Great Debates may not be the place for this, but i couldn’t think of anywhere else to put it. My thread was motivated by something written in this thread:
Now, whenever i see a Doper praising celebrities for their “political attitude,” i do a search of that person’s posts, and often come up with something like the following (from this thread):
The bolding in the quote is mine.
Why is Tom Hanks, who you seem such a big fan of, not just another celebrity playing on his fame to advance his own agenda? As the OP in that other thread said, Hanks was speaking in an official capacity at a D-Day memorial mainly because he happened to star in Saving Private Ryan.
Even more to the point, Hanks is, and has been for years, a National Spokesman for the huge World War II memorial currently being built between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument on the Mall in Washington, D.C. If ever there was an issue dealing in politics and influence, it is the building of this memorial.
I don’t intend to get into a debate over the relative merits of the memorial itself; that’s not the point here. Rather, i just want to point out that Tom Hanks is no different from any other celebrity, male or female, left or right, black or white, who trades on their celebrity status to advance a political cause.
Granted, some celebrities actually go to the trouble of informing themselves about the issues they champion, while others simply parrot what they’ve heard elsewhere. But, whether informed or not, these celebrities know that people listen to them less for what they say than for who they are.
I also find it interesting that many who are so outspoken in opposition to celebrity activism focus only on liberal or left celebrities when making their condemnations. Where, Sam Stone, in the post i quoted above, is your contempt for Charlton Heston or Arnold Schwarzenegger?
I happen to agree with your statement that “We are in danger of becoming a society ruled by a celebrity class,” but it’s a pretty hollow assertion when your definition of “activist Hollywood” only includes those whose political position you disagree with.
So, Sam likes the activism of those celebrities who he agrees with and dislikes the activism of those he doesn’t agrees with. This is hypocisy*? I thought it was called “being human.” Better that you take him to task for believing that the public persona is the private person.
Well, firstly, i never explicitly accused Sam of hypocrisy, although i see that it could be inferred from my post.
Secondly, now that you mention it, i think the term does apply. If the central point of his argument had been that only liberal or left celebrities are bad, then i couldn’t charge him with any inconsistency and would instead address that particluar point. However, he expressed support for the general point that celebrities have too much clout in public debates over political issues, and that they do so purely because they are famous and not necessarily because they have anything intelligent to say. If this general point is in fact true (which itself is open to debate, although i think there’s much truth in it), then it shouldn’t matter whether one agrees with the celebrity or not.
In both the quoted posts, he praised Tom Hanks, in one saying that he was a “bad example” of an activist celebrity. But, as my post pointed out, Hanks has been quite happy to parlay his movie fame into political clout on at least one issue. Perhaps i should have given Sam the benefit of the doubt, in that he may not have known about Hanks and the WWII Memorial.
But i would still ask the question about why the only celebrities he specifically criticizes for their “activism” are those in the left/liberal part of the political spectrum.
“But i would still ask the question about why the only celebrities he specifically criticizes for their “activism” are those in the left/liberal part of the political spectrum.”
Because he is not a Leftist. Sorry, but didn’t I just imply that in my previous post?
Wow. I’m glad that I’m being researched so heavily. I think.
But first off, that quote at the top of your message says nothing about whether or not they should have access to Congress, which is what the other quote from me is talking about. In that first quote, I was merely pointing out that there seems to be a new political alignment which is typified by those people - call it the ‘radical center’ if you want.
I have no problem with celebrities of any sort being politically active. That’s just being a good citizen.
What I have a problem with is the GOVERNMENT giving them special access to lawmakers just because they are CELEBRITIES.
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. I give Martin Sheen kudos for standing up for his beliefs when he gets arrested for civil disobedience. I have no problem with celebrities engaging themselves in the political process, no matter how nutty they might be.
What I have a problem with is politicians allowing celebrities to testify in front of congress about their pet cause, when the celebrity is not in an authoritative position. These people are often trotted in for pure PR purposes, or because the politicians are star struck. But then my criticism is saved for the lawmakers themselves, and not the celebrities who are just trying to get their opinions heard. I’d probably try to do the same thing myself.
