Poll: Should Celebs Take on Politcal Causes?

There is a difference between philanthropy and political activism. When people talk about making the world a better place, that's totally subjective. Better for whom? Themselves? Are my ideas about what's good for this country or the world, the right ideas? According to me, they are. But so are your ideas, in your own opinion. I have deep respect for actors and actresses, or directors, who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, a la Brad Pitt and his work in New Orleans. George Clooney, not so much. I find it duplicitous to criticize the government for killing people in Iraq, then openly criticizing them for not getting involved in basically the same thing, just in another part of the world. But I digress. Celebs shouldn't have to refrain from voicing their opinion just because they are famous. And it's well within Steven Spielberg's rights to use his influence to position people in government who share his views. It's also my right to have a mind of my own, and not give a shit what Spielberg or anyone else in Hollywood thinks. It's too bad that the media only selectively listens to these people. Bill Gates, the man who put "bill" in billionaire, says we're not in a recession and that techs will save the day. Good luck finding that in the NYT! I only quote Bill, because he's very philanthropic, very liberal and often quoted on issues of this type. Oh well, I've strayed off subject. Great topic, Kim, and certainly one with no exact wrong or right answer. At least we live in a country where people can be active and critical of the government without fear of being executed, as in China.

Reply

Mia Farrow is out of her mind.

After so many years of inaction and indifference by the West, we suddenly want to blame China for Darfur? There are many countries involved, starting with our support of the SPLA and John Garang 10 years ago.

China is simply a scapegoat.

Reply

I always get a kick when I see some uber rich, liberal actor talking socialism out of their gold plated butts. If they believe so strongly in wealth redistribution and social handouts, why don't they start with their OWN wealth and give away their amassed millions. Why don't they drive around town in toyota corollas and fly around the world on commercial flights in coach?

These guys are no better than the uber conservatives, always telling other people how to live their lives. The religious folk tell us what we can't do and the libs tell us what we should do... but as far as I can tell, neither side actually does what they preach.

Reply

There seems to be quite the double standard for celebrities endorsing causes or engaging in political activity. Last I looked, every free person was entitled to do so, even the most vacuous, insane ones. So why is it no one is at all critical that empty suits like Reagan, Selleck and Schwarzenegger get a pass while the Spielbergs, Baldwins and Fondas are belittled? Granted, Spielberg's politics is more informed by whim than intelligence or consistency, but then so are most of the electorate.

On the other hand, I'd like to see corporate money not treated like "speech" and not given the same legal rights as citizens. That's a far more worthwhile discussion.

Reply

Famous people have done this long before the advent of cinema, and said people are within their rights to use their fame to influence important events in the world for the better. People are equally entitled to tell said famous people to fuck off.

Long story short: it doesn't bother me.

Reply

are you kidding with this post? Reagan is one of the most polarizing figures in modern politics. If you think he doesn't still catch flak (just look at obama even suggesting Reagan was an instrument of change) then we have nothing further to discuss.

The fact is, the few conservative celebs out there, are nowhere near as vocal or as flamboyant in their political outlandishness as their liberal counterparts are. And to them as well, I would say, "either put your money where your mouth is, or shut up and go make a movie."

Of course, they're welcome to their opinions and beliefs, I just wish people would realize that just because rosie keeps saying bush plotted 9/11, doesn't make it so. And just because Spielberg thinks that Castro is the smartest man alive and cuba is a wonderful place to live, doesn't mean that people would rather flaot 90 miles on a dingy just to have a chance to live somewhere where some goon doesn't have a boot to your neck.

And let's all hope this new round of elections will make sure it stays that way.

Reply

We need to distinguish between two very different things: celebrities' right to have opinions and engage in politics (which they possess as much as any other citizens) and the frequent presumption that their opinions count for more than the average person's.

You have a public platform because you're pretty, or can act, or can sing. If you want to use it to share how you feel, or to urge me to follow, fine. But too often, celeb-activists from either side of the political divide are clearly guilty of talking down to the masses.

Anonymous does not equal stupid; except for a few standouts like Jodie Foster or Sarah Polley, I've probably got more formal education and read more newspapers than the celebs who try to instruct me in social justice and my civic duty. (Citing Foster and Polley here as very smart people, not as ones I feel act inappropriately.)

Reply