Tinseltown Tarnish

Tinseltown Tarnish
by M. C. Green, Guest Contributor

November 15, 2002

There is no doubt that those in the Democratic Party will spend the coming months trying to understand how Republicans swept the recent elections. Did the Republican victors simply benefit from the coattails of a popular President? Did the Democratic Party fail to communicate its message? What position should have been taken on Iraq? One question that probably won't be asked is this: Did the opinions of a few liberal entertainers help elect Republicans?

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic Party had a mixed message at best. There were several prominent politicians opposed to the congressional resolution, such as Senators Byrd and Kennedy, but most Democrats in the Senate voted to support President Bush. A sizable portion of the anti-war rhetoric, however, did not from the Senate or the Democratic National Committee but from the world of entertainment. In the weeks preceding both the Iraq vote in Congress and the November 5th election, a number of liberal celebrities made decided to voice their concerns. Barbra Streisand sent a well-publicized memo to Congressman "Gebhardt" urging him not to support a war against "Sadam" Hussein. At a fundraiser in the Kodak Theatre, a venue chosen for its ability to accommodate her ego, Streisand recited a faux Shakespeare quote in opposition to a war. Streisand's political views have been public knowledge for some time, so voting Americans view her actions for what they are. She is a party loyalist trying to be as useful to her Democratic Party as possible. The only problem was that her party didn't have a clear stance on Iraq. The lack of a clear message from Democrats concerning Iraq allowed a few celebrities to fill the void with their own uninformed opinions.

The symbiotic relationship between Streisand and the Democratic Party is an understandable one. Politicians allow entertainers to feel more important than they actually are, and entertainers provide campaign contributions to politicians. The relationship is so intense that when the Democratic Party takes a position on a particular issue, one instinctively assumes that ninety percent of those in Hollywood hold the same position. Democratic politicians fail to realize that the converse of this is true. A few liberal entertainers have taken anti-war rhetoric to new heights, and in doing so may have brought the Democratic Party to a new low. Jessica Lange, for example, publicly stated that she despised the Bush administration and was embarrassed to be an American. A complete list of other such asinine statements would certainly be lengthy, but perhaps most damaging to Democrats were the baffling statements by singer and liberal activist Harry Belafonte. After comparing Colin Powell, the most popular figure of the Bush administration, to a "house slave" during a radio talk show, Belafonte appeared on CNN's Larry King Live to defend his comments. When a caller disagreed with his comments against a war with Saddam Hussein, Belafonte condescendingly stated that the public "does not come from the same kind of a sophisticated sense of history…I've been exposed to."

In contemplating their defeats, Democrats will be compelled to ask themselves the following questions: Do the elitist, anti-American opinions of Belafonte and Lange damage our party's image? Does the American public infer that the opinion of Ed Asner and Oliver Stone, both signers of the anti-war Not In Our Name petition, is the official position of the Democratic Party? Obviously it would be difficult to ascertain if Americans intuitively, and correctly, connect Hollywood's positions and Democratic positions, but there is reason to think they would. After all, following a speech announcing his opposition to an Iraqi regime change it was discovered that Al Gore had consulted Rob Reiner in drafting the speech. As for the slurs against the President, one can look at primetime television on NBC and see the damaging effect of attacking Bush. The once popular West Wing now competes with the New York Times in Democratic propagandizing. This season Aaron Sorkin has created a presidential candidate to rival President Bartlet. James Brolin (Streisand's better half) plays a dimwitted governor, clearly based on Sorkin's view of President Bush. This season, however, has experienced a twenty percent decrease in viewers compared to last season. Overtly partisan tones have evidently turned off more than a few viewers. And as for the Bush-bashing New York Times , Howell Raines should take note that the fastest growing newspaper in the United States is now the conservative New York Post. Coincidence?

It seems as if Americans are offended by the absurd comments and attacks of liberal celebrities, but are we offended to an extent that leads to such a sweeping Republican victory? A number of factors helped Republicans, including well-ran campaigns, excellent candidates, and the popularity of the President, whereas Democrats lacked a national leader. But when the control of the Congress hinged upon a few thousand votes, the damage inflicted by Hollywood's National Security Council may have had an effect significant enough to influence swing voters to favor Republicans. ***

MC Green is a free-lance writer residing in Alabama.

_______________________________________