I think private citizens who educate themselves on a particular issue & get involved in trying to change policy for the better sometimes end up being better informed on that issue than professional politicians who deal with many issues, & often are distracted by personal politics & unreasonable demands from supporters.
I trust Sting’s knowledge of rain forest ecology a good deal less than an expert, but much more than my Congressman.
So when somebody tells you that actors & musicians shouldn’t try to influence the election, ask them who they think should be politically active: Should it be restricted to TV newsreaders? armed services personnel? Monsanto?
That we all should be involved (or at least informed) with politics is a valid point foolsguinea but that does not, however, mean that actors or musicians are any more informed than the rest of us are. The problem with the likes of Sting or Bono getting involved in political issues is that there is very rarely an opportunity to debate these people on the merits of the issue. That is, Sting and Bono can make all sorts of claims and they are rarely challenged on them. There is no accountability for what they say or do. Politicians are at least somewhat accountable for what they say and do. Stars can use the pulpit that fame gives them to address wide audiences who are only given one side of the story.
So yes, stars should be poltically aware but that doesn’t mean I need to give a singer with a 10th grade education any more defference then I would give a man in the street.
I don’t recall offhand anyone advocating that a celebrity’s political views should be given more weight than those of the Man on the Street™.
If anything, I think the problem is that too many of us give excess weight to the political views of our various self-made pundits, on the mistaken assumption they somehow have more insight than the MotS does. What makes Ann Coulter any more qualified to give her political views than elucidator, to pick an example?
I don’t have too much respect for Sting’s position on the environment, since seeing him interviewed about how Concorde was a wonderful thing that shouldn’t be scrapped, rather than complaining about it’s disproportionate contribution of CO2 emissions.)
I have little respect for most actors’ or musicians’ views on the issues. I don’t simply dismiss them because they are actors or musicians, but because they are ignorant. As a whole, I have yet to find an example of a particularly well-informed actor or musician who is speaking up in this election. These people know how to play instruments well, have good voices, or can act. These skills don’t qualify them to speak out on politics. And that is the only reason they get any media attention. It surely is not because they are well-informed on the issues.
For example, I read Rolling Stone’s issue on the Vote for Change concert, where they have numerous musicians stating why they were part of the concert. I was appalled at the complete idiocy of what they were saying. Alicia Keys, for instance, was saying that under Bush a lot of money had been taken out of public schools. In fact, Bush has dramatically increased funding for education. Some guy from the Grateful Dead was saying that Cheny is on retainer to Halliburton. Sorry, but receiving deferred compensation from a company is not being on their retainer. Bruce Springsteen stated that numerous after-school programs had been cut by the feds. Nope, Boss, but that simply never happened.
All in all, it is clear that these people do not do any real research into political issues; they simply believe the distortions and half-truths fed to them by left-wing spin groups. They don’t actually look into anything for themselves. Until I see an actor or musician who actually does this, then I’m going to simply disregard what they are saying.
Some of the scandals which plagued the Beatles during their career had to do with the widespread beblief that the pop group had an enormous negative influence on an entire generation of yong people. John Lennon’s “We’re more popular than Jesus” remark was seen as bragging about having supplanted Christianity in the affections of young people, and the Beatles were also accused of influencing countless kids to take up drugs.
Later, Lennon decided, “If I’m so bloody influential, I want to use that influence for something positive, like world peace”. And yet he was then immediately ridiculed for thinking he had any such influence at all.
The problem with self education, is being able to keep an open mind on the subject. Self educated activists often start from the premise I feel A is bad. It is very hard for such a person to then deal fairly with educational meterial that opposes that view. You can end up with people like our recently banned snakespirit who seemed very well educated about psichic occurences, but woefully neglegent of the counter arguments about their possible existance. Unless you can self educate yourself with a fairly open mind, you can get caught up in dangerous missleading teritory. For instance the extreme sides of pro-life or animal rights, are well self educated, but blinkered.