That said, there are some shades of gray here. For instance, Bono is a celebrity, and one I often disagree with. But frankly, his hard work for causes he believes in has made him into somewhat of an expert on some of these issues. I think he has earned the right to enter the political process in a big way, including testifying before Congress if he thinks that’s necessary and can get an audience. I have no problem with that, or with the politicians who allow him access to testify or lobby.
That’s a little different than a celebrity testifying on nuclear regulations because she happened to play a nuclear scientist in a movie, y’know? If a celebrity wants to put in the work required to be a legitimate expert on an issue, then sure. Listen to them. In other words, the govermment should treat them equally with non-celebrities.
We are supposed to be a classless society. When celebrities have special access to the corridors of power just because they are celebrities, then they start to play the role of royalty. And that sucks.
Quite right. Time was, when the country was decently run, that the role of royalty, special access and all, was reserved to the rich, as God intended. And not some celluloid parvenus but the respectable rich, men who had gained thier wealth honestly, by squeezing the life out of the working class.
What are we coming to, when vapid, mindless actors whose only skill is standing where they are told to stand and mouthing the cretinous platitudes written for them, are credited with the wisdom and intelligence of a banker or the stern honesty of a CEO.
Except for Ronald Reagan, of course, scholar, philosopher and President. That’s different.
Yes, yes, i got that. But a GENERAL point is just that; you can’t claim something as a generality and then only apply it specifically.
But it’s good that Sam has weighed in here, because it seems from his post that he and i are closer on the issue of celebrities and politics than i originally believed, irrespective of what our own personal politics may be. Still, i do have a few comments.
True enough. I was using that first quote as a launching pad for examining your earlier post from the other thread.
Ah ha! Now i see where you’re coming from. This position was not quite so clear in your earlier post. While you started off with the criticism of Congress for listening to Meryl Streep, you descended into what sounded a lot like criticism of celebrities for simply standing up for their beliefs.
Such as when you criticised
or complained that
None of these activities reflect on Congress or government - they are simply the attempts of these celebrities to advance their own political beliefs, which you say you have no porblem with.
I’ll be the first to agree that Congress (and the American people) should not listen to people JUST because they are celebrities. But, if you happen to hear what a celebrity has to say on an issue, it IS worth attempting to evaluate the argument itself, without reference to the person’s celebrity status. Rejecting an argument out of hand just because it is made by someone famous, as some people seem to do, is no more intellectually defensible than accepting it uncritically for the same reason.
But who is to be the arbiter of whether or not a celebrity has actually gained sufficient knowledge or expertise to speak on an issue? Bono happens to be very high-profile in his activities, but it is possible for a celebrity to gain similar levels of knowledge about an issue without all the attendant publicity. When that person then seeks to utilize their knowledge in the public sphere, do we then reject them because they have doing their learning out of the public eye?
And should we, on the other hand, simply accept Bono’s analysis because we happen to have heard that he’s been touring around the world looking at certain issues? It’s important to remember that some people can spend all the time they want on an issue and still not understand it very well. There are people (non-celebrities) who have been working their whole lives on the same causes that Bono has taken up quite recently, and yet he gets immediate access to powerful politicians while the real experts often continue to be ignored. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when lawmakers and the public will only pay attention to an issue when it’s plugged by a rock star or an actor. Reminds me of an Onion headline from a while back - “Rare Disease Nabs Big-Time Celebrity Spokesman.”
And i think that elucidator’s ironic post makes considerable sense as well (if i’ve interpreted it correctly). Why complain about the “agendas” of celebrities, and ignore the blatant self-interest displayed by corporate representatives, lobbyists, etc. who also give testimony in front of Congressional committees when legislation is being considered? Just because these people are “experts” in their particular area of business or whatever, doesn’t mean that they are necessarily experts on the subject being considered, nor does it guarantee that their testimony will be in anyone’s interest but their own. For example, when a major corporate polluter is arguing in front of Congress that taxpayers rather than his corporation should pay to clean up corporate-polluted Superfund sites, i think i’d prefer to hear from Meryl Streep, painful as that may be.
To tell you the truth, while i think that the cult of celebrity that pervades our society is pretty awful, i don’t get too worked up about celebrity politics because i don’t think they have quite the impact that many people think. I think most of us (and i don’t exempt myself here) tend to have a certain amount of respect for celebrities whose politics agree with our own, and ignore or abuse celebrities who are active in causes we oppose. When an actor or someone similar is up there advocating a cause you believe in, it’s hard to take a principled stand against celebrity activism. And, personally, while i agree with what some celebrities say on certain issues, i think i can honestly say that my own opinion on an issue has never been either changed or strengthened based on the opinion of a celebrity. Although that could change if Britney Spears ever takes up a cause i like - i would have to dump it in a flash.
Hey, I’m not really worked up about it either. I’ve posted over 5000 messages on this board. Celebrities and politics might make up a handful of them. I’m not losing any sleep.
And aren’t I allowed to be ANNOYED at people like Barbara Streisand and Meryl Streep, without wanting the government to silence them or something? I hate celebrities who engage in activist politics, but don’t have a clue what they are talking about. I’m allowed to dislike them, aren’t I? And of course, not being a liberal, the ones who are liable to annoy me the most are the liberals. I’ll let you be annoyed by the conservatives who do the same thing.
elucidator: Look, don’t you actually have anything to contribute any more? This act of yours is getting tiresome. You’re getting in the habit of dive-bombing threads and leaving pithy little comments that are nothing more than a distraction. In case you haven’t noticed, saying “Neener neener” does not constitute a Great Debate.
Not to speak for mhendo, but I think he/she would want to know how you know Barbara Streisand doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about, and why you believe she deserve criticism and Tom Hanks doesn’t. Could it be that both are equally educated and that one just has views that differ from yours?
This is a weird thread, though. What exactly are we debating? Whether or not Sam Stone is a hypocrite? Seems more Pit-appropriate IMHO.
Celebrities or not, testifying to Congress is 1) a PR joke, as in the panels of experts that senators trot out for effect when they could just as easily ask them to write a more useful report in private, or 2) a political weapon, as in the case of Enron, Iran-Contra, Thomas, Monica, Watergate, McCarthy, etc.
It is certainly not some kind of hallowed civic honor.
It’s a strange one, all right. I didn’t realize people were scanning the archives for my messages to try and prove I’m a hypocrite or something. And I think even the OP admitted that it was a pretty big stretch to connect those two threads and conclude that I was being hypocritical. In the first thread, all I did was say that a certain group of celebrities seemed to have the same political viewpoint, and that I liked them all. The other thread, from half a year ago, was about access to the corridors of power. Two totally different things. If someone wants to pit me over that, great. I’ll be there with bells on.
elucidator: Yes, that was a flippant response on my part. I deemed that to be a reasonable reaction to your completely useless little hijack about rich men, the working classes, and Ronald Reagan being elected.
Now, if you had been a more reasonable poster, you might have tried to actually make a point, rather than a snide interlude. Here, let me help you:
Is celebrity access to government really any worse than the access to government that lobbyists and rich people have? At least celebrities have the cameras on them, so we can see what they are up to. It’s a lot worse when some representative for a big oil company or the record industry meets with a senator behind closed doors and offers him big campaign financing support in return for special legislation. In comparison to these guys, Hollywood celebrities are trivial. Let them have their say - the union will stand.
There you go. Let me know if you need some more help honing your rhetoric.
Hey, i conceded in the OP that i wasn’t sure whether this was worth of GD. But it wasn’t really intended as a flame at Sam, so i didn’t want it in the Pit either. And i think it’s produced some useful discussion. If you’re not interested any more, feel free not to participate.
Any hypocrisy i might have seen in Sam’s ideas was not between the earlier thread and the later one, but rather within the earlier one, where he said that Tom Hanks was not a good example of an egregiously activist celebrity, but the others were.
Now, as i suggested, and as Sam confirmed, he may not have known about Hanks’s political lobbying for the WWII Memorial when he posted. I would be interested to know, given that i’ve told you about Hanks and provided a couple of links to the issue in question, whether Sam would change his assessment?
monstro wrote:
That is another consideration that came to mind. It seems that we often tend to define celebrities who we disagree with as ones who don’t have a clue, and ones we agree with as being well-informed. Our opinions are often not based on any actual knowledge of the celebrity’s own level of research, knowledge, expertise, etc. I’d be interested to know whether Sam has actually heard or read Meryl Streep’s testimony to learn whether it had any merit.
But, even if it did, i agree that if she was asked to speak to Congress simply because she was in Silkwood, then that’s a pretty shitty reason.
