Once upon a time you could have a sitcom on TV about a blue collar family and politics, thank God, wouldn’t enter into the fun. The locus classicus is “The Honeymooners.” Though it aired in the mid-1950s at the height of the Red Scare, Cold War and burgeoning civil rights protests, the lives of Ralph, Alice, Ed and Trixie were unaffected by current events.
By twenty years later, Archie Bunker was a paragon of political incorrectness and the ongoing battle between him and his liberal son-in-law represented the era’s culture wars writ small — and funny. Fast forward to Roseanne’s return. Her first incarnation was more “The Honeymooners” than “All in the Family.”
This time, however, she has advertised her affinity for Trump, and he has followed his golden rule — “Say something nice about me, and I’ll say something nice about you.” So he phoned her to congratulate her after the premier, and crowed about her 18 million viewers on the stump, as if they were his. And possibly they are.
Republican pundits were quick to use the show’s popularity, especially in markets in Middle America, to cudgel Hollywood with. They claim the views and taste of all those red state people have been consistently treated with contempt or ignored and their moral sensitivities offended by the programers who preside over the Sodom and Gomorrah of the coasts.
Great talking points if they were true, but let’s not get carried away. First, it’s a ridiculous claim when the airwaves are full to overflowing with entire red state channels offering fare that includes “Duck Dynasty,“ Honey Boo-Boo, “Jersey Shore,” talent shows, reality shows, repulsive housewives from hither and yon, “Friday Night Lights,” country music awards, Nascar, and on and on.
Second, its entirely possible many people tuned into Roseanne’s return to gawk, but how many of the 18 million will stick with the show for episodes two through eight? Fewer, one would guess. Curiosity does not equate with approval.
Third, it is a lot easier to claim “Roseanne” as a conservatism-exalting comedy if you didn’t bother to watch the show. In fact, it seemed to make a pretty strong anti-Trump case. Yes, Roseanne, the character, says she voted for Trump because he’s going to make America great, but her liberal sister in the Meathead role seems to get the better of most of their exchanges.
And the situation of the Conner family is not exactly an advertisement for Trump’s America. The elders have to cut the pills subscribed by their doctors in half because their can’t afford to take the whole dose. Dan spends his time drinking out in the garage. Their daughter Darlene is a single mother who has been forced to move back home with her two children because she’s been laid off. Their other daughter Becky is underemployed and is thinking of renting her womb as a surrogate mother for enough money to afford a car, a down payment on a house, and an education. And one of the kids is bullied in school for being unusual, having an interest in fashion.
This is the kind of rainbow coalition family you might find in shows scorned as liberal, like “Here and Now” and “This Is Us.” And the Conner menage is also more an argument for the policies of Bernie Sanders than those of Trump. They ought to be voting for free tuition, improved public schools, universal healthcare, a living wage, easily accessible social services, respect for working class and minority Americans, getting big money out of politics and a tax system that addresses growing wealth inequality.
Finally, Roseanne herself, not the character she plays, makes a peculiar conservative poster girl. Yes, her origins are blue collar and she’s now a Trump supporter, but that doesn’t necessarily make her a conservative in the traditional sense. She’s spoken in favor of gay marriage, has behaved in ways usually described as feminist and is a devotee of the Kabbalah. It may be her affinity for Trump is more due to a shared enthusiasm for grabbing media attention by means of outrageous stunts and opinions. She recognizes a kindred spirit.
Who can forget her vulgar, comic rendition of the National Anthem that George H.W. Bush called “disgraceful,” her posing as Hitler, her tweeting the address of George Zimmermann to encourage vigilantism, her race for President on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket and for the nomination of the Green Party, and her floating the idea of running for Prime Minister of Israel?
Like Trump she has been frequently and flamboyantly married (she leads, four to three), and subscribes to lunatic, internet conspiracy theories, including the belief that the Mueller investigation is an attempt to distract attention from a pedophile ring run by Democratic members of Congress.
Though she, and the president, both pretend to be blue collar champions, they may actually represent another familiar American cliche — the spoiled nouveau riche nut job. It is a strange fact that some of the richest people in the America and the most economically stressed share an alt-right mindset, though often one group is selling the Kool-Aid and the other drinking it.
Roseanne can afford to dabble in blue collar rhetoric, but she is insulated from living the reality by her net worth, $80 million in her case, and the attorneys, accountants, and PR people money can buy. She doesn’t have to care about the actual lives, feelings or prospects of the kind of people she plays on TV. They didn’t escape the working class she came from. She did, and can cultivate her alt-right image and the macadamia nuts on her $2 Hawaiian plantation while they live hand to mouth, watching her network show because they can’t afford cable.