Reflecting on the Relevance of Roseanne in 2018: A Lesson for Progressives
As a long-time fan of the original Roseanne series, I was eager to see how the revival of this culturally iconic show would unfold. For years, Roseanne captivated audiences with its candid, witty, and often politically charged portrayal of a working-class family navigating life’s challenges. It was a show that managed to weave in serious social issues like feminism, classism, racism, and gay rights with humor and authenticity, without feeling overly political. As a fan, my anticipation was high. I wanted to know if the show could still achieve that delicate balance—telling stories about everyday struggles without feeling like a political manifesto.
The world had changed significantly since Roseanne first aired in the late 1980s. When the original series ran from 1988 to 1996, most viewers were watching on cable television, without the luxury of streaming platforms like Hulu or commercial-free episodes on Apple TV. Back then, we lived without smartphones, social media, and most of the political discourse that saturates our lives today. The political landscape has shifted dramatically, and issues like transgender rights and movements like Black Lives Matter were nowhere near the forefront of mainstream conversations. The Roseanne that I grew up with was subtly progressive, tackling social issues through its characters’ personal stories, rather than overt political messaging. I wondered if the reunion season could replicate this approach in an era where political polarization dominates almost every conversation.
As I settled in to watch the revival, streaming it on Hulu (an experience far removed from watching the original series live on TV in the 90s), I was struck by how much the world had changed—not just in terms of technology but in terms of the cultural and political landscape. It felt surreal to compare where we were back then to where we are now, and I couldn’t help but wonder if Roseanne could still capture that magic in today’s environment.
The original Roseanne resonated with me deeply because it reflected a life I recognized. Growing up in a working-class family, I could relate to the Conners’ financial struggles, their tough-love approach to parenting, and the tension between personal dreams and economic reality. Roseanne Conner was a waitress, just as my mother was a bartender. Like the Conners, my family lived paycheck to paycheck, often relying on help from relatives to get by. The show didn’t romanticize working-class life, but it made it feel normal—it made me feel normal. Watching Roseanne was a reminder that it was okay to struggle, and that love and humor could coexist with hardship.
So, as I watched the revival, I hoped it would bring back some of that authenticity. I wanted to see if it could still tackle social issues without feeling overtly political—just as it had done in the past. But the first few episodes of the reunion season didn’t exactly feel subtle. The opening scene established a clear political divide: Roseanne, a Trump supporter, and her sister Jackie, a Hillary Clinton voter, were at odds over their political beliefs. Their disagreement felt forced, almost as if the writers were addressing the audience directly rather than letting the tension play out naturally through the characters’ lives.
However, after this initial on-the-nose political exchange, the show settled into a more familiar rhythm. The Conners, despite their political differences, were still a family. They loved each other and had to find a way to coexist, just as many families across America must do today. In this way, Roseanne returned to its roots—showing that political differences don’t have to define relationships and that life goes on, even in polarized times.
What struck me most about this new iteration of Roseanne was how it reflected a reality that many of us, especially progressives, might not often think about. Living in cities like Portland, where I now reside, it’s easy to surround myself with like-minded people. I can go months without encountering someone who openly supports Trump. I shop at co-ops, drink organic kombucha, and live in a liberal bubble. It’s a far cry from the paycheck-to-paycheck existence I grew up in, and it’s a reality that’s not reflective of most of working-class America.
That’s where Roseanne comes in. The show reminds those of us who live in urban, progressive enclaves that most people in America don’t have the luxury of insulating themselves from political differences. They can’t afford to distance themselves from family members or neighbors with opposing views. They’re too busy trying to make ends meet. While we may be privileged enough to spend our time debating politics and protesting, many Americans are just trying to get by, focusing on how to pay the next month’s rent or grocery bill. For them, political affiliation takes a backseat to survival.
In this sense, Roseanne offers a valuable lesson to progressives. It shows that it’s easy to lose sight of what really matters when we’re consumed by political divisions. Complaining about Trump supporters from the comfort of our well-furnished, eco-friendly homes doesn’t make us activists—it just makes us complainers. Progress isn’t made through echo chambers or self-righteousness. If we truly care about social justice and equality, we need to step outside of our bubbles and engage with people who don’t share our views. We need to focus on real issues—like creating jobs, improving education, and expanding access to healthcare—that affect all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
What Roseanne did so well in the past, and continues to do in its revival, is portray the reality of working-class life without making it a political statement. The Conners aren’t Republicans or Democrats—they’re a family, first and foremost. They disagree, they fight, but they ultimately stick together because they have no other choice. This is a reality that many Americans live every day. They can’t afford to alienate their family members over politics because their survival depends on one another. In a time when our political discourse is more divisive than ever, Roseanne offers a reminder that we can disagree with each other and still coexist.
In the end, Roseanne is as much a mirror of America today as it was 20 years ago. It may not be as subtle as it once was, but perhaps that’s because the times demand more directness. As progressives, we should take a lesson from the show: instead of focusing on our political differences, we should concentrate on the issues that unite us all. After all, most Americans—regardless of who they voted for—are just trying to make it through the month. It’s time we start paying attention to their struggles, instead of just our own.
