the world of american legion magazine: the war on somebody's notion of standards

NOTE: This December, I'm challenging myself to prepare a post a day here. This is partly an attempt to use up materials I've hoarded lately, partly a writing exercise, partly a test of how disciplined I can be. The posts may be quick discoveries, writing experiments, scattered thoughts, or whatever else pops into my brain. Previous personal challenges like this have petered out quickly, so consider yourself warned!

For the past few months, the Internet Archive has been my giant rabbit hole. I've spent many hours exploring its magazine collections, including random selections of major periodicals, titles I loved as a kid, and microfilms of trade journals that will be useful for future projects. It's been equally enlightening and head-scratching.

Falling into the latter category is a run of The American Legion magazine from the 1990s. Serving the largest veterans organization in the US, the magazine focused on sensationalistic right-wing content during this period. Historically the organization has had some dubious beliefs, from looking longingly at fascism in the 1920s to being a toxic environment for minority members. 

But the 1990s...hoo boy. 

Let's begin with their take on the state of American culture. This cover provides a clue to their approach by dragging out the tired cliché of 1970s punk attire as a representation for everything bad and scary about the modern world. Never mind that Bach's lifestyle might have sent the magazine's editors and readership into fits. 

The article was written by Michael Medved. As a child, I loved the books he co-authored with his brother Harry on bad movies such as the Golden Turkey Awards series, but time and viewing the movies profiled, which include some decent flicks, dampened my enthusiasm (I recommend Will Sloan's essay on bad movies and the Medved books). Though there were clues in his earlier work, it is around this time that Medved moved into his later career as a conservative commentator, culture warrior, and defender of idealized mid-20th century morality. 

"Everywhere around us," Medved groans in his opening argument, "in every realm of artistic endeavor, we see evidence of the rejection of traditional standards of beauty and worth. In the visual arts, in literature, in film, in music both popular and classical variety, ugliness has been enshrined as a new standard, as we accept the ability to shock as a replacement for the old ability to inspire."

Psst, Mikey? I can call you Mikey, right? You do know that ugliness has been around as long as humanity and that artists have always been inspired by the less-than-beautiful things surrounding them, right? Styles and canons change. And while there are definitely works solely created for cheap shock value or for nefarious ends, sometimes those same things can inspire people to produce smarter pieces of work. Sometimes ugly strikes the right nerve to provoke cultural change for the better. 

The opening leads into a grumpy old man spiel about the ugliness of early 1990s cinema as a playground for non-family-friendly moral depravity, suggesting we need fewer films like The Grifters and more Andy Hardy style wholesome entertainment. "Today, the movie business regularly offers us characters who are smaller than life, who are less decent, less intelligent, less noble than our friends and neighbours." 

This is followed by his angst at the increasing attacks against the traditional family structure, noting that even a film like Look Who's Talking, which celebrates child-rearing, commits the horrifying act of depicting a single person as a parent. In this world, single people, whether choosing to act solo or having broken up with their previous partners, are tragic deviants who encourage and perpetuate a cycle of out-of-wedlock births. 

Medved then rails against a music industry obsessed with "the simple-minded glorification of animal lust," promoting sex that is less pure than the romantic liaisons presented on oldies stations. The man is clearing wearing blinders by this point.

Maybe an editor tired of Medved's wail by this point and decided to have some fun, or was asleep at the wheel when placing this ad in the middle of page 4 of the article. While Medved rails against modern depictions of sex and depravity, here we find an ad for treating impotence promoted by a comedian known for his drunk routine. It is also far from the only ad for impotence cures in this issue.

But Foster Brooks pitching impotence treatment is the distraction we need at this point, as Medved rails against hostility directed at religion, an element of life he feels is "the ultimate basis for all standards." I've survived nearly half-a-century without religious direction and feel my level of standards are generally pretty good. Then there's the stereotypical rant about bastard births and violent media causing a spike in arrests of teenagers. 

How do we solve these problems to raise the standards of modern living? "They will be settled, as fundamental questions are always settled most effectively in America, through the application of free-market principles and displays of private-sector determination and resourcefulness." Examples including Christian lobby groups pushing Burger King to pledge to support family values. You get the sense that only certain types of people are entitled to push for cultural change, preferably Christian and middle-class. 

Medved concludes by saying a grassroots revolution is required "to make sure that popular culture will once again reflect, and encourage, the fundamental goodness of people." Instead, we've seen the opposite happen, where grassroots people encourage the worst aspects of humanity (see Trumpism, anti-vaxxers, etc.). 

Look, I know in general I'm trying to push harder for positive things, trying to keep a chipper tone on my social media accounts. Doomscrolling is not my ideal way of living life and has not done wonders for my mental health. But trying to blot out the realities of modern life for a time that never truly existed outside of idealized visions presented in the media doesn't help either. There was a lot of crap under the surface of  the idealized version of America Medved and his ilk savour that we're dealing with the repercussions of. 

Two letters praising this piece were published three months later. Frank Fedele of Williamsport, Pennsylvania wrote that "too many people would like us to believe the normal is MTV with all its smut and sexual connotations," while Jack Stuart of Cloverdale, California bemoaned that "there are a number of intelligent people in this country seeking to destroy our culture." Plug that sentence into similar complaints about 21st century culture.

Advertisers in this issue seem to be sketchier than one would like to expect in publication trying to hold the moral high ground, taking advantage of veterans on tight budgets looking for bargains. Imitation watch designed to stroke one's ego, anybody?

Once you've solved your impotence problems, let's work on your gut. Who needs diet and exercise when you can buy a male girdle?

Oh that rascally Burl Ives! Hopefully he enjoyed a holly jolly Christmas with his model that year.

Was this "Uncle Bernie" selling cheap consumer crap to veterans connected to the "Uncle Bernie" who advertised novelty gifts in the 1950s? Was he inspired to brand himself ironically/cynically after the Mothers of Invention song which attacks cheap consumer crap? Did he just like the ring of "Uncle Bernie"? 

Whatever the case, it appears this "Uncle Bernie" was not to be trusted. 

You can browse the entire issue here at your own risk.

Sources: the August 1991 and November 1991 editions of The American Legion.