By Aarav Billore
“Lisa, if you don’t like your job, you don’t strike: you just go in every day and do it really half assed. That’s the American way.” Love him or hate him, Homer Simpson always says the quiet part out loud. The fact that an episode from 30 years ago resonates just as hard today is a testament to both the greatness of The Simpsons as well as the real world’s resistance to change. We still have corrupt politicians, incompetent and evil police, meaningless culture wars, George Bush-esque politics, and, of course, the Indian monopoly on convenience stores, in the America of today. As much as some fans of the original seasons would like to claim that the series “went woke,” it was always overtly political on a basic level, starting with the characters themselves. Chief Wiggum is not just a cop, he’s the Simpsons’ representation of every cop: a donut-eating, selfish, and incompetent fool. Pastor Lovejoy is not just a pastor, he is every pastor: he secretly cares more about model trains than his religion, treats his congregation like animals, and is, at the same time, incredibly morally righteous. Ned Flanders is not just Homer’s neighbor, he’s everybody’s insufferable neighbor, both extremely nice and judgemental at the same time, holding his own moral superiority as his most prized possession. Disco Stu is not just Disco Stu, he’s the representation of everybody who got just a little too much into a subculture and stayed still while the world moved on (haha okay that one might be a bit of a stretch, but the point is not totally wrong).
If we look at the current state of civic education, maybe the Simpsons should replace it. Personally, I never even had formal civic education at school, but those who did are unlikely to have learned much. Existing programs focus more on working within the allocated systems, rather than helping students take agency and solve problems in their own communities. What good is learning how to make an educated vote if your district is so gerrymandered that you’re destined to lose? Opposed to this stands the Simpsons, questioning the very essence of all of our most sacred processes, and challenging them through absurdly funny gags and exaggerations. When it first came out, there was a huge backlash against the Simpsons (and especially Bart) for just that: it was unregulated, loud, and irreverent, a big middle finger to the establishment of America. Civic education should question everything, and teach students how to critically look at the world around them, cause change, and engage with the massive amounts of bureaucracy that we inevitably must face. Two episodes in particular taught me more about the government and community engagement than my nonexistent civics education.
In “Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington,” Lisa makes it to the finals of a patriotic essay contest, winning a free trip to Washington DC for her and her family. She meets a representative, only to later learn,under the cover of night, that he accepts bribes from lobbyists, and sells out Springfield Forest. She tears up her speech and the next day gives a scathing review of DC, calling it the “Cesspool on the Potomac.” In response, the representative is taken to prison and the episode essentially wraps up. This shows us not only how people lose faith in their institutions, but how quick they are to pick them back up for security. Lisa learns that a congressman was crooked, but is unable to even fathom that it was the system itself that was the issue. After he is taken to prison, she is left with the belief that the system does work, and the Simpsons go home. This ironic ending and “happily-ever-after” plot structure is deliberate, showing us how people fail to overlook major systematic issues and instead blame small parts of them for the entire problem. Lisa does not consider the fact that other congressmen probably take bribes too, and that lobbyists can always just move on to the next easy target. This omission, in a show that otherwise seeks to explore the very limits of what is allowed, shows us what happens in the real world and why people cling to institutions themselves even if people are discarded.
“Homer vs the Eighteenth Amendment” addresses the touchy subjects of alcohol and drug prohibition, and the concept of prohibition itself. After a particularly rowdy St. Patrick’s Day Parade, a temperance march gets the mayor to begin enforcing a 200 year old law that prohibits alcohol. Homer, being the alcoholic that he is, cannot have this, and becomes a bootlegger for Moe. More people than ever are drinking, and Homer is making plenty of money in the process. However, a new police chief is installed to enforce prohibition, raiding bars, and going harder on enforcement than LAPD in the 1980s. Homer persists and only turns himself in to help Wiggum get his job back, and ultimately it is proved that the law was already struck down soon after being made. This brings us to the limits of what enforcement can do, using 1920s-esque prohibition era imagery and scenes to help immerse the viewer in the 90s (or today), in the scene of prohibition. At the same time, it shows how organized crime like the mafia can take over places with prohibition because they are the only ones who can get around those laws. It begs the question of whether the prohibition of anything is a concept that governments should enforce on people, and demonstrates civil disobedience through Homer’s home distillery. Despite the fact that the new police chief went far harder on enforcement, he could do nothing to stop the flow of alcohol. When he stopped the mafia, Homer took over, and if prohibition had continued, someone else would have taken Homer’s place after he would be punished (with the penalty of catapult, of course).
In these two short lessons, I learned more than the entirety of the civics unit in my history class in school. I learned how to engage with the system and its major flaws; how people are enthralled by the system and take it back under most circumstances for security; how taking care of individual criminals or corrupt politicians cannot possibly solve the root causes of the issues; and how disobedience can lead to an unjust law being turned down. And I learned it all while laughing my ass off watching America’s favourite family bumble around like the rest of us.
The Simpsons is truly one of the only shows that can hit every emotional note on the keyboard, make you laugh until you cry, and at the same time teach you about the government, international relations, law creation and enforcement, and disobedience. The Simpsons can replace a modern civic education, so perhaps we need to talk about making a change in that regard. While I am glad that a cartoon was there to teach me when school wasn’t, I hope that in the future schools can better educate their students to become engaged members of society, to take agency for themselves, and to better their own lives and those of others rather than relying on a half hour show to do it for them.