Hollywood stars turning on Obama

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is President Obama losing support in Hollywood?

In an interview set to air tonight, actor Matt Damon tells CNN's Piers Morgan he's unhappy with the president. Asked point blank if he thinks the president has been doing a good job running the country, Damon simply replied, "No."

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon said, referring to the title of Obama's political memoir. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education ... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

The criticisms count for more than standard-issue celebrity belly-aching, since Damon was one of Obama's earliest and best-known celebrity supporters during the 2008 presidential campaign. The actor and Oscar-winning screenwriter appeared at fundraisers for the Democratic candidate and hit the campaign trail on Obama's behalf.

This isn't the first time Damon has criticized Obama. Last year, the actor told reporters he was "disappointed" and "a little let down" by the president's leadership--but he was quick to add that Obama deserved more "time" to work on things. Apparently, Damon no longer feels that way.

And he's not the only one. Over the last year, a growing number of Hollywood types have publicly trashed the president's record on everything from gay rights to his failure to close a military detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

In December, actress Barbra Streisand, a prominent Democratic donor, praised Obama as "cool" and "very smart" but told CNN's Larry King that she was unhappy that the president hadn't been more aggressive on certain issues. Streisand singled out his slow progress in overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. "I would have liked to have him use his executive privilege … to get rid of something like 'don't ask, don't tell,'" she said. "I think people admire real strength, even though it's misguided, you know?"

Jane Lynch, of "Glee" fame, criticized Obama for the same thing, telling London's Guardian newspaper last year that Obama was a "huge disappointment" for his handling of gay rights.

In an interview with Fox News last summer, Playboy founder Hugh Hefner said he was upset that Obama hadn't done more to end the war in Afghanistan. "We're going through the same thing as Vietnam right now," he said. "We can't please the world, and all we do is make enemies. We go in with the best possible intentions, but we make enemies."

Director Spike Lee was among those who trashed Obama's slow response to last year's devastating oil spill along the Gulf Coast, suggesting the president hadn't shown enough emotion on the issue. "One time, go off!" Lee told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this is a disaster."

Meanwhile, Robert Redford appeared in an ad for the Natural Resources Defense Council urging Obama to show more leadership on energy issues, and in a piece for the Huffington Post, he slammed Obama for not doing more to press Congress on the clean energy. "President Obama has certainly done more than any other president to advance clean energy, yet he never seemed to roll up his sleeves, bring lawmakers to the table, and work to rally the American public behind it," he wrote.

Still not everyone is jumping on the anti-Obama train. "Would I like the health-care bill to have more in it? Yes! Would I like financial reform to have more in it? Yes! Do I wish more were happening? Yes! But he's doing a pretty good job given the circumstances he walked into," "Pulp Fiction" producer Lawrence Bender told the Hollywood Reporter last year.

[GPDP]

"We're going through the same thing as Vietnam right now," he said. "We can't please the world, and all we do is make enemies. We go in with the best possible intentions, but we make enemies."

Aaaaaaaand that's why I don't take celebrity opinion seriously.

[Amphictyonis]

Sometimes if they're too vocal job opportunities start disappearing. Like in the McCarthy era (as capitalists do run Hollywood). In general Hollywood is just a bunch of liberals but I think Howard Zinn may have rubbed off a little on Matt Damon. He was on tour for a while with him doing readings of 'A Peoples History'. Sean Penn is also a leftist but I'm not sure if he's a socialist or not. I think he's met with Castro and Chavez a few times?

[GPDP]

Danny Glover is another good guy, as is Viggo Mortensen. But again, they're pretty much still liberals, albeit radical ones.

[RadioRaheem84]

Tim Robbins, Ed Asner and John Sayles are the only real socialists in Hollywood. Dem Socs, but still......

[Franz Fanonipants]

Isn't Hugh Hefner a libertarian?

p.s. Why the fuck is this "news"?

[Geiseric]

Tim Robbins is socialist? Awesome... I guess this is good since it may be included in the celebrity shit people read in the U.S. And may make some of em politically active, I doubt it though.

[cb9's_unity]

Whats sad is that there really isn't a huge intellectual gap between the statements of most bourgeois politicians and the statements of a celebrity like Damon.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sometimes I don't understand why more actors aren't socialist? They have so much time on their hands and are interested in pet political causes. You would think that a lot of them would go all the way and discover socialism, anarchism, etc. Instead they stay liberal.

They vote and throw their weight behind Dem politicians. How can a guy like Matt Damon read Zinn and Chomsky but then go ga-ga over Obama? How can Tim Robbins make Cradle Will Rock, claim to want a more socialist system, and then campaign for Jonathan Edwards?

I really think that celebs aren't as smart as they claim to be or they're hiding their true political beliefs for fear of being blacklisted.

[Delenda Carthago]

Sometimes I don't understand why more actors aren't socialist? They have so much time on their hands and are interested in pet political causes. You would think that a lot of them would go all the way and discover socialism, anarchism, etc. Instead they stay liberal.

They vote and throw their weight behind Dem politicians. How can a guy like Matt Damon read Zinn and Chomsky but then go ga-ga over Obama? How can Tim Robbins make Cradle Will Rock, claim to want a more socialist system, and then campaign for Jonathan Edwards?

I really think that celebs aren't as smart as they claim to be or they're hiding their true political beliefs for fear of being blacklisted.
As I have said in here before, in the Left-Right axis, the liberals are often more left than some socialists.Even more if you consider the idea that people have about socialism: a vulgar,totalitarian regime where you can be send to prison without even understanding why. Its healthy that there are people more democraticly thinking than that.

[GPDP]

Sometimes I don't understand why more actors aren't socialist? They have so much time on their hands and are interested in pet political causes. You would think that a lot of them would go all the way and discover socialism, anarchism, etc. Instead they stay liberal.

They vote and throw their weight behind Dem politicians. How can a guy like Matt Damon read Zinn and Chomsky but then go ga-ga over Obama? How can Tim Robbins make Cradle Will Rock, claim to want a more socialist system, and then campaign for Jonathan Edwards?

I really think that celebs aren't as smart as they claim to be or they're hiding their true political beliefs for fear of being blacklisted.

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?

[southernmissfan]

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?

This.

[Jose Gracchus]

Uh because they're giant merchandise advertisement vehicles? What the fuck do you think 'celebrity' is for in popular capitalist culture? What about their enormous (unjustified) salaries and luxuries? I don't think celebrities are 'the real exploiters' like idiotic low-rent popular rightists of the FOX-O'Reilly-Tea Party variety and their low rent faux-white-producerism, but their economic position certainly makes them inappropriate advocates for the rule of the laboring classes.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?


My pet theory on all of this is that showbiz becomes the lowest-common-denominator public arena for the manifestation of nationalist politics, since there's no longer any substantive politics anyway -- absent any real democracy, the line between reality and fiction becomes blurred to the point where the nationalist enterprise needs attention the way celebrity does, and celebrity in turn craves some semblance of legitimacy and substance from reality. It's a sad co-dependent mess, but at least it's relatively more palatable than the outright scare-mongering of the neoconservative right, even if the actual predatory imperialist war policies remain the same under either management.

Politics, however contorted, always requires *some* sort of social vehicle to go through -- in past centuries it was entirely subsumed within the mass-culture arena / context of the church, but today it's the Hollywood celebrity culture due to that being the de facto common cultural standard for everyone.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?Well I never really thought about it, but I'd imagine that celebrity "class interests" are more like petty-bourgeois: they have more autonomy than 99.9% of other people in their field, but are still dependent on bosses driven by irrational profit-chasing. You know, to put it crudely, they want to be serious or famous actors, but have to perform in "Sex Jokes And Farts 4". In addition, I'm sure that the backgrounds of pop-culture celebrities is much more diverse (working class and people from oppressed groups) than CEOs (I think only 4% of CEOs are female or some shit like that). And also they depend on and work closely with unionized entertainment workers, who they do not directly employ (though may have professional elitism towards).

So I think we shouldn't be surprised that the occasional celebrity has progressive or even radical ideas. In more radical times, it's even more common: many celbrities (and many entertainment workers) were drawn to radical ideas in the early 1900s, many were friendly to the Communist Party in the 1930s, and many young actors (even rich privilaged ones like Hanoi Jane) supported civil rights and even the anti-imperialist and liberation struggles of that era.

We also shouldn't be surprised that not many celebrities in non-radical times don't want to stick their necks out.

[GPDP]

Well I never really thought about it, but I'd imagine that celebrity "class interests" are more like petty-bourgeois: they have more autonomy than 99.9% of other people in their field, but are still dependent on bosses driven by irrational profit-chasing. You know, to put it crudely, they want to be serious or famous actors, but have to perform in "Sex Jokes And Farts 4". In addition, I'm sure that the backgrounds of pop-culture celebrities is much more diverse (working class and people from oppressed groups) than CEOs (I think only 4% of CEOs are female or some shit like that). And also they depend on and work closely with unionized entertainment workers, who they do not directly employ (though may have professional elitism towards).

So I think we shouldn't be surprised that the occasional celebrity has progressive or even radical ideas. In more radical times, it's even more common: many celbrities (and many entertainment workers) were drawn to radical ideas in the early 1900s, many were friendly to the Communist Party in the 1930s, and many young actors (even rich privilaged ones like Hanoi Jane) supported civil rights and even the anti-imperialist and liberation struggles of that era.

We also shouldn't be surprised that not many celebrities in non-radical times don't want to stick their necks out.

Well yeah, but my post was an answer to the question of why celebrities tend to be liberal but not socialist. And even if they have to answer to fat cat execs, they are still quite well-off, some raking in more in a year than any of us will ever make in our lifetimes, and they are surrounded by the limelight of the media 24/7. It's no secret that becoming a celebrity often coincides with a certain "celebrity lifestyle," and to put it bluntly, attention-whoring becomes a prime concern for many of them. Even if they end up in the tabloid covers with their naughties hanging out and such, bad publicity is still publicity, and the celebrity status certainly encourages this mentality, and I need not mention why this hinders the development of a socialist consciousness.

Of course, again, not all celebrities act this way. For instance, Keanu Reeves, despite being one of the top-grossing actors today, gives away most of his money to good causes such as cancer research, and even gives away tons to those who work on his movies behind the scenes. And of course, there's all the examples given in this thread about actors who actually speak out against imperialism, racism, etc. But they are a minority, and I think it's fairly obvious as to why that is in today's massive entertainment industry, which puts glitz, glamor, and tabloid gossip behind advocating for worthy causes.

[Drosophila]

It