-29T00:03:10Z")
Well, it only took you the better part of a month to finally find a cite that actually supports you allegations. Congrats, **spoke-**. 'Course, still no evidence of any intentional Objectivism, and so far the extent of the “conservative agenda” consists of an idea with which this liberal, at least, wholeheartedly agrees. But it’s a start! Maybe. Anyone got a link to the original article, so we can see this quote in context? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/208 "2004-12-29T00:05:00Z")
Sorry, that should be “original _interview_,” the one from which this article got the Bird quote. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/209 "2004-12-29T15:27:06Z")
**Miller** , I have given plenty of evidence (circumstantial, of course) of the Objectivist worldview of this film. Do you really expect Bird to explicate his allegory? As I said before, no artist worth his salt does that. But maybe I’m wrong. Did Orwell ever explicate Animal Farm, for example? Or did he let the work speak for itself? But hey, let the rationalizations continue! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/210 "2004-12-29T16:52:59Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > **Miller** , I have given plenty of evidence (circumstantial, of course) of the Objectivist worldview of this film. Do you really expect Bird to explicate his allegory? As I said before, no artist worth his salt does that. But maybe I’m wrong. Did Orwell ever explicate Animal Farm, for example? Or did he let the work speak for itself? > > But hey, let the rationalizations continue! > [@George Fucking Orwell](#): > > And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement. > > On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. However, the actual details of the story did not come to me for some time until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat. > > I proceeded to analyse Marx’s theory from the animals’ point of view. To them it was clear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans. From this point of departure, it was not difficult to elaborate the story. I did not write it out till 1943, for I was always engaged on other work which gave me no time; and in the end I included some events, for example the Teheran Conference, which were taking place while I was writing. Thus the main outlines of the story were in my mind over a period of six years before it was actually written. I do not know which is more impressive: the capacity of your mouth, or your prodigious number of feet. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/211 "2004-12-29T17:54:24Z")
Well, I specifically said that I might be mistaken about Orwell. So I shall eat crow graciously on that point. (No need for petty sniping, I think.) Still, I don’t think we’ll find Brad Bird explicating his allegory. At least not until The Incredibles has reached its full profit potential. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/212 "2004-12-29T18:18:22Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Still, I don’t think we’ll find Brad Bird explicating his allegory. And how convenient for your case if he doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/213 "2004-12-29T18:29:45Z")
Well, he could easily deny it. Lord knows there are plenty of people out there who see the film as objectivist allegory, as a google search will quickly reveal. So if Bird wanted to distance himself from this idea he could easily say “No. That’s not what I meant at all.” His silence is neither convenient nor inconvenient for me. It proves nothing. On the other hand, we do have his quote (cited earlier) intimating that the film has deeper layers of meaning. And then we have his quote cited a few posts up, which ought to tell you that whatever his deeper meaning may be, it is not liberal-friendly. I’ve explained at length why I think his viewpoint is Objectivist. If you don’t agree, not much I can do about it. Posters to this thread might want to avoid too much arrogance. Brad Bird will be giving interviews and making movies for years to come. Who knows what time may reveal? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/214 "2004-12-29T18:31:00Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > I’ve explained at length why I think his viewpoint is Objectivist. If you don’t agree, not much I can do about it. And yet, you keep posting. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/215 "2004-12-29T18:58:41Z")
Now **Miller** , you keep sniping at me and people will start thinking there’s sexual tension in the air. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/216 "2004-12-29T20:25:07Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Well, he could easily deny it. Lord knows there are plenty of people out there who see the film as objectivist allegory, as a google search will quickly reveal. So if Bird wanted to distance himself from this idea he could easily say “No. That’s not what I meant at all.” He’s supposed to deny every wacky interpretation of his film that doesn’t precisely correspond with his intent? Apparently no interviewer has ever asked him about this subject, so what should he do, call a press conference to specifically deny these allegations? (An act which, at this point, I suspect you would take as further “proof” that he’s a closet Randian anyway.) I’m sure Bird is a busy man, and I doubt he cares what a bunch of Rand fans on the Internet are saying about his movie. > [@](#): > > _His silence is neither convenient nor inconvenient for me. It proves nothing._ Then stop attempting to use it as support for your position. > [@](#): > > _Posters to this thread might want to avoid too much arrogance. Brad Bird will be giving interviews and making movies for years to come. Who knows what time may reveal?_ Are you talking about yourself here? If he ever says his purpose in making **The Incredibles** was to promote Randian themes then I will have no trouble believing him. Unlike you, I have never claimed to have special insight into the man’s motives. I don’t believe anyone else here has. What I think everyone else has been saying is that you have NO PROOF AT ALL that Bird ever intended anyone to perceive Randian themes in **The Incredibles** , and you are wrong to keep insisting that he most certainly did. You are the only one that’s taken a position that could be disproved by Bird’s future words or actions, which is why I said that his silence on the matter is convenient for _you_. ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/217 "2004-12-29T20:26:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **spoke-** : > But hey, let the rationalizations continue! > [@](#): > > Originaly posted by **ArchiveGuy** : > So let me get this straight–you’re investing significant meaning into a throwaway visual that had the greater likelihood of being added by someone other than Bird, but are eagerly willing to dismiss an actual line of dialogue by an actual principal character that was less likely to be added by someone other than Bird? So, you accept evidence that fits your thesis, ignore or dismiss everything that doesn’t, and \*we’re \* the ones who’re rationalizing? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/218 "2004-12-29T20:41:09Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Now **Miller** , you keep sniping at me and people will start thinking there’s sexual tension in the air. 😉 I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/219 "2004-12-29T20:43:12Z")
Feel the love! ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/220 "2004-12-29T21:11:41Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > He’s supposed to deny every wacky interpretation of his film that doesn’t precisely correspond with his intent? No. And neither is he supposed to deconstruct his allegories for us. As you say, no one has asked him the question. I have not argued that Bird’s silence proves my point. Others have argued that we cannot infer Bird’s intent without a full confession from the man himself. In response to that, I have simply shown why he might want to remain silent. > [@](#): > > What I think everyone else has been saying is that you have NO PROOF AT ALL that Bird ever intended anyone to perceive Randian themes in **The Incredibles** , and you are wrong to keep insisting that he most certainly did. On the contrary, I _have_ offered proof (-circumstantial evidence, to be sure). It’s just that you will not accept any proof short of a plain admission by Bird himself. You and others seem to think the only proof of a person’s intent is their words. If that were so, we’d rarely get a murder conviction. I think we can infer Bird’s intent from what we see on the screen. I’ve shown the parallels to Rand’s work and the iconic references in the film, and will not re-hash the arguments here. The on-screen stuff has now been augmented by the last two quotes I’ve cited, which suggest that Bird himself intended to convey hidden meanings, and that he has an aversion to “wrong-headed liberalism.” So at this point, all we can really do is agree to disagree. Either the dots form a pointillist portrait of Ayn Rand for you or they don’t. Eh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=12)