SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Kal Penn’s Pitch to the Youngfolk: Tin-Eared, On-Message

PLANK SEPTEMBER 5, 2012

Kal Penn’s Pitch to the Youngfolk: Tin-Eared, On-Message

I’m unused to being pandered to. This is as I believe it should be: if a Democratic National Convention speaker started engaging the immediate material concerns of a healthy white male raised in comfort who received a great education and has a great job (even any job), I would wonder—well, whether I was watching the wrong convention.

So Kal Penn’s speech last night directed at the under-30 set (Penn, an actor most famous for playing Kumar in the Harold and Kumar series, is a former White House liason to young Americans), which he delivered just before the broadcast networks cut in, was a pretty new experience for me: I was not just observing, but being addressed.

Speaking of relevant issues is an important element of pandering, but so is speaking of them in the target’s language, and it was Penn's method of accomplishing the latter that made me uneasy. His goofy, slacker schtick—which reached its height in a pretaped segment in which he and John Cho (the guy who plays Harold) receive a call from President Obama while pretty obviously stoned—was a real turn-off. I felt talked-down-to: Am I really supposed to believe that this 35-year-old guy in a suit is authentically just like me? Surely nobody could think I or practically anyone else is so stupid.

But the expectation of such stupidity was the only justification for lines like: “a man … who’s cool with all of us getting gay-married”; “you don’t even have to pull pants on”; “as I wonder which Twitter hashtags you’ll start using when I’m done talking, #sexyface”; “the oldies out there, you guys can do it too.” It was not all as tone-deaf as “oldies,” which I’m pretty sure is a word that describes Herman’s Hermits songs; the use of “gay-married,” in particular, evinced a real ear for dialogue. But even when he got it right, he got it wrong. These lame rhetorical tics were condescending, and made me feel objectifed—a collection of demographic checkmarks rather than an individual.

The flip-side were the policy platforms Penn reminded us of: the president’s support for same-sex marriage and repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; the Affordable Care Act, which helps young people in part by letting them stay on their parents’ insurance through the age of 26; doubling the funding for Pell Grants, which is essentially need-based federal student financial aid. Many observers (on Twitter, naturally) were most impressed by Penn’s invocation of young friends of his who had benefited from Obama’s achievements: “my friend Matt got a job at a Detroit car company that still exists,” “my buddy Kevin’s boyfriend was able to watch him graduate from Marine Corps training.” But the most effective part of Penn’s five-minute address was his description of Obama’s refusal to trade a tuition tax credit to the Republicans in exchange for not raising taxes on the middle class. Maybe it’s because I am fortunate enough to be in so little need of pandering, but such stories, of the president actually valuing my cohort’s needs, are ten times as persuasive as proficient use of young-people lingo.

Penn will reappear at the convention tomorrow night as the host of a three-hour webcast. No doubt there will be more schtick; apparently the completely insufferable Zach Braff is going to show up, which is enough to make any sensible young person consider voting Republican. At the same time, the gambit recognizes that many of us will be watching online because we don’t have TVs. That is how you speak to us in our language.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 8 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

8 comments

I'm confused by this article. On the one hand, you don't like being pandered to. On the other, Kal Penn pandered to you, but you don't seem too pissed off. On the one hand, you don't like being pandered to. On the other hand, you appreciate doubling Pell grants and the ACA. On the one hand, Zach Braff will make anyone vote Republican. On the other, it'll be webcast, which is speaking to you "in your own language". Seems to me, you don't know WHAT you do or don't like, don't know when a benefit is pandering or not, and are allowing your dislike of the method of presentation to overwhelm your appreciation of the content. Or not. As I said, I find this article very confusing.

- AllanL5

September 5, 2012 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we in the blogo audience, Allan, are finding that as far as the party conventions go there just is not much to say.

- Pnaut

September 5, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the author needs to stop being a curmudgeon. His speech was lucid, coherent and even in the vernacular, if you will. It was addressed squarely at his own fan base and their peers, people Obama desperately needs to turn out in droves in November. I can see how an older observer might be turned off by the insinuation that he isn't wearing pants, and isn't already doing everything in his power to root for the candidate by being asked to go to the Commit website and putting in some volunteer time, but that is hardly an excuse for this kind of rambly, whiny blog post.

- GSpinks

September 5, 2012 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought it was funny. Same with the stoner commercial, with the pizza. But then I am an oldie. A sense of humor is a prerequisite for being an oldie. If you aren't born with one you better get one, the sooner the better, because life doesn't get any more dignified, in fact you reach a point where you can't count on getting up in the morning with all your stuff behaving properly, such as feet, eyes, so forth. So lighten up.

- Sophia

September 5, 2012 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least we're not getting an attempt at a Penn-Eastwood duality...

- cspencef

September 5, 2012 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Considering the pervasiveness of ageism in America, especially in the job market, I was offended by being used in a throwaway line “the oldies out there, you guys can do it too.” Not a surprise - in 2008, the Obama campaign refused to consider anyone over 30 for their Organizing Fellows program (surprise, back then I actually applied), and online supporters frequently called for everyone over 50 to "please die already".

- K2K

September 5, 2012 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh for pete's sake K2K you need a sense of humor too.

- Sophia

September 5, 2012 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia - nothing wrong with my sense of humour. Just nothing funny about ageism and knowing this version of the Democratic Party does not want my vote. I posted a URL to geographic demographer's Joel Kotkin's analysis for you on the McCaskill thread.

- K2K

September 6, 2012 at 12:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close