Voices From the Bubble
At a dinner party in Washington the other night, I was asked a question I’m often asked. No, not, “Can I buy a vowel?” but, rather, “Why is Hollywood so uniformly made up of liberal Democrats?” There are a lot of theories on the subject, and I have a few of my own. First, I would strongly argue with the premise. My industry is certainly made up predominantly of liberal Democrats, but there is a surprising number found on the other side of the political spectrum. Lots of writers, producers, directors and performers are quite conservative in their views, but you don’t hear from them as much or as noisily as you do from the Left. Part of it, sadly, is the fear that they’ll suffer professionally if they’re “outed”, and a number of them have stories to tell about being confronted on the issue. But another factor is they’re far less comfortable lecturing their fellow citizens on how to live their lives. You’re much more likely to see a liberal singer interrupt his performance with a global warming diatribe than you are to see a conservative singer praising the free enterprise system between songs.
Another fact that might surprise you is that most of Hollywood—like most of America—isn’t really all that interested in politics except near election time. Most of the men and women who make their living in the entertainment field are much more focused on finding jobs and reading scripts and getting awards and going to events than they are on the intricacies of American politics. If you ask them about their views, they’re likely to spout a few liberal talking points because they’ve heard them so often, and it’s the safer position to take.
And that point leads me to my primary theory on why one side dominates the other. Putting aside the true believers and usual suspects (you know who they are on both sides), the liberal position provides the path of least resistance, especially for high-profile members of the Hollywood community. It’s hard to describe the bubble in which these folks live, but I’ll try. They are financially successful in ways most people can scarcely imagine; their whims are treated as commands; outrageous or boorish behavior is condoned; they travel in limos and fly (often privately) between their multiple homes; they hobnob with politicians who come to them for advice and input (and money); the glamour of their business rubs off on them and gives them access and a sense of importance and wisdom. So how should one speak from such a lofty perch? Well, many have concluded that the smartest way to handle it is to claim to be “one of the people.” So, no matter how rarified the air, liberalism is a smart career move. Is it hypocritical to ask people to drive electric cars while you’re flying in a Gulfstream? Or to tell them to conserve energy while the cumulative square-footage of your homes is measured in the tens of thousands of square feet? Or to ask them to pay more taxes while your high-priced accounting firms are protecting your money? Of course it is, but hypocrisy cannot penetrate the bubble. They care. Not like the greedy businessmen (from whom they collect their salaries and perks), but like the genuine people they really are.
However, the truth is that most celebrity political talk is just noise. It’s fodder for the entertainment shows and publications. People listen, not because they particularly care about what these folks have to say, or to get advice about how to vote or how to live, but simply because it’s a celebrity speaking. Personally, I try not to mix my political side with my entertainment side. And, frankly, I would be appalled if anyone made an important political or lifestyle decision based on the advice of a TV game show host. Maybe that’s the best news about the bubble: it not only protects us, but it protects you from us.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
One reason artists tend to be liberal is that the Left holds them to fewer aesthetic and moral standards.
Robert Frost famously compared free verse to "playing tennis with the net down." Most artists I've known object to anyone trying to raise the net.
Aug '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Without wishing to be provocative, I would suggest that many gay people are both hyper liberal and attracted to the entertainment industry. It can't be easy to argue against gay marriage, for instance, at a Hollywood social event.I don't for a moment suggest there are no gay conservatives. I absolutely don't suggest there's anything wrong with an industry having a relatively high gay membership. I don't doubt there are many social settings where it's extremely hard, perhaps dangerous, to argue in favour of gay marriage. I simply make the point that there may be a connection.
Dec '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
In the Golden Age, Hollywood really was targeted by the Soviet Union for infiltration. However, despite their best efforts, the Soviet spy agencies couldn't effectively recruit competing against the lavish lifestyles of the stars. Spies planted by the Soviets generally were co-opted by the lifestyle. Hollywood before the 1960s turned out very few movies -- maybe only a couple -- that overtly attempted to propagandize for Communism in America.
However, because limousine Communism was fashionable and because people always like to gain credibility for their fantasy personas, actors and screenwriters decided they were honest laborers like the tradesmen and teamsters working for the studios. So you have the Screen Actors Guild and Writers Guild of America as relics of the proletarian vanity of rich Hollywood denizens of the 1930s and 1940s.
Nowadays, as Pat says, while not so many of them fantasize about being proles (except those that agitate for their unions to strike! strike! strike!), they generally fantasize that they're in touch with the concerns and cares of the little people.
Dec '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Very insightful. Thanks Pat!
My younger cousin is attempting to make it out in Tinsel Town as an actor and he is a religious conservative from the Chicago-land area. He says many of the other under-30 wanna-be's out there are always talking about two main things when it comes to political issues: social justice and environmental/climate change stuff. But he adds that rarely does anyone know much in the way of details about these things. That's probably par for the course for most people under 30 in America.
Jan '11
Re: Voices From the Bubble
"However, the truth is that most celebrity political talk is just noise."
I'm not so sure.
I'd argue that for most issues, humans follow the herd. We might base specific opinions on our personal arguments and education, but nobody has studied everything. There are so many topics these days, who has the time? For a huge number of topics, we just defer to what we think everyone else thinks.
Ay, there's the rub. How do we know what everyone else thinks?
These days, of course, we drink in "what everyone else thinks" by what we see in the media. And whereas most people might not be news junkies, following each political development, we do pick up the sensibilities of what the media projects.
I don't think Hollywood is on a search-and-destroy mission against conservatism, but when liberalism is so overwhelmingly the attitude presented by the media, it has an effect. Marshall McLuhan, call your office ...
Jan '11
Re: Voices From the Bubble
And, most of the "stars" are young and naive
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Wow. That's a better explanation than I've ever given, that's for sure. And like you, Pat, it's the question I get asked the most often, among conservatives anyway. Among liberals, I usually get asked, "You're not really a Republican, are you?"
My usual explanation is roughly akin to yours, just a little more rough. Most people in Hollywood never see a paystub - their money is always being trimmed and sliced by lawyers and agents and business managers, so they're used to having their paycheck hijacked.
But it's also because we on the right have spent the past few decades hiding from our beliefs. And we've allowed them to define being a Democrat as being a "good and generous person."
But what's so good and generous about defending the broken-down school system, dangerous appeasement overseas, and a host of idiotic and ineffective environmental measures?
We need to start making the case that our policies aren't better because they're cheaper but because they're more effective. We're "good-er" in other words.
Jul '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
"And, frankly, I would be appalled if anyone made an important political or lifestyle decision based on the advice of a TV game show host."
Pat, you're far too modest. Through your support and guidance of Hillsdale College, your generosity to conservative causes and your speaking and writing, I am sure you have had an important impact upon the lives of many.
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Kenneth: "And, frankly, I would be appalled if anyone made an important political or lifestyle decision based on the advice of a TV game show host."
Pat, you're far too modest. Through your support and guidance of Hillsdale College, your generosity to conservative causes and your speaking and writing, I am sure you have had an important impact upon the lives of many. · Mar 2 at 6:33pm
You're right, Kenneth. I meant to say that no one should accept the guidance of any TV celebrity except for me. I feel better now.
Dec '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Pat Sajak:
However, the truth is that most celebrity political talk is just noise.
Unfortunately that political noise combines with a lot of other almost identical political noise coming through movie and TV program dialogue and plots, pop music lyrics, MSM "news" programs, comedy routines and skits, etc., and becomes the ever present background noise people hear all day every day.
This is how effective propaganda campaigns work.
May '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
I never begrudged actors and other celebrities for talking politics. They have as much right to an opinion as anyone else. And fame is power. With power comes responsibility. A person with the power to reach many people probably should use that gift, provided that person feels confident in the views he or she is espousing.
Rob Long:
But it's also because we on the right have spent the past few decades hiding from our beliefs. And we've allowed them to define being a Democrat as being a "good and generous person."
Agreed. It's good for a person to be humbly hesitant to offer oneself as an authority, of course. But Hollywood's hippies speaking out about this and that wouldn't be nearly so annoying or effective if more Hollywood conservatives were willing to rebut them. Thank God for folks like Jon Voight.
Charlton Heston arguably helped to combat the media's demonization of the NRA.
Edited on Mar 2, 2011 at 8:28pmDec '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Ron, Walter Russell Meade points out at American Interest that the governors and mayors in Blue states and cities have realized that they can pay fat public union salaries and benefits OR provide the public services they believe in, but not both. So they're going to argue or plead for the chance to implement "good-er" policies in the name of saving the Democrat Party and the nanny state.
Jan '11
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Does anyone else here attend the Hollywood Congress of Republicans events? It's a small group, but it's a safe, friendly place for Conservatives in entertainment to get together and talk about the major issues that affect them and the broader state/nation. They meet once a month, usually in North Hollywood, and have a guest speaker each meeting. Check them out:
http://www.hollywoodrepublicans.com
Pat, have you ever spoken with the folks at HCR?
Edited on Mar 2, 2011 at 10:59pmOct '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
If there is in fact a "surprising number" on the Right, then why would they "suffer professionally?" Isn't there strength or safety in numbers, even minority numbers?
And maybe the proper question/premise is, "If there's a surprising number on the Right, then why are the products from Hollywood almost universally sympathetic to the Left, when they're sympathetic to one side or the other at all?"
And why don't the "lots" provide a balancing perspective in programming or even in individual episodes of shows?
Or is my perception wrong?
Re: Voices From the Bubble
dittoheadadt
If there is in fact a "surprising number" on the Right, then why would they "suffer professionally?" Isn't there strength or safety in numbers, even minority numbers?
And maybe the proper question/premise is, "If there's a surprising number on the Right, then why are the products from Hollywood almost universally sympathetic to the Left, when they're sympathetic to one side or the other at all?"
And why don't the "lots" provide a balancing perspective in programming or even in individual episodes of shows? · Mar 3 at 12:34am
There are several "support groups" extant in Hollywood (Matthew Tabor mentioned one above), and their work is beginning to bear fruit, because there is safety in number. The upcoming generation of writers and producers will provide a more balanced political view as their work continues to enter the pipeline. It remains true, however, that the liberal side of the story is more often viewed as the more compelling side, at least from a dramatic standpoint. (One brave man against a corrupt business cabal! A courageous story of a unwed mother fighting eviction!) Any of us could write more conservative synopses, but old habits die hard.
May '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
dittoheadadt
And maybe the proper question/premise is, "If there's a surprising number on the Right, then why are the products from Hollywood almost universally sympathetic to the Left, when they're sympathetic to one side or the other at all?"
I'm not sure if Hollywood's output is so reliably Leftward. The movies that do well often have conservative, patriotic or mixed left/right themes. At least, it seems for every Avatar or Milk (left) you have a Hurt Locker, the Incredibles, or Juno (right-ish). Television is probably more skewed to the left, but you've still got stuff like Blue Bloods and Chuck.
Dec '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
Pat Sajak
There are several "support groups" extant in Hollywood (Matthew Tabor mentioned one above), and their work is beginning to bear fruit, because there is safety in number. The upcoming generation of writers and producers will provide a more balanced political view as their work continues to enter the pipeline. It remains true, however, that the liberal side of the story is more often viewed as the more compelling side, at least from a dramatic standpoint. (One brave man against a corrupt business cabal! A courageous story of a unwed mother fighting eviction!) Any of us could write more conservative synopses, but old habits die hard. · Mar 3 at 3:48am
Ottoman Umpire points out that there are some movies and shows that have conservative themes or subtext. That's because Hollywood still has to make money to survive, and the American public has certain strong conservative streaks. We prefer to see evil villains meet a righteous demise rather than a wimpy Mirandization. We prefer to see our military personnel as defenders of the good rather than agents of imperialism. And we know that appeasement and coexistence aren't going to stop our very real enemies.
Jan '11
Re: Voices From the Bubble
May I voice a quick note of support for Blue Bloods? That show has more than its fair share of "watchable" actors. But it also has two of the best voices around, Tom Selleck and Len Cariou. (I love listening to distinctive voices, and they're terrific.) If you told me that they cast this show based on interesting voices, I wouldn't be surprised.
But the surprise for me is Donnie Wahlberg. He's got a Steve McQueen quality; an intensity that's inviting instead of just annoying.
So far, it's a very watchable show ...
May '10
Re: Voices From the Bubble
KC Mulville
May I voice a quick note of support for Blue Bloods? That show has more than its fair share of "watchable" actors. But it also has two of the best voices around, Tom Selleck and Len Cariou. (I love listening to distinctive voices, and they're terrific.) If you told me that they cast this show based on interesting voices, I wouldn't be surprised.
But the surprise for me is Donnie Wahlberg. He's got a Steve McQueen quality; an intensity that's inviting instead of just annoying.
So far, it's a very watchable show ... · Mar 3 at 1:23pm
You're right: Donnie Wahlberg is aces; the Steve McQueen comparison is spot on.
I haven't watched CBS in ages -- seriously, I mean like 20 years, except for NCAA hoops. The one thing that seriously annoys me about the show is their opening sound track. It sounds like something out of the early 1980s.