Was the A-Team a Right Wing Show

[Hansmeister]

ahum?

I was just pointing out the political affiliations of the four actors on the A-Team.

[Viking]

I can't remember the A-Team having a coherent political agenda.

They didn't. But they were pro-military and pro-guns. So they must be right wing.

They weren't pro-military, though, the army is their principle (if incompetent) antagonist throughout the show.

They were pro-lion, not pro-donkey.

[Tonitrus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjvkS0bqx70&

Ridiculous.

[Syt]

I just died a little inside.

[jimmy olsen]

Depressingly generic.

[Martinus]

Well, I think it was a special kind of "right wing" I guess, maybe you could call it "libertarian" really. It was anti-authoritarian, but pro-gun and shit. It wasn't the neocon rightwing - more like "shoot down UN black helicopters" kind of right wing.

The show almost always depicted corporations as evil; I'd have a hard time seeing it as libertarian.  Though maybe it was libertarian-socialist.

You are wrong. You are taking real world right wing alliances (which is to the big business) for the right-wing narrative. The right wing narrative values the enterpreneurial spirit and "salt of the earth" approach but it does not necessarily see big corporations that way - the "suits" are just another form of bureaucracy that is depicted negatively in the right winger narrative.

[Martinus]

I don't think it was right-wing at all, really. It was quite 'anti-authoritarian', and so I wouldn't say it was right-wing, since the right-wing is *usually* associated with being pro-authority.

It was not "fascist", but anti-authoritarianism is one of the tenets (even if only paid a lip-service to) of the American conservatism. Ever heard of the "small government" thing? It's rightwingers that are championing it.

[Martinus]

It was a Frontier show and thus uniquely American in its outlook. It is «libertarian» if the Frontier can be called that, which doesn't care about socialism / capitalism: it cares about individuals making their way out of their good natured (there were Frontier socialists, like Saint-Simon, just like Frontier hard-core individualists). Corporations are evil because they are faceless and do not care about the little people, just like the big ranchers, or the railroad companies. Government is evil because it deceives and corrupts. In the end, you can only rely on friends, families and your guns to protect what is right: your small property, of course, but also honour and justice. It was a modern Western.

Well, yeah, but I was operating under an assumption (which I thought was universally shared) that "Western" is a right wing genre. Apparently a lot of people do not share this view. Strange.

[Syt]

Considering how many westerns have evil capitalists (ranchers, railroad barons and other shady businessmen exploiting the peasants or workers) as villains I think applying the term "right wing" to the whole genre is too broad a brush.

[Martinus]

Considering how many westerns have evil capitalists (ranchers, railroad barons and other shady businessmen exploiting the peasants or workers) as villains I think applying the term "right wing" to the whole genre is too broad a brush.

See, that's where you are wrong. They weren't exploiting workers - they were always exploiting/swindling/blackmailing smaller (and "real", "salt-of-the-earth" type) entrepreneurs and farmers (not "peasants" - "farmers" - important difference). Westerns weren't anti-capitalist - they embraced capitalism and capitalist work ethics. Corporations were evil not because they were "evil capitalists" but because they represented the detached elites who were debauched, corrupt and did not share that ethics.

I would say that this kind of anti-elitism plays a very important role in American conservatism (there is a reason Bush had a "farm" in Texas, even though he is a bred New England aristocrat, essentially) and also to some extent in the European one.

[Eddie Teach]

I would say that this kind of anti-elitism plays a very important role in American conservatism (there is a reason Bush had a "farm" in Texas, even though he is a bred New England aristocrat, essentially) and also to some extent in the European one.

It wasn't a "farm" it was a "ranch."

[Viking]

Well, I think it was a special kind of "right wing" I guess, maybe you could call it "libertarian" really. It was anti-authoritarian, but pro-gun and shit. It wasn't the neocon rightwing - more like "shoot down UN black helicopters" kind of right wing.

The show almost always depicted corporations as evil; I'd have a hard time seeing it as libertarian.  Though maybe it was libertarian-socialist.

The A-Team didn't really have politics. One episode they fight for the union, the next they fight against one. Then they fight for a business and the next episode they fight against one. Not to go all chuck norris, the A-Team was for fairness and justice and against injustice and malice. Sometimes it comes from the left, sometimes for the right.

One commentator would try to tar the A-Team as Right wing imperialists because of their use of weapons, violence and army methods, the next commentator would tar them as left wing because they were running from the US Army (for a crime they didn't commit). They are neither, they are just Good Guys and Good Guys don't have personality traits that might turn people off.

[The Brain]

I've never seen A-Team so they can do as they please with it.

[Darth Wagtaros]

and just like right wingers, they looked at their one minority as nothing more as muscle; a grunt. You never saw Hannibal asking BA for his opinion.

And just like Republicans, when they saw shifting demographics in America, they picked up their token hispanic to be their little pet nigger to keep that brown tail of America wagging ignorantly yet happily.

BA was a Sergent. The rest were officers.  Of course his opinion didn't matter in the highly classist society of the 70's. 

[Tonitrus]

Holy crap...Martinus is dead-on correct on this one.

Of course, it's just A-Team political analysis, but still.