Chris Segal
Assistant Perspectives Editor
Take a moment and try to name two conservative celebrities. The country is divided when it comes to political affiliations, but outspoken celebrities continually show their support for liberal causes. Why does it seem that most celebrities are democrats?
There is a long list of liberal celebrities who have gone on the record speaking for their different causes.
This may be a result of the group-think mentality in Hollywood. When Clinton used unilateral military force against Iraq, forced a regime change in Haiti, bombed Bosnia and drove Slobodan Milosevic from power after almost three months of air strikes in Yugoslavia there was no outcry from Hollywood.
Antiwar activist Janeane Garofalo admitted on Fox News that when Clinton implemented a three-day air strike of Iraq, or forced a regime change, “it wasn’t very hip” to speak up.
Being a conservative in Hollywood can also be detrimental to an actor’s career. In the Jan. 5, 2001 issue of People magazine, a picture of NYPD blue actress Sharon Lawrence ran on the same page as the president of the United States. Lawrence, a lifelong Democrat, has said she has had to defend herself to producers, and she is stopped on the streets and questions about being conservative.
She told columnist Liz Smith, “If one is even perceived to be a Republican in Hollywood, there can be an excluding reaction and people genuinely resent you.”
Despite the perceived resentment there is a shorter list of conservative celebrities: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood and Charlton Heston. Other than Gov. Schwarzenegger, readers will be hard pressed to hear these celebrities speaking out on their beliefs.
Syndicated radio talk show host and author Laura Ingraham has a notable theory on why celebrities are mostly liberal. Thousands of people flock to Los Angeles every year to pursue the acting bug. There are 130,000 actors with Screen Actors Guild cards and thousand more wanting one.
“No one would benefit more from socialized medicine than the mostly out-of-work acting community. Unemployment benefits enable many actors to follow their dream longer than most otherwise could,” according to Ingraham’s book Shut up & Sing.
For a member of the S.A.G. to qualify for pension benefits that person must make more than $7,500 per year. Nearly 75 percent of the members do not qualify for benefits.
There are thousands of hard-working actors trying to standout in cattle call auditions. Making it big in Hollywood has been compared to winning the lottery.
All actors have a period in their life of struggle before they make it big. When an actor gets the hit show or leading role in a motion picture, money starts to come in.
“With such an arbitrary system of enrichment, it’s no wonder that actors lose sight of how the rest of the American workforce operates. Most Americans work their way up to middle management with their prime motivation being to support their families. There’s a very clear connection of effort, reward and purpose. But in acting there is no middle management. You either make it or you don’t,” wrote Ingraham.
It does make sense that acting is unlike most jobs. No college degree is required; talent is helpful but not always necessary, as can be seen with the fame of Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith and Ben Affleck.
Group-think mentality and actors facing the same likelihood of winning the lottery as making it big, helps explain why Hollywood supports many liberal ideals.
There is one major problem with the Hollywood liberal elite. Liberal activism is encouraged and conservative views are dismissed. While there is nothing wrong with celebrities using their fame to help a cause, there is something wrong with conservative actors fearing that their careers will end if they attend a pro-life rally.
1-27-2005
