Courtesy of the red, white, and blue

In general, the second movie in a trilogy is usually the worst (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Matrix Reloaded.) X2 was no exception. It relied too heavily on action sequences, and wrapped up some loose ends (like Wolverine's past and the whole thing with Jean) a little too neatly.

I found myself thinking that maybe the imaginary Congress should institute a registration process for mutants. Flame-throwers? Retractable hand blades? Mind-reading? Walking through walls? These powers should be regulated for the human and mutant public's safety! Even if there's an imminent war, mutant behavior should be controlled for the good of everyone! Laws to determine when they can and can't use their "talents"! Numbers on their forearms! National ID cards! Yellow stars... oops, wait...

I had to keep smacking myself.

Then I wondered, maybe I'm only thinking this way because I just finished John Moe's hilarious Conservatize Me. Moe, a local NPR guy and McSweeney's regular, decided to immerse himself in what he perceived to be conservative culture(s) to better understand America's political divide. During "The Experiment" he traveled around the country, talking to conservative political theorists, hanging out with Young Republicans, listening to conservative talk radio and country music, and visiting museums to conservative presidents. He's a funny writer, so the book is amusing. (By the end, he's telling his four-year-old not to take The Lorax too seriously because of its pro-environment message.)

It was also the kind of book that, because I grew up and live in the same city as the author, has familiar places and incidents an in-jokes. All of which were definitely cool, because Seattle is not a place that gets a lot of attention. (Incidentally, because I live in the same city as Moe, I had momentary flashes of panic when reading the book in public, thinking people would see the big red elephant on the cover and want to beat me up. And sure enough, I did notice people squinting to read the title...)

The book is tongue-in-cheek, to be sure. And as a funny, light-hearted personal tale intended to be satirical, it's good. But as a social and political commentary, not so much.

It took Moe an awful long time to come to the very basic realization that "liberal" and "conservative" are not homogenous, monolithic entities, that they are not synonymous with "Democrat" and "Republican," and that there is indeed a ton of middle ground and grayness. He assumes liberals and conservatives don't normally associate with each other, and it's only because his own life and background don't put him into contact with folks that don't think the way he does that The Experiment can exist in the first place.

I found it jarring (and reinforcing of both privilege and stereotypes) that the people Moe spoke to on his conservative journey were all white males. He talks to women, but usually by accident, and usually only the clerks, museum workers, church volunteers, or office staff. Actually, he just needs to take the #55 bus from his house, transfer to the #54, and stay on to the end of the line, in White Center, where largely Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrant business owners have Bush signs up every election. And even if Ann Coulter didn't respond to his request for an interview, it wouldn't be that hard to find another self-identified conservative female or three to ask questions. It would have given him a better perspective, I think, on what he was looking for. Instead, he took stereotypes to the extreme and went off to a country music concert, Mormonland, the Reagan museum, and Wal-mart. (Similarly, until the end of the book, Moe assumes "liberals" all believe the same things, too.)

What I did find weird was that, unlike most people I know (regardless of how they vote or pray or not), Moe doesn't have family members or even acquaintances with differing views of politics, religion, or music. And he seems to assume the vast majority of Americans don't, either. I guess his Thanksgivings, winter holidays, Fourths of July, and other social gatherings are devoid of debate of any kind. Unfortunately, this is the premise for his Experiment.

I'm not making light of the political chasm, because despite the gray areas, there is one, and there actually are a lot of people of all leanings who don't encounter "others" very much -- whether "other" is a gay person, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, a black person, a gun rights advocate, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Republican, or a Muslim. But the book is written by and for and marketed to middle-class urban liberals, and it relies on certain images of "others" to make its points.

In the end, The Experiment defined the "other" purely in relation to the "self" -- a big methodological no-no in the social sciences.

Again, it makes for great satire. But not an empirical study.

Maybe I should write the author. Or just go bang on his door...