Credibility of the Hollywood Left

Great Debates
1

According to a Fox News report, more than a hundred entertainers gathered for the purpose of voicing dissent about the impending war on Iraq.

On the one hand, I support what Mike Farrell said:

Indeed it is. In fact, it is criminally fraudulent as far as I’m concerned. But then it occurs to me that Farrell is not privvy to Bush’s intelligence (please, no sophomoric jokes).

Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the administration to brief Mr. Farrell in order to assuage his concerns. Still, I’m having trouble imagining how simply spelling out a case that Iraq is a real — not a hypothetical — threat to Americans would betray any sort of national secret that needs to be withheld from the citizenry. Ethically, you can’t punish someone for something they might do.

But then, Tony Shalhoub spoke:

We all recognize the slippery slope, but a slippery slope is not always a fallacy; not when it can be demonstrated that the slope is real and is indeed slippery. When an elephant is sliding down a ramp, you would be ill advised to stand at the bottom of it.

But is that what the impending Iraq war is? Is it pre-emptive? My understanding was that Bush is intending to enforce UN resolutions. Not that I hold the UN in high regard, but enforcement and pre-emption simply aren’t the same thing.

And finally, Martin Sheen said this:

That’s quite frankly outrageous.

Sure, the government has given him permission to speak his mind, but I’m not talking about the permission; I’m talking about the mind. If those are the sort of opinions that Sheen holds, then he is not a credible man. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve seen a more absurd conspiracy theory from the most paranoid right-wing wacko.

So I’d like to see a debate on whether the Hollywood Left is more epitomized by the tempered thoughtfulness of Mike Farrell, or the raving lunacy of Martin Sheen. Or is it somewhere near the middle, closer to Tony Shalhoub — well meaning but possibly fallacious? And is it dangerous because of its ignorance?

So far, my impression is that the Hollywood Left is a bit daffy, sort of the intellectual equivalent of the religious right. It’s hard for me to erase the indelible image of Barbra Streisand’s fax, with its ubiquitous misspellings and assertions like, “Many of these industries, run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq.”

2

Er, why is what Sheen said so outrageous, exactly? We know W. has a hard-on for Iraq that he doesn’t have for other places that have done similarly bad things – perhaps worse (think North Korea developing nukes). To many people, it looks like W. is focusing on Iraq because it is a sore spot left over from his father’s presidency.

As I said in another thread, the way W. behaves, I get the feeling that UN inspectors could sieve through every grain of sand in Iraq, Hussein himself could go through a full body cavity search in front of W., and if nothing were found, W. would just say this proves that Hussein has gotten better about hiding things and we should go to war to stop him.

Now, I can’t say for certain what is going on in his head (I’ll forego the obvious joke there as well) when it comes to exactly why he is acting this way, but I don’t think it’s that outrageous to think it has something to do with his father.

3

I dont see opposing the war with Iraq to be a right left issue.

Traditionally, in the long history of the United States, it was almost always the conservatives, who oppossed going to any war, and who were the isolationists.

It was the liberals who wanted to meddle in other peoples affairs.

On the other hand, you are right that Hollywood has now become very liberal, very democrat, very socialistic, and very anti-freedom.

This is a major change from the old days, when movie and tv stars were usually conservative, pro-second ammendment, and very much for the freedom of the individual.

Stars like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Clark Gable, Carol Lumbard, Robert Stack, Fess Parker, George Reeves, Barbara Stanwick, etc, all were conservative, very pro-gun. The male stars were real men, and the women were all able to take care of themselves too. Lyndon Johnson could not find any hollywood stars to support him, until he finally got one(only one)- Charleton Heston in 1968.

4

Care to back that claim up?

5

I found what Farrell said to be more ridiculous than what Sheen said.

It is superficially plausible to assume that Bush wants revenge for the attempted assassination of his father. It assumes lowest-common-denominator thinking on Bush’s part, but perhaps Sheen is more familiar with this kind of thinking in Hollywood than he should be. It is pretty common to assume the worst about the motives of your political opponents, obviously.

For Farrell to imply that there is no case whatever for war and/or regime change in Iraq, based on the events since 1998, is pretty stupid and short-sighted. Channeling Neville Chamberlain like that seems more outrageous even than assuming that Bush is only going after Iraq because of what they tried to do to his father.

These are actors, for heaven’s sake. They are used to dealing in superficialities; it is their stock in trade. I don’t know if Sheen is a Method actor, but isn’t part of that figuring out your motivation in a scene, and tailoring your performance to that? Maybe Sheen is in the habit of looking for the emotional motivation of everyone, and therefore assuming this is what is driving Bush.

