How Obama Won — and May Win

[laylo]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm a Cusack fan, as an actor; Grosse Pointe Blank is one of my favorite movies.

However, there are few things in this world funnier than when an entertainer tries to inject themselves into political discourse. Please stick with reading movie scripts.

Should farmers stick to farming, construction workers stick to construction, and au pairs stick to watching kids? What about being an actor speaks to you as unqualified for political discourse?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by laylo

Should farmers stick to farming, construction workers stick to construction, and au pairs stick to watching kids? What about being an actor speaks to you as unqualified for political discourse?

If you'll read my follow-up post, I said that it simply annoys me when they (and notice I said celebrities, not just actors) do it. No matter the political affiliation, I've found that, many times, their statements tend to be misinformed, and yet they're trying to act as a voice of the people.

Because of their public persona, when they make those statements, they tend to get plastered everywhere. At a certain point, I get sick of reading them, and it annoys me, whether it's Tom Selleck talking up family values, or John Cusack doing ads for MoveOn.

It's nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing against people having opinions, and I have nothing against actors. People have the right to speak up and speak out, to share their views on the government and how things are run. Everyone gets annoyed at certain things, and I'm simply saying that my annoyance happens to be celebrities playing politics.

It also seems like you're trying to play the "elitist" card with me - if you are, that's fine, but considering my parents are a construction worker and former middle school teacher, the label doesn't fit.

ETA: I was going to mention Curt Schilling as being annoying too, but then people would just say that's because I'm a Yankees fan...

[laylo]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

If you'll read my follow-up post, I said that it simply annoys me when they (and notice I said celebrities, not just actors) do it. No matter the political affiliation, I've found that, many times, their statements tend to be misinformed, and yet they're trying to act as a voice of the people.

Because of their public persona, when they make those statements, they tend to get plastered everywhere. At a certain point, I get sick of reading them, and it annoys me, whether it's Tom Selleck talking up family values, or John Cusack doing ads for MoveOn.

It's nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing against people having opinions, and I have nothing against actors. People have the right to speak up and speak out, to share their views on the government and how things are run. Everyone gets annoyed at certain things, and I'm simply saying that my annoyance happens to be celebrities playing politics.

It also seems like you're trying to play the "elitist" card with me - if you are, that's fine, but considering my parents are a construction worker and former middle school teacher, the label doesn't fit.

ETA: I was going to mention Curt Schilling as being annoying too, but then people would just say that's because I'm a Yankees fan...

I wasn't trying to play any card, and I read all of your posts. I was trying to find out the reason why it annoys you. In one of your posts you seemed to be saying that actors who were highly educated didn't "count", so it seemed that some basis for your annoyance was their presumed lack of formal education. If it is not, then those statements are confusing. If your annoyance is only that celebrities' statements are everywhere, it might be better directed at celebrity-obsessed culture than at celebrities for saying something.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by laylo

I wasn't trying to play any card, and I read all of your posts. I was trying to find out the reason why it annoys you. In one of your posts you seemed to be saying that actors who were highly educated didn't "count", so it seemed that some basis for your annoyance was their presumed lack of formal education. If it is not, then those statements are confusing. If your annoyance is only that celebrities' statements are everywhere, it might be better directed at celebrity-obsessed culture than at celebrities for saying something.

I don't want to totally hijack the thread, although I may have already done so, so I'll just say this: TexasWSP pretty much summed up my feelings.

In my previous post, I had differentiated Fred Thompson because he had a career in law and politics before he became a professional actor; I tend to think of him as a lawyer/politician who acts, rather than an actor dabbling in politics. I did mention about Grandy's education, but in the next sentence, I noted that if I were a voter when he were running, I would have had most likely had the same issue.

I'm sure there are other similar exceptions such as Thompson, but I just can't think of them right now.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by laylo

Should farmers stick to farming, construction workers stick to construction, and au pairs stick to watching kids? What about being an actor speaks to you as unqualified for political discourse?

I'm guessing most farmers, au pairs, and construction workers don't have tens/hundreds of millions of dollars that they can use at their disposal to speak out on their political beliefs and act like their words are somehow more important than "normal" people in our country....like they will actually make a difference.

I think that is what KSigKid is trying to say....and it looks like everyone here has missed the point.

I fell the same way. It irritates the shit out of me when you see a bunch of movie stars talking about politics on a national level. Nobody cares what you think....make movies. Like how a couple weeks ago Susan Sarandon made a public announcement that she would move out of the United States if Obama wasn't elected. This was news that was actually reported on bigger media outlets.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I'm guessing most farmers, au pairs, and construction workers don't have tens/hundreds of millions of dollars that they can use at their disposal to speak out on their political beliefs and act like their words are somehow more important than "normal" people in our country....like they will actually make a difference.

I think that is what KSigKid is trying to say....and it looks like everyone here has missed the point.

I fell the same way. It irritates the shit out of me when you see a bunch of movie stars talking about politics on a national level. Nobody cares what you think....make movies. Like how a couple weeks ago Susan Sarandon made a public announcement that she would move out of the United States if Obama wasn't elected. This was news that was actually reported on bigger media outlets.

Thank you - some days I fear law school has taken away my ability to communicate clearly.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Thank you - some days I fear law school has taken away my ability to communicate clearly.

It has (and will) - luckily, that's why I have a job.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science - a celebrity abusing his/her privilege to soapbox on an issue they may or may not be more qualified to speak on than any other retard isn't something we should exalt.

Additionally, using the fact that people were elected multiple times as proof of success is nominally nuts as well - we've proven almost by dictum and mandate that the electoral process is not an efficient market, haven't we?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It has (and will) - luckily, that's why I have a job.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science - a celebrity abusing his/her privilege to soapbox on an issue they may or may not be more qualified to speak on than any other retard isn't something we should exalt.

Additionally, using the fact that people were elected multiple times as proof of success is nominally nuts as well - we've proven almost by dictum and mandate that the electoral process is not an efficient market, haven't we?

I don't contest the underlying opinion that it would be preferable for people to get information from nonpartisan and more academic sources, but there's also a reality to running and winning elections, unfortunately. Candidates are like products these days so they employ good marketing & advertising strategies in a similar way. Our celebrity-obsessed culture responds positively to celebrity endorsement, so campaigns and lobbyists employ them as effectively as they can. For every Chuck Norris there's a George Clooney, for every Charlton Heston (RIP) there's a Susan Sarandon.

Regarding the reelection issue, that points to the very real truth that all politics are local and constituents remain satisfied with representatives that deliver. Having a celebrity as your representative doesn't hurt when you're trying to bring attention to an issue affecting your area or support for a bill that benefits your district. Democracy in action.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I don't contest the underlying opinion that it would be preferable for people to get information from nonpartisan and more academic sources, but there's also a reality to running and winning elections, unfortunately. Candidates are like products these days so they employ good marketing & advertising strategies in a similar way. Our celebrity-obsessed culture responds positively to celebrity endorsement, so campaigns and lobbyists employ them as effectively as they can. For every Chuck Norris there's a George Clooney, for every Charlton Heston (RIP) there's a Susan Sarandon.

Oh, I totally agree - I'm not disputing the utility of the celebrity endorsement, I'm saying that often the celebrity statement is ill-informed at best and intentionally misleading at worse (see: Baldwin, Alex).

Put another way: utility doesn't make right, and there's nothing wrong with an informed individual being upset that an ill-informed individual gets increased say that they may or may not deserve, depending on your world view.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Regarding the reelection issue, that points to the very real truth that all politics are local and constituents remain satisfied with representatives that deliver. Having a celebrity as your representative doesn't hurt when you're trying to bring attention to an issue affecting your area or support for a bill that benefits your district. Democracy in action.

Again, I agree with the concept, but I would posit that an overwhelming number of voters don't have any clue about their representative's actions, efficacy or "deliverables."

Actually, this kind of feels like selection bias - because you understand these things, you're assuming others do too. However, I think name recognition is likely only important in and of itself, and most people don't ever think "Hey, John Elway would bring increased attention to my shoddy highway funding!"

[laylo]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Put another way: utility doesn't make right, and there's nothing wrong with an informed individual being upset that an ill-informed individual gets increased say that they may or may not deserve, depending on your world view.

This makes sense, but didn't seem to me to be what was originally being expressed. And I understand being upset, but not at the celebrities.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Actually, this kind of feels like selection bias - because you understand these things, you're assuming others do too. However, I think name recognition is likely only important in and of itself, and most people don't ever think "Hey, John Elway would bring increased attention to my shoddy highway funding!"

Actually, I think I was attempting (poorly, obviously) to cynically point at why celebrities are successful and strategically, why it's smart to use them. Campaigns are run to the lowest common denominator, knowing that people don't bother to read the paper, watch the actual news, read up on issues. They try to get the most signs in yards and bumper stickers on cars because if they manage to get a voter in the booth, they know that if they actually recognize a name, they're more likely to mark that name. Even better if they can get a great soundbite (whether true or not) they can make resonate and stick in their mind.

So if a cause or candidate can get a John Cusack ad on youtube or during an episode of "Entertainment Tonight", that cause or candidate is much more likely to catch and keep a viewer/voter's attention than an ad that just has words, texts, random images. People relate to, and listen to, sometimes unfortunately, celebrities. And as to what the celebs actually say, besides the occasional off-the-cuff remarks in People or during an awards show, they are carefully scripted by the cause or campaign they're stomping for. So what they're saying in those ads is very representative of the issue because the words are put in their mouths. The causes just need celebrities that "lean" the right way and agree enough to make their words sound sincere and appealing.

So yes, while I may understand the context behind some of this, the point I'm trying (and again, probably failing) to make, is that the tactic is probably most effective for people that DON'T know the context or assume anything beyond what they see on the surface. It's much easier to be cynical about a celebrity "endorsement" when you can see the party/cause machinations behind it. Most people just don't put that much thought or effort into it. And campaigns/causes count on that.

And everyone wants to be associated with the most popular kid in class, right? So, sure, voters want the celebrity to win their district (as long as he or she is not a complete tool). It's not rocket science to know that if you put "Gopher" from "The Love Boat" in DC, then your little area in Iowa will likely get more attention and have more pull than if you elect Ted the Hardware Store Owner. Cynical? Sure. Unfortunate state of affairs in our democracy, pretty much.

And I did go off on the all-GOP examples of elected celebrities, which was probably an unfair assumption that your initial reaction against the John Cusack thing was also the tie to the liberal organization. It seems when people rail against celebrities with "causes" it's usually the more outspoken liberals (e.g., the Susan Sarandon call-out in a post above). I was trying to head off the "damn liberal celebrities" argument at the pass with a showing that the GOP is just as celebrity-rich. In fact, GOP celebrities have been more successful in actually winning elected office, from what I can tell. I will be watching Al Franken's race in MN with interest.