Q: What is the difference between TV characters Dan and Roseanne Conner and the Clintons?

A: The Conners own their own home.

Day and night blend into one another when you have a baby. You find sleep where you can. One of the things you start to do is watch TV at weird hours and because your priorities are far more straight, you don’t care to change the channel when you normally would.

A couple nights ago Richelle and I were watching back to back episodes of Roseanne on Nick at Night, the show finale and immediately following, the show premier.

Roseanne has long been a favorite of Richelle and I, probably for different reasons. Richelle I think, loved the brutal honesty and frankness of the Connors, me, having that where I came from, looked to the Connor family as an ideal – while it had its struggles, it stuck together and fought out of hope and love. People can argue the show jumped the shark a few times. It certainly did. But along the way it confronted the issues of the day and expressed, to me, what family was all about.

A question popped into my head while watching the two episodes I couldn’t shake – “what political party did the Connors belong to”?

Dumb question? Not really, keep reading…

Aaron Michael Gordon: Rediscovering Roseanne:

When “Roseanne” made its debut in the late-1980’s, I was too young to fully comprehend the greatness of the series. I liked it a great deal at the time, merely because it was funny. Because even though the Connors weren’t representative of my family’s income bracket, we shared a lot of life in common. The domineering, slightly off-the-cuff mother. The sibling rivalry and camaraderie. The aunt who was always “rediscovering herself,” simultaneously getting lost in her thoughts…while never physically leaving the living room. The grandmother you are forced to socialize with, who everybody hates and despises.

Now that I’m older, the true genius of “Roseanne” is more apparent. “Roseanne” isn’t a comedy. Or a drama. “Roseanne” is as realistic a representation of life in middle-America that ABC would dare to put on the air (both pre- and post-Disney ownership.) It seems strange, to think that “Roseanne” was innovative…putting the truth out there for the world to see, but American media doesn’t really delve much into the truth. Consider the archetype family situation comedy and you’ll see what I’m talking about. They typically present a good-looking, upper-middle class family dealing with problems that typically are solved by the end of an episode.

This “typical” family is never in any real danger. You’re never worried that the parents will lose their job…or that little Rudy won’t get asked to the prom. Sometimes, to add a “twist,” they’ll shake up the familial formula. For example, consider the beloved sitcom about a rich white family adopting two poor African-American kids. Or a WASP-unit where the kids are conservative and the parents are freewheeling ex-hippies. And the masterpiece that is “Must See TV,” a show about a gay man who basically never dates, and his female best friend (who is, of course, not only thin and beautiful, but gets plenty of action in the boudoir. I don’t know about you, but most “fag hags” I know never met a buffet they didn’t like, and an attractive, successful gay man never has problems getting some.)

Compare this to “Roseanne,” either the most dramatic sitcom ever made, or the most comedic drama ever made. The Conner Family and their friends and relatives aren’t perfect. Some of their traits are downright unlikable. Roseanne Connor is presented as a nosy, over-protective, harsh mother…who always has to have the last word. It’s her house, and woe to the husband or child who disagrees. But out of this honest, non-glossy image of an overweight, struggling mother a true heroine emerges. Roseanne Connor may expose her family to the abrasive nature of the truth, but her kids are stronger and more resilient for it. She may be a bossy, know-it-all, but she shows that being a mother is a full-time job. And that somebody has to be the boss. Finally, “Roseanne” reveals the slogan “You can have it all” as the advertising hogwash that it is. A mother can be both a parent and an employee, and both will suffer for it. “You can have it less” rings with more authenticity, no?

The rest of the characters on “Roseanne” also fill out their less-than-desirable characteristics with honest strengths. Dan Connor may drink too much on the weekends and may let his wife run the show, but underneath is a jaded, working-class family man, who would do anything for his brood (including going to jail after beating up his sister-in-law’s abusive boyfriend.) Darlene is definitely not a girl you’d like to meet at the mall and talk about trivialities with, but you would want to wax poetic about art, politics and life with her. And we all know (or are) Jackie: Roseanne’s loopy, day-dreamy sister who just can’t stop blaming her family for her life, her problems…and just can’t get it together. Together, they make up a cast of flawed, sometimes frightening human beings. Together, they help make “Roseanne” an example of flawless storytelling. (And if you think the “Gay Revolution” on television began with “Ellen”, tell that to Leon, Nancy and the rest of the three-dimensional homosexuals who work with and befriend Roseanne Connor.)

Except for having two parents, and that stupid last season, well the show is *still* cutting edge by blowing apart the bullshit expectations of our society and culture. No show, I can think of, has represented the American family as well since.

So tell me – what political party do you think they were? It was the 80s/early 90s remember. Probably Democrat, which might seem like a shock to some since this world has gone so upside down.

At one time the Democrats certainly were the Connor’s representatives. Not today.

Elected Democrats joined hands with Republicans and passed a bankruptcy bill that breaks the backs of the working class for political expediency. Republicans? Well they talk a good game, but their record is that of empty promises, unfunded mandates, cutting safety nets, making our streets less safe (less cops in the cities and letting the assault weapons ban slide), and dodging responsibility (does anyone EVER get fired from this bunch?).

Both parties have abandoned the Connors and the working-class American family. They’ve replaced slogans for policy. Sound bites for substance. Attack ads for action. All while pursing donations to wage never ending political campaigns that are about winning – not about serving the people.

Andrew Sullivan, conservative blogger laments: in the Washington Post:

You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles…Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with.

There is strong evidence that Democrats will have a good election season. Voters are waking up. That’s great since the current regime is criminally inept. But will Democrats take this opportunity to come back to their roots and represent the people that make this country work? I remain a Democrat in hope they do, because we can’t keep going the way we are. We just can’t.