Pigboy · July 6, 2011 at 10:11pm

In last week's Ricochet podcast, the boys were talking with guest Ben Shapiro about Hollywood's leftward tilt. Rob was the only one who offered a little resistance—not on the substance of the general argument, but on certain particulars—and it got me thinking.

For the most part, it's my liberal friends who tend to obsess over where the personal and the political meet. Recently, one in particular wondered aloud why a conservative like me had a book on Modern architecture on his shelf; another couldn't wrap his head around the idea that my iPod is filled with live Grateful Dead. And on more than one occasion, I've had liberal friends take offense at my cultural tastes—as if I were only allowed to watch NASCAR and listen to Carrie Underwood.

And I'm totally fine with their expressions of tolerance.

But it seems to me like we're lowering ourselves to their level when we worry about the political affiliations of writers and directors and producers and actors. Can't we just judge a film on its merits? While we're at it, shouldn't it be okay to dig, say, Eddie Vedder's music even though the man himself  serves as a mouthpiece for a heap of left-wing causes?

Or am I the only conservative who doesn't particularly care about an artist's politics?

Comments:


Mark Belling Fan
Joined
Sep '10
Mark Belling Fan

 Most people don't care about the politics of a particular artist. They care when the artist uses a performance (or similar platform) to inject politics.

I was at a Pearl Jam concert in Fall of 2000 when Vedder got boo'd in between songs for riffing about the great Ralph Nader. As soon as they started rocking again, people started cheering again.

GypsyNuke
Joined
Mar '11
GypsyNuke

I think it's a matter of degree and in most cases who cares. 

However, when Bruce Springsteen openly shills for Obama - tilt.  When Paul McCartney takes a swipe at Bush from the White House - tilt.

And maybe it's me, but when conservative artists (I know, there are a few) endorse or criticize, they generally do so in a respectful manner.  Mark Halprin (not an artist, I know ... but) may have crossed the line, even though I think he was right - his mistake was in-artfulness.  Contrast that with Garafalo, Frankin, Streisand, and most others on the left and you don't get insightful commentary, what you get is shrill invective.

In short respectful criticism is different from thoughtless attacks.  I can accept the former, but the latter makes me think twice before spending money on those entertainers.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill

I guess people are more comfortable with niche programming and advertising. I never understood anyone who went out of the way to alienate one-third to one-half of the audience from the get-go.

Pigboy
Joined
Jul '11
Pigboy
EJHill: I guess people are more comfortable with niche programming and advertising. I never understood anyone who went out of the way to alienate one-third to one-half of the audience from the get-go. · Jul 6 at 11:56am

I guess that's my point: I'm not particularly alienated when someone expresses a viewpoint contrary to my own. Sure, it's annoying, but if I let it affect me any more than that it seems like I'd miss out on a lot of great music, art, film, etc.

It's sort of like Wagner. The Ring is one of man's greatest artistic achievements in any medium. That fact that the man was an arse doesn't change that. For me, anyway.

Lance
Joined
Nov '10
Lance

I largely defer to Pat Sajak's comments on the podcasts to educate my view on this.  If I may be allowed to paraphrase, he opines that Hollywood is essentially business.  It has its own rules and such, but they are still ultimately seeking a bottom line.  

What separates it from other businesses, is that its the business is selling culture.  As such because its content is produced by folks that inherently define themselves as artists, it skues toward their world view.   This is especially so since those in charge of the business are so often also "artists".  Their product reflects the way they look at the world.  Even if they are not intending to be, as I imagine the case to be, overtly  political.  Its just reflects their reality.  For the truly politically motivated amongst them, the more successful they become in their business, the more isolated they becomes from the real world, and the more convinced their world view is the only world view.  

And the Hollywood that everyone sees and hears played out in front of them, the attractive and, potentially, artistically talented folks that "everyone" ends up seeking to emulate, also tends to love Kool-Aid.

Starve the Beast
Joined
Dec '10
Starve the Beast

PB, I think you may have missed the point. It's not important how your favorite actor or musician votes, but the hard left has co-opted the entertainment industry. This is a powerful propaganda tool, and boy, do they use it.

Rich, glitzy celebs make liberalism look cool, and regularly demonize conservatism. This has an impact on Americans that I DO care about.

Leslie Watkins
Joined
Sep '10
Leslie Watkins

I think Shapiro's primary gripe is that the industry discriminates in its hiring, despite its repeated pronouncements of being for diversity, etc. That said, I personally have had it up to the moon with hearing performers espouse their political beliefs. Even the country stars are getting into it: on one of the gazillion county award shows last year, hosts Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood ripped on BP in their opening song, and I just groaned. I don't turn on the TV or go to the movies to hear trite lectures from celebrities but especially not from performers who probably use more gasoline in one night on tour than my entire neighborhood uses in a year. Please, celebs, just shut up and sing!

Pigboy I guess that's my point: I'm not particularly alienated when someone expresses a viewpoint contrary to my own. Sure, it's annoying, but if I let it affect me any more than that it seems like I'd miss out on a lot of great music, art, film, etc.

Jul 6 at 12:16pm

Pigboy
Joined
Jul '11
Pigboy

Good point, Lance—the idea of Hollywood as a business whose product is culture. Hadn't quite thought of it that way.

In the podcast I mentioned in my original post, Rob had something interesting to say about Hollywood and culture: The generation that grew up watching Leave It to Beaver spent the latter half of the 60s rioting in the streets, while the generation that grew up watching All in the Family voted for Reagan.

What I take from Rob's observation is that maybe we give Hollywood too much credit for shaping American culture. Maybe—just maybe—we can think on our own, for good or for ill.

John Grant

 I agree that obsessing over the personal politics of artists is not generally useful, but conservatives are right to be concerned about the liberal dominance of "culture" or to be more precise poetry in the classical sense.

To employ an over-used image, liberals cast the shadows on the wall of our cave. 

Thank God for the internet and alternative media!

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Sean Penn is a creep.  And Harvey Milk was a pedophile.

But Penn's depiction of Milk was one of the greatest feats of acting in cinematic history. 

Charlton Heston was a fine patriot.  And one of the worst actors in the annals of Hollywood.

Make of it what you will.

Todd
Joined
Oct '10
Todd
Kenneth: But Penn's depiction of Milk was one of the greatest feats of acting in cinematic history. 

After I saw Milk, I watched the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, and I wanted Penn's Academy award to be rescinded.  Penn was playing a cartoon of a gay guy, not Harvey Milk. 

Edited on July 6, 2011 at 10:40pm
Wacky Hermit
Joined
Apr '11
Wacky Hermit

Pigboy

It's sort of like Wagner. The Ring is one of man's greatest artistic achievements in any medium. That fact that the man was an arse doesn't change that. For me, anyway. · Jul 6 at 12:16pm

Related to this is the idea that you can't like a piece of art if it's also liked by people you don't want to be associated with, like Hitler.  To the extent that people can't mentally separate the work from its fans, it's true that it does sometimes tar you with the same brush.

An acquaintance of mine, quite the liberal partisan, was very upset when the Tea Party appropriated the Gadsden Flag that he'd been flying for decades.  He complained that now he'd have to take down his flag.  No, actually, he didn't have to.  Just like conservatives don't have to like NASCAR and Carrie Underwood.

BlueAnt
Joined
Aug '10
BlueAnt
Pigboy: For the most part, it's my liberal friends who tend to obsess over where the personal and the political meet. 

That shouldn't be surprising.  The very phrase "the personal is political" started out on the left, as did the Brechtian idea that entertainment must be overtly political.

But it seems to me like we're lowering ourselves to their level when we worry about the political affiliations of writers and directors and producers and actors. Can't we just judge a film on its merits?

We do that all the time, but I thought Shapiro's point was that the political messages bleed over into the entertainment itself, sometimes in subtle ways.  That can get highly annoying when it happens to the entire media culture.

This is not to say liberals creatives are all sneaky masterminds.  The crossover is often unintentional, and to an extent unavoidable: the writers write what they know, and if they only know liberalism... etc.  Shapiro's concern is that if all pop culture creatives are liberals, then the entire culture gains a political undercurrent that jars with the audience... and eventually influences it.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Todd

Kenneth: But Penn's depiction of Milk was one of the greatest feats of acting in cinematic history. 

After I saw Milk, I watched the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, and I wanted Penn's Academy award to be rescinded.  Penn was playing a cartoon of a gay guy, not Harvey Milk.  · Jul 6 at 1:39pm

Edited on Jul 06 at 01:40 pm

Ah, but Sean Penn could not be Harvey Milk, he could only inhabit the role as written.  And he inhabited it magnificently. 

Richard Young
Joined
Mar '11
Richard Young

I've always loved Barbra Streisand's music although I can't stand her politics.  

Todd
Joined
Oct '10
Todd

When I listen to Ben Shapiro talk about the ideas in his book, my response is "how is this is news?", "so what?", and "things are changing".

On the last point ("things are changing'), I recommend reading South Park Conservatives by Brian Anderson.

Edited on July 6, 2011 at 10:57pm
Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

I think the difference is thus:

  • Liberals are desperate to exclude anybody that expresses the tiniest conservative values from their artistic cliques.
  • Conservatives are desperate to include anybody that expresses the tiniest conservative values into their artistic cliques.

We have so few big-name celebs in our camp, it's not wonder we'll bend over backwards to claim someone's on our team.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

BlueAnt

 
 

We do that all the time, but I thought Shapiro's point was that the political messages bleed over into the entertainment itself, sometimes in subtle ways.  That can get highly annoying when it happens to the entire media culture.

This is not to say liberals creatives are all sneaky masterminds.  The crossover is often unintentional, and to an extent unavoidable: the writers write what they know, and if they only know liberalism... etc.  Shapiro's concern is that if all pop culture creatives are liberals, then the entire culture gains a political undercurrent that jars with the audience... and eventually influences it.

I think one can actually go a bit further than this. I think what Ben Shapiro demonstrates is that a lot of them actually do intend their product as propaganda (the "sneaky mastermind" concept). Admittedly, they have warped ideas of the people whose minds they are trying to change--so, for example, they can't imagine conservatives liking Modern Family with its gay characters and still opposing gay marriage--but they consciously write those characters to try to modify cultural attitudes towards gay people, or the Vietnam war, or whatever their issue is.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

 I'd also say that I think that the Ricochet folks on the podcast keep slightly missing the point of what Andrew Breitbart is hoping to see happen in the media and entertainment industries.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding Breitbart, but I don't think he wants the Right to have its own government-sponsored radio, in parallel to NPR.

I think what he wants is for the Right to create the same quality of entertainment and news media that the Left has.  I think he says that to get to that point the first priority has to be the quality. If we create good and interesting and funny shows for people to watch and listen to, then we can secondarily communicate some of our views, just as the Left has been doing for a generation or more. 

Pigboy
Joined
Jul '11
Pigboy

I guess I'm not convinced it's really that big of a deal.

So here's perhaps a better question: Why is Hollywood dominated by the left? Rob? Andrew? Care to weigh in on this?

And another: Why are the creative pursuits in general dominated by liberals? (I can speak from some experience here. I spent a decade or so as a professional musician and can count on one hand those who were even nominally conservative.)


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In