Curt Mudgeon

Entertainers have been in the news lately, but not for entertainment. Sean Penn went to inspect Iraq after posting a $56,000 ad in a newspaper to tell the world that he opposed a war. He then was invited to the Larry King show to recite platitudes as if they were profound or original. George Clooney, also opposed to a war, opined that our country seems to be run by the Sopranos. Barbra Streisand has opened a web site where she gives her opinions about current national and international politics and beats on the Bush administration with third-grade arguments and bad spelling. Lesser Hollywood personages, including the inevitable Martin Sheen and Ed Asner, also stepped forward to chant the old tunes out of the Left's songbook and insinuated that the president could be motivated by a family vendetta. A few singers followed. Sheryl Crow, known for "all I wanna do is have some fun," climbed out of her funky groove to contribute profundities of her own, such as "war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is not to have enemies." She went on to speak of "karmic retributions," just to show that she is well-versed in exotic philosophies. In the recent anti-war farce in Washington DC, Jessica Lange declared that she was "the people" and that waging war on Iraq would be motivated by "greed." Hollywood obviously must know about greed. A vociferating Patti Smith, wearing a French beret in true revolutionary style, blamed evil oil and evil oilmen bent on killing "the people." I was disappointed not to see at the event Peter Paul and Mary blow their answer in the wind. Also notably absent was Alec Baldwin, who after all may have moved to Canada or France or Cuba until we forget how big a fool he made of himself a couple of years ago. But all that fuss was not really about war. It was about the Left and its usual cortege of misfits being sore and hysterical about the last elections. Why were they not protesting when our air force bombed the heck out of Serbia in an operation where we had no national interest, and by which we ended up supporting the territorial claims of Islamic guerrillas? Could it have been because at that time the occupant of the White House was the darling of the Left?

It is not uncommon for celebrities to stray from their field of competence to further political causes. Many renowned intellectuals---philosophers, writers, scientists, even mathematicians---have used their reputations of brilliant minds to promote leftist agendas. They were enthusiatic about Stalin and Mao, and are still enamored with Castro. Unfazed by the dismal failure of communism, they attribute its demise to flawed implementations of a Marxist doctrine they still revere for its scientific pretense, its semblance of logic, and its moral claims of justice and institutionalized charity. While their credentials may impress the masses, these credentials have little to do with political wisdom or even plain wisdom. Brilliant minds are not necessarily wise, and frequently harbor inflated egos hungry for the sort of power that Marxist regimes confer on their apparatchiks.

Actors, however, are celebrities of a different kind. With few exceptions, they are known neither for their minds nor their wisdom. Their talent is neither to do nor to educe any deep thinking, but to simulate and to elicit emotions---preferably strong emotions. This is the sort of gift that would get anyone a tad screwed up, and many actors are screwed up in big ways---drugs, booze, and behavioral disorders. "Method" actors see a shrink more often than they see a barber and think it unquestionably normal. By the very nature of their business, actors enjoy enormous popularity, earn big money, and live among their own in protected reservations. But some of them do not find this life of privilege entirely satisfying. With big egos inflated by so much fame and success, they believe that their status should command more influence on our society than it does, and particularly in the political realm, right where true power is to be found. They want to be taken seriously as social do-gooders and opinion leaders. In that respect, they do not much differ from intellectuals, their lack of exceptional intellect notwithstanding. The desire to be taken seriously is encouraged by politicians who see in showbiz personalities good opportunities to draw media attention to themselves. This is why movie stars are invited once in a while to Capitol Hill to testify on this or that. As it is a safe bet that television news cameras will roll when Julia Roberts tearfully requests funds for research on Rett syndrome, Senator X or Representative Y will make sure to sound and look his political best for that shot of free publicity. Of course, inviting a dry-eyed medical expert could have been much more productive, but who in the media would have cared about another ho-hum subcommittee testimony? So, experts from Hollywood appear before congressional panels to advise our elected officials on scientific, economic, or societal problems: Meryl Streep on insecticides, Whoopi Goldberg on homelessness, Carole King on the environment, and Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek, and Jane Fonda on farm life. Bah! And let us not forget the ineffable Bono, specialist of Africa, and his farcical tour of the continent with a Paul O'Neill now mercifully retired.

But why is Hollywood so infatuated with leftist ideologies? Partly for reasons similar to those that move intellectuals, and partly for reasons sui generis. An anecdote may help illustrate the latter point. Twenty years ago, a friend of mine told me of an interesting encounter. At a Californian bed-&-breakfast inn, he had met a former movie star well past his prime. At the breakfast buffet, the man was extolling the merits of socialism before a group of starstruck guests. Capitalism, he said, was morally bankrupt. When my friend challenged his opinions, the former star mentioned that he was about to spend a week in Colorado to act a small part in a movie. For this, he would receive $300,000, which was then about six hundred times the average American weekly salary. He went on to say that an economic system that paid so much money for so little work had to be terribly wrong. Obviously, he saw capitalism through the anamorphic lens of his industry and could not perceive a need for correction. Such views probably pervade the Hollywood Left, whose perceptions of life's realities are limited at best to personal stories of rags to riches on the fast track, and at worse to the phoney realism of "message" movies.

And then, there is the heady feeling to pose as brave, selfless revolutionaries and passionate defenders of "the little guy," which conveniently assuages the uneasiness of having become too rich too fast and being too pampered and too self-involved. As there is not much bravery or selflessness in playing armchair revolutionaries whose speech, properties, and fat bank accounts enjoy the protection of the Constitution, all this pretense is delusion, the stuff of movies.

As anybody else, showbiz celebrities---even Janeane Garofalo---have the constitutional right to say whatever they wish. But we have the duty not to take them seriously when they confuse crude slogans with intelligent debate, or behave like nasty, nitwitted, ignorant brats. And they should accept that.