Legitimacy
Read an interesting defense on Dean Esmay’s site of why liberal celebrities talking about politics are shooting their mouths off, but conservative celebrities running for office with no qualifications but their celebrity is A-OK.
Apparently, it’s because when they run for office, that gives them “legitimacy.”
Yeah. That’s the ticket.
When you run for office, you show that you’re serious about politics or at least want to be serious about politics– even if you’re an idiot and a bad candidate.
The Dixie Chicks were just shooting their mouths off. Unlike liberals like Susan Sarandon and Bono, they haven’t proven that they have political opinions more complicated than the low-brow “Bush looks like a chimp” variety. And their posing nude on the cover of Us just shows what little PR-hounding bimbos they are.
Am I supposed to take this crap seriously just because I take Arnold seriously? And I do take Arnold seriously — I have to (we all have to) because he’s now the governor of California and, for good or ill, in a position of considerable power. When the Dixie Chicks hold public office, I’ll take them seriously too — until then I’ll just mentally file them under “pop tarts who share a brain.”
I guess one of the things I object to is how the press considered Arnold a serious candidate from Day 1 (Day 1 being his announcement on The Tonight Show), while all the other celebrity candidates were jokes. Are Gary Coleman’s political views more important than the Dixie Chicks’ political views, just because he was on the ballot?
Well, Gary Coleman was a “joke” candidate like that porn star… people understood his run to be a publicity stunt. If he was serious, he certainly didn’t show it!
On the other hand, Arianna Huffington was considered a serious candidate even though she had no chance in Hell (too bad). It’s because she has serious political intentions. And Arnold does too (though he was certainly vague on details!) — the Republican Party has been trying to get him to run for years so he already had a base of people who took him seriously.
I think people do take politically-minded celebrities seriously, but only when they’ve shown themselves to be serious. Conservatives don’t usually single out Bono for ridicule, for instance — but he uses his influence in a productive way, meeting with Bush and trying to work with the Adminstration to further his cause against AIDS.
Also, right-wingers probably don’t listen to U2 or see a lot of Susan Sarandon movies, anyway. The Dixie Chicks thing pissed them off especially because 1) it’s country music 2) they seemed to be trying to curry favor with a European audience by dissing Bush.
And Arnold’s run was not a publicity campaign? He provided no substance, arguably less substance than Gary Coleman. At least Gary Coleman laid down his extreme views on the issues so they could be ridiculed. Arnold couldn’t even be bothered to let his constituents know his stands on issues, and he couldn’t be bothered to enter into a real debate so voters could see how he stacks up when the pressure is on. One liners don’t cut it in day-to-day lobbying with state senators, who are especially surly in California.
There are many legitimate ways to participate in the political system. One is to run for office. Another is to vote (which Arnold did very little of). Another is to be active locally – most of us forget about this one. Another is to speak your mind to your community. Famous people have a much larger community than you and I. By speaking out, they can be more influential – and they should be. Strong citizens speak out when they feel strongly about an issue. Courageous citizens speak out even when it’s an unpopular opinion.
Whatever your views of Arnold’s politics, his run was not a PR stunt designed by his publicist to get him more acting parts. How is it a mere publicity stunt when he actually won? Despite what you or I might think of him, the majority of people in California wanted him as their governor.
If a famous person has the courage to shoot their mouths off, good for them — doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously if I find them distasteful or stupid.
Arnold’s run was a PR stunt for his own ego. The man is a pampered movie star used to being adored. By his sexually predatory actions he’s clearly desperate for power and attention. What better way to get power and attention than to steal control of the fifth largest economy in the world through a recall founded on false claims against Davis.
By the way, I saw a ton of promos for Arnold’s movies over the course of his campaign. He earns money every time his movies airs, every time one of those promos pays off with a movie ticket purchase. There’s another personal benefit for the gubernator.
His candidacy was a PR stunt to distract the people from the real causes of California’s economic woes – criminal actions by Enron and its fellow energy companies (California was made vulnerable to them by the policies of Arnold’s buddy Pete Wilson) and the failed domestic/international policies of dubya, which have led more than California to deficits.
Like a traditional PR campaign, his candidacy offered flashy events, spin and no substance. Without his PR campaign of a candidacy, California may have had to confront the fact that the goverfnor isn’t the cause of its economic problems. They may have realized that the solutions are more complex than replacing the governor, more complex than a neophyte powergrabber can handle.
Of course it’s your choice to listen to others views. The term “shooting one’s mouth off” is more appropriate, though, when people criticize the famous and demean their character for even speaking.
The Dixie Chicks said what they said in Europe because they didn’t think it would get back to their American fans (otherwise they would have been saying it in the US, too). It was a tactical error, not an Act of Political Courage. And I’m not shooting my mouth off just because I can see that. They’re hardly serious politically-minded celebrities. I have no problem with politically active famous people who speak their minds (I admire Bono, for instance), but I reserve the right to judge what they say and see no reason why I should defend them all equally.
Do you defend every idiot celebrity who makes an ass of himself (including Bruce Willis and Arnold), or just the anti-Bush ones? Why are the Dixie Chicks, who further exploited their controversy by posing nude, politically courageous individuals (how dare we criticize them), while Arnold’s being chosen governor by the majority of voters in California is a mere publicity stunt, in your mind?
You might not agree with the Republican Party’s choice of candidate and think they hijacked the election with a campaign of no substance and that Arnold is an egotistical pig — that’s one thing, and I happen to agree with you. But you’re not using the term “publicity stunt” in the way it’s normally meant. The porn star’s run was a publicity stunt, Gary Coleman’s run was a publicity stunt. Arnold’s was not — it was a serious run with the support of the GOP.
Not to get in the middle of this, but I didn’t think the Dixie Chicks were “courageous.” I just didn’t think they should have been attacked for voicing a political opinion, whatever it was. If they had said they supported Bush and the war, they would have been celebrated, but because they said something unpopular to their base, they were vilified. And they expressed an opinion shared by a lot of people, activists and “regular people” alike.
I’m not an activist. But I have political opinions and a way to share them – this site. Does my opinion matter? That’s up to the reader.
One thing I was trying to get at with this post is, I abhor the hypocrisy of the “Shut up and sing” right, who think the Dixie Chicks are traitors for attacking Bush, but think Arnold is a patriot because he’s nominally on their side. Fact is, they’re all just celebrities.
A comment I wrote on another site on a post about Arnold is appropriate here as well:
First off, there?s a *huge* difference between being able to speak intelligently about political issues, and being able to run a state, especially one with huge problems like California. Do I think Janeane Garofalo has as much right as anyone to speak her mind on political or any other issues? Yes I do. Do I disagree with ?they?re actors so they should just shut up? meme? Yes I do, extremely. That doesn?t mean I want her to become governor of Wisconsin.