Do Conservatives Have a Double-Standard for Celebrities?

Vol. I, Issue 5
February 2005

Recently, a few sore-winners put up billboards in Hollywood sarcastically "thanking" the celebrities there for helping George W. Bush win re-election¹. The message is essentially that their celebrity support cost John Kerry the 2004 presidential election. Ironically, the group that posted the billboards is the same group that tried to block ads for the "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary; and, when they were unsuccessful, responded by financing a reactionary documentary in response. Their actions may sound petty, but it seems to illustrate an underlying hypocrisy; is there a conservative 'double-standard' for celebrities?

Whenever a celebrity expresses opinions in support of liberal or progressive causes, they are told to "shut up." Conservative pundits respond with a series of attacks ranging from calling the celebrities "whiners" to "elitists." A favorite conservative attack on progressive celebrities is one where the stars are depicted as naive or ignorant and they are told to stay out of political matters because they're entertainers not politicians. Of course, many of these celebrities are citizens too, and their fame doesn't somehow decrease their constitutional right to speak out on political issues – the same constitutional right enjoyed by their conservative critics.

The strange thing is that this attack on politically active celebrities seems only to be directed toward certain political views. If a celebrity endorses a conservative or Republican point of view, they are hailed as patriots engaging in their duty as American citizens. Certainly, most people agree that Americans do have an obligation to speak out and petition their government for a redress of grievences, so why don't conservative pundits extend this consideration to progressive celebrities? Why the hypocrisy?

Consider the Vote for Change campaign. Bruce Springsteen and many other well known musicians and bands held a series of concerts before the 2004 election to raise awareness on the importance of voting as well as to call for a change in the White House. In response, conservative commentators lashed out with an attack on the artists for expressing their political beliefs. They were told to "shut up and sing."²

Rather than complain about the substance of the Rockers' argument, the reactionary screed was that the Rockers' had no business talking politics in the first place. But why not? A common liberal response to conservative entertainers is, "I don't support what they say, but I support their right to say it." Why can't the conservative talking heads extend the same courtesy?

When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for Governor in the recent California recall election, his progressive opponents didn't question his right to participate. They critiqued his lack of experience and his unwillingness to discuss issues facing the state – but questioning his right to the political process wasn't part of the debate.

So why is it when there is talk of Warren Beatty or George Clooney running for political office, some conservatives shriek, "they have no business [doing so]." It seems a strange coincidence, then, that Ronald Reagan, considered the "greatest" U.S. president by many conservatives, was himself an actor.

Finally, consider the amazing transformation of Mel Gibson. Though he speaks with an Australian accent, he's actually American. He was born in upstate New York in 1956. It wasn't until he turned 12 that his father moved his family to Australia. The year was 1968 and the Vietnam war was still raging.³ So, according to Mr. Gibson's (former) conservative detractors, the elder Mr. Gibson wanted to help his sons dodge the draft. There is no basis for this conservative attack, it was mere speculation. Nonetheless, Mel didn't fight in Vietnam and was labeled, by some, a draft dodger.

His film career didn't particularly help him with conservatives, either. For most of his 30's and 40's, Mel starred in a seemingly continuous run of shoot-em-up action movies, with plenty of sex and violence. Not exactly high art films, but not wholesome family films either. It was this sort of "I'm just an entertainer" filmography combined with a discrete personal life that made Mel a bankable Hollywood celebrity (and an easy target, by conservatives, as a symbol of Hollywood decadence).

But them in 2003, something amazing happened. In the eyes of many conservatives, Mel Gibson lept from his status as a "draft dodger" and "purveyor of filth" to become the standard-bearer of many religious conservatives. And all he had to do was make a movie about Jesus Christ.

Not just any movie, of course. The movie had to be tremendously sympathetic to the protagonist. Unlike other movies, such as The Last Temptation of Christ, which portrayed Jesus as a more human character, Mel Gibson's movie took excruciating steps to make sure he was portrayed as a super-human who would suffer agonizing and sadistic punishments without complaint. Critics of the film claimed that it promoted anti-Semitism primarily because it borrowed heavily from the "passion plays", folkish re-enactments of Christ's crucifixion which sometimes portray Jewish characters as evil.⁴ This controversy over his film only made Mel Gibson all the more heroic to his newly found conservative fanbase, and allegations of draft-dodging and decadence were long forgotten.

Every American is supposed to enjoy the right to participate in the political process. So why do liberal celebrities face such vitriol for standing up for their personal beliefs? Even more confusing – why do conservative celebrities receive praise and adulation for engaging in the exact same political actions? Why are books, movies and music, performed by progressive artists, burned or crushed in effigy? It's one thing to disagree with a person's message or beliefs, but its quite another to raise that disagreement to the level of personal attack. So long as this bitterness remains it seems the polarization of American politics will get worse, not better.