Monday, July 25, 2005
Stars in Our Eyes
I tend to be a 1st Amendment absolutist, in this sense: if somebody's got something to say, then I think we need to shut up and let them say it. (The other side of the coin, natch, is that then we get a turn.)
Even so, I find it hard to disagree with Paul Waldman's analysis:
What Waldman is saying, though, is not that celebrities have no right to speak up in public. He's saying that along with that right (as the cliché has it) comes a responsibility: to ask yourself the question, How can I best help the cause I'm espousing? Celebrities have a special obligation to assess their impact not just on their supporters' morale (which is where the celebs' presence and support might help), but on the thinking of those not yet converted to the cause. Celebrities are celebrities because of the collective approval of a lot of people, but that approval does not necessarily extend to all facets of a celebrity's existence. Celebrities, in short, need to understand that their negatives have a good chance of reflecting negatively on their causes.
It's true that I don't object to (say) Charlie Daniels's public appearances in support of winger causes. I doubt that Charlie Daniels, though, really imagines that he's going to sway the course of history by yodeling some godawful anthem to God and country. He's preaching to the choir.
Ms. Fonda, Mrs. FLJerseyBoy and I would be happy to have you stay in our guest room for a couple nights and speak to all of us in this area who are on the same side you are. But on a national level, there's gotta be something a little less flagrantly antagonistic and self-unaware that you can do to help us all out.
(Btw, this argument about celebrities' being aware of the full range of the public's response to them applies equally to politicians. This is the main reason why I hope to God, knock on wood, and touch the mezuzah, that Senator Clinton reels in her Presidential ambitions for the foreseeable future.)
Even so, I find it hard to disagree with Paul Waldman's analysis:
Nothing could be more of a testament to the insulated world celebrities live in than the idea that Jane Fonda, by all accounts not a complete idiot, would actually believe that if she were to embark on a public campaign against the Iraq war, it would actually reduce support for the Iraq war. In fact, there may be no single American whose public opposition to the Iraq war would do more to increase support for the war than Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda? Are you friggin' kidding me?Tough issue, it would seem at first glance: Can we really deny JF (or Tim Robbins, etc.) the opportunity to speak their minds? If any of us had an opportunity to host Ms. Fonda (etc.) at our monthly MeetUp, would we really turn the opportunity down?
What Waldman is saying, though, is not that celebrities have no right to speak up in public. He's saying that along with that right (as the cliché has it) comes a responsibility: to ask yourself the question, How can I best help the cause I'm espousing? Celebrities have a special obligation to assess their impact not just on their supporters' morale (which is where the celebs' presence and support might help), but on the thinking of those not yet converted to the cause. Celebrities are celebrities because of the collective approval of a lot of people, but that approval does not necessarily extend to all facets of a celebrity's existence. Celebrities, in short, need to understand that their negatives have a good chance of reflecting negatively on their causes.
It's true that I don't object to (say) Charlie Daniels's public appearances in support of winger causes. I doubt that Charlie Daniels, though, really imagines that he's going to sway the course of history by yodeling some godawful anthem to God and country. He's preaching to the choir.
Ms. Fonda, Mrs. FLJerseyBoy and I would be happy to have you stay in our guest room for a couple nights and speak to all of us in this area who are on the same side you are. But on a national level, there's gotta be something a little less flagrantly antagonistic and self-unaware that you can do to help us all out.
(Btw, this argument about celebrities' being aware of the full range of the public's response to them applies equally to politicians. This is the main reason why I hope to God, knock on wood, and touch the mezuzah, that Senator Clinton reels in her Presidential ambitions for the foreseeable future.)