It is still a fallacy to assume that success in one field guarantees success in every other. Sheen and Farrell might be fine actors, but that doesn’t make their political opinions worth anything more than the average person’s, and generally less than those of the more respected posters on the SDMB.

My favorite example is Jessica Lange testifying before Congress on the farm crises, based on the expertise she gained playing in a movie about the topic. Just like Mike Farrell is no doubt a skilled battlefield surgeon because he was in MAS*H. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

6

You are kidding right? Sarcasm? All anyone has to do is count how many in Hollywood today are against the Bill of Rights, and esp. how many are against the Second Amendment.

7

He’s jnot kidding, Susanann. Welcome to Great Debates. Here, we like provocative statements like “Hollywood has now become… very anti-freedom” to be backed up by some sort of argument supported by data.

If you don’t mind.

8

David wrote:

I agree that the difference between how Bush treats Iraq and how he treats North Korea is odd. But he has explained before that the circumstances are different as he sees it. He says, for example, that China, itself wary of another nuclear power so close, is willing to assist in dealing with Kim. There is apparently no one in the Middle East who cares to stand up to Saddam. (Not that I advocate doing that.) I think that Iraq is a much easier target — tactically and strategically — than North Korea, and is therefore an attractive target.

But the reason that what Sheen said is outrageous, in my opinion, is that it sounds like a bigoted and prejudiced attempt to psychoanalyze Bush based on stereotypes of Southern and Texan macho men. It is not the manifest goal of every southern man to “make mah daddy proud”.

Susanann wrote:

I tend to agree. And I wonder whether it is merely coincidental that the metamorphosis occured about the time of Blaxploitation. I think you might could make the case that this generation of Hollywood is more liberal than previous generations if you could also make the case that children born into privilege and immorality tend to grow up as liberals.

9

“…if you could also make the case that children born into privilege and immorality tend to grow up as liberals.”
<snort!>

10

Really? I can imagine it easily. It’s not so much revealing what you know to the American people – it’s revealing it to Iraq

11

Which would explain Dubya, Lib?

Actors are neither more nor less entitled to or responsible for political views than anyone else, nor are they more or less informed. The same culture that produced Alec Baldwin and Charlie Sheen produced Charlton Heston and Sonny Bono. Why?

12

Huh. Being from Louisiana I’m usually pretty sensitive to stereotypes about Southerners, Lib, but it honestly never occurred to me to interpret Sheen’s remarks in that way. You hardly have to be a macho Texan to want your father to be proud of you (and certainly not to harbor some resentment toward a guy who tried to have your father killed).

13

I’m not going to get into the “anti-freedom” thing, but hasn’t Hollywood always been pretty left-wing? I mean, when Reagan (who was still a New Deal Democrat at the time himself) became president of the Screen Actor’s Guild, he spent most of his time fighting with the Communists in the various unions. HUAC investigated Communist influence in Hollywood, because the perception was that Hollywood was left-wing.

14

I don’t see how that applies in this case since if Iraq has threatened us, they already know it.

15

Plus, with the inspection teams now operating, there are clear mechanisms in place to protect the sources of intelligence.

16

I’m pretty certain that an direct Iraqi threat to U.S. soil isn’t the issue.

17

Heh heh, you used credibility and Hollywood in the same sentence.

They’re actors. They are not policy experts, and they have only as much credibility as any other individuals with similar educational backgrounds and political awareness. What they do have is a platform from which to express their beliefs.

This particular bunch happens to be liberals. Martin Sheen is about as liberal as you can get. Prior to The West Wing he was probably as well known for his activism and arrests as he was for his acting.

Hollywood liberals tend to get the bulk of the press. But there are plenty of Hollywood conservatives around, including a whole list of celebrity NRA members (not to mention their president).

I don’t think it’s possible to characterize Hollywood’s politics, any more than it’s possible to characterize the politics of any other group who happen to share the same career. Some of them are going to be reasonable, some of them are going to be outrageous, and some of them are going to be in the middle.

I will agree that the Hollywood Left is probably going to be daffier than the average liberal, just because the entertainment world can be so skewed and out-of-touch with reality.

But I guess I’m not credible either, because in my own personal opinion, and I don’t know if it’s true, the fact that Bush Sr. was unable to get rid of Saddam Hussein does enter into Bush Jr.'s decisions regarding Iraq.

18

A quibble, SpoilerVirgin. There are relatively few Hollywood conservatives around. Other than Charletom Heston, who you alluded to, the most well-known Hollywood conservatives are John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, and they’re only “around” on celluloid.

19

Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well. There are more, but they’re not coming to mind right now. Does Ted Nugent count?

“Charletom” Heston? Typo, or am I missing a bizzare “charlatan” and/or “Uncle Tom” joke here?

20

typo