By Joe Queenan
I am often accused of being a knee-jerk reactionary whose battle
cry is, "Just leave it the way it was." But sometimes I welcome
change where others do not. Social-media criticism in the wake of
Ronald McDonald's recent makeover is a perfect example. It seems
that some people didn't approve of Ronald's new hip, urban look.
They didn't like the cargo pants, the red jacket. They didn't like
the hair or even the attitude. They liked him the way he was.
I did not. I never liked Ronald McDonald's look, much less his
vibe. For years, I patronized Burger King and Chuck E. Cheese just
because I preferred the king's regal duds and the rodent's
sartorially nuanced get-ups to the stupid clown costume Ronald
McDonald always wore. Ronald McDonald's buffoonish threads may have
been appropriate in the 1970s era of leisure suits and Fu-Manchus
and Jimmy Carter. But sooner or later, that neo-Bozo look had to
go.
Just as the feds gave Ben Franklin a new look on the $100 bill
back in 1996--ditching the archaic, politically incorrect fur
collar and replacing it with something kewl--McDonald's desperately
needed to bring its mascot into the modern age. The company says it
gave Ronald the makeover because it wanted to enhance his image on
social media. I agree with this decision. Previously, Ronald had a
scary, Insane Clown Posse look, inappropriate for Twitter and
Facebook.
Ronald McDonald never seemed completely in control. He always
looked addled, overexcited, kind of fried. The fright wig didn't
help. I never wanted him anywhere near my kids. Now he looks sane,
rational, together. He looks like Ronny McDonald from Human
Resources or somebody you might meet at a book-signing by someone
named Jonathan in Brooklyn.
I'm loving the new look. Which is hard for me to admit. I hated
it when the Catholic Church switched over from Latin to English and
let clerics start threatening the congregation with acoustic
guitars. I hated it when Sammy Hagar replaced David Lee Roth in Van
Halen. I still hate baseball's designated hitter rule. But I'm
totally on board with the new Ronald McDonald. The dude rocks.
This is yet another case where the public needs to get over
itself. The public instinctively complains about things like New
Coke (which was actually quite good) and smaller cars (which make
it cheaper to drive) and slot machines that dispense receipts
instead of coins so that people like my mom, God rest her soul,
don't get trampled or mugged.
The public always gets its hackles up about sensible innovations
like seat belts and granola and the all-volunteer military and
no-smoking rules in cancer wards. The public needs to zip it.
Here's another case where newer is better. The video review of
challenged calls by umpires has incensed many baseball purists.
They say that it slows down the game. But video review means that
the umps are more likely to get calls right. I like instant
challenges so much that I would like to see them applied to other
areas of life.
You said that you would love, honor and obey me for richer or
poorer, for better or worse, till death do us part. No, I never
said anything about richer or poorer. Let's go to the video review.
You said that you wanted growth and income, so I put you in
Argentine short-term munis. No, I specifically said that I wanted
preservation of capital and income. Let's go check the tape.
The last item on the list is architecture. People get all
teary-eyed when revered buildings get the ax. Not me. I'm glad that
New York's Whitney Museum of American Art is moving downtown. They
can set the old building on fire for all I care; it looks like
something the Stasi designed.
I feel the same way about Shea Stadium and the Spectrum and the
old Boston Gardens. Gut 'em. Raze 'em. They look like the old
Ronald McDonald.
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires