Here’s this week’s piece that I wrote for the Oxy Weekly here at Occidental.
This summer, in one of his campaign ads, Senator John McCain compared Senator Barack Obama to a celebrity of the same ranks as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Aside from the irony that Hilton and Sarah Palin, McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee, have the same amount of foreign policy experience, this ad raised an interesting question: Why is it so verboten to mix politics and celebrity?
It seems that whenever a celebrity, usually a liberal, voices an opinion on politics, there’s typically at least one voice saying that the person should shut up because they’re a celebrity who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. By this logic, when you become famous you have to stick to the script of what you’re famous for because that is all you are allowed to be. Take the case of the Dixie Chicks for instance. When singer Natalie Maines told a London audience back in 2003 that the band was ashamed to be from the same state as George W. Bush, it was met with record bans from country music stations and death threats. During this controversy, country singer Charlie Daniels wrote on his blog that celebrities should not voice their opinions on politics because that’s not part of the job description. Daniels is steadfast in this opinion as can be seen in other blog posts where he defends the Bush administration and says that Guantanamo Bay prisoners are being treated humanely.
In the days of yore, politics and celebrity were close pals. The Kennedys were good friends with Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack and really good friends with Marilyn Monroe. To be fair though, these were just friendships, it’s not like there are any celebrities who successfully go into politics. Well, except for Congressman Sonny Bono…and Senator Fred Thompson…and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger…and President Ronald Reagan. Interestingly enough, all of these entertainers turned politicians are or were Republicans. Wait a minute; aren’t they supposed to be the party that’s not supposed to be about celebrity?
I think the real issue here shouldn’t be whether one is a celebrity or not, but whether the messenger is reliable. When the term “celebrity” is thrown around in political circles, it usually means ill informed, out of touch and too popular. It’s all a question of credibility. By calling Obama a celebrity and actually comparing him to Britney Spears, who shortly after the events of September 11th said we should follow the President and support him no matter what, McCain seeks to paint Obama as one craving attention and the limelight while having nothing to say.
Any idiot without a high school degree can call Rush Limbaugh and say Obama’s a Muslim terrorist, but if someone like Bruce Springsteen writes a concise endorsement of Obama, he’s labeled as a celebrity who is out of touch with “real Americans” like Joe Long-Time-Listener-First-Time-Caller. This is not to say that all celebrity opinions are worth listening to. If 50 Cent were to announce tomorrow that he was supporting Obama, I would be skeptical unless he gave a long point-by-point memo on what Obama has done to make him qualified to be Commander in Chief.
So, what are we to do? We shouldn’t care about whether an opinion is voiced by a celebrity, a hardened politician or an anonymous Midwestern farmer. We should care only about the message being presented. This is America and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Unfortunately, everyone includes those who were convinced in 1960 that John F. Kennedy was going to take orders directly from the Pope or those who believe now that Obama is harboring terrorists.
If we just stopped for a moment to think, we could be done with this celebrity silliness and focus not on who said what, but what was said. For, you see, every politician wants to be famous on some level and I think it’s safe to say that Martin Sheen was the best President the United States has had in the last decade.