Celebrities and politics

I've always had mixed feelings about celebrities and politics.

I know many celebrities feel that promoting their opinions in public is bad for business. Politics and religion are always controversial and talking about them might alienate potential customers. Better to keep one's controversial opinions to oneself, and use the money to fund causes close to one's heart. But on to my own mixed feelings about celebrities and politics.

On the one hand they're entitled to their opinions, just like everyone else. And I suppose they are entitled to use their celebrity, if they want, to promote their opinions, just like other people use their money, or writing skills, or other abilities to promote their opinions. The real question is "Should they?"

Let me give two examples, from the right and from the left.

Jane Fonda was famous for her opposition to the war in Vietnam. She came to my university to speak against the war. I was the only person working against the war who spoke against her coming, not because I thought she was wrong to sit in the seat of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun (although she was), but because she was not an expert on the history or politics of southeast Asia. What difference did it make what she thought? She was not someone was worth listening to about the topic.

I was over-ruled, not on the grounds that anyone respected her opinion (they didn't), but on the grounds that she would draw people to the forum. She did, but how much effect she had on any of them is open to question. We got some starry eyed people who were all agog that they had seen a REAL MOVIE STAR up close. (Big deal! I used to live in L.A. and I am NOT impressed. In fact I'm rather jaded about tourists hunting movie stars.) None of them seemed to pay any attention to what she, or anyone else, had to say about the war, and they crowded out people who came for information, and who would have come anyway. And I was impressed neither with Ms. Fonda's intelligence nor with the extent of her knowledge about the war, at least compared to those of a real expert. She had a right to her opinion, but I wasn't very impressed with it. I am impressed with her films, though. She's a great actress. I have to admit her body is very impressive too. She's kept it in very good shape since the 1960s.

The example I have from the right is Charlton Heston. He has become a spokesperson for the NRA, speaking against gun control. He is a more impressive speaker than Ms. Fonda. He's really got the Moses act down, although he's not much better at reading a script than Ms. Fonda. His movies are at least equally impressive as hers, but that's not why I'm writing this.

Many people told me that they thought Michael Moore had been unfair to him in "Bowling for Columbine" when he pestered him with questions at the end about gun control. I disagree. If Charlton Heston is going to be a spokesperson for the NRA he is going to have to take the tough questions. Unfortunately he couldn't take them. The NRA was unfair to have asked Mr. Heston to take on the task of being their spokesperson. He was a fool to accept. He wasn't qualified.

It's possible, at least theoretically, for a celebrity to be a good spokesperson and advocate for a cause. Maybe George Clooney is finally giving us an example in his campaigning for Darfur. But people have to remember that starring in a movie doesn't necessarily require brains (although it certainly doesn't preclude it, either, any more than having muscles precludes having brains.) Why should I listen to someone who starred in films about any issue other than acting? Why should I listen to a specialist in foreign affairs about their taste in films? No reason at all.

Bennett and Blacks

If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down,

(from CNN.com)

In all the months after Bill Bennett said that I haven't noticed anyone, even The Nation, point out what WOULD happen if we aborted every black baby in the United States. We'd just go back to having Irish criminals. My Irish history professor (no Hibernophile) gleefully claimed to have seen statistics that showed that "every petty thief in the British Isles has an Irish last name." Personally I wouldn't doubt it at all.

Almost immediately someone jumped on him to explain why the Irish, the street criminals of the British Isles, became the stereotyped policemen in the United States, arresting blacks, Puerto Ricans and others who occupied the same social category that the Irish had occupied in the British Isles.

Crime is caused by social conditions, not the existence or non-existence of certain racial and ethnic groups. Until the social conditions that cause crime change crime will continue, regardless of whether we get rid of certain ethnic or racial groups.

A victim of his last conversation?

from the LA Times:

Rice apparently believed that Bush would simply follow the advice of whoever he spoke with. Therefore the one factor determining whether Bush would support the commission was whether Cheney or Rice managed to get to him first.

I've heard Prince Charles described the same way, but no one lets him be the Decider.

Here's what was wrong with Bush from the beginning

He said it himself:

I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.

For those who don't understand capitalism, a group which unfortunately includes the president, you don't spend capital. You invest it. That's what makes it capital, not money. You spend money, or you save it and it becomes capital. You invest capital. That's why savings = investment (S=I) in economics.

But this president doesn't understand economics, capitalism or capital, so he squandered all the political capital he got from 9/11 and his re-election, and now he is bankrupt. And the way he is running the United States, the country will be too, very soon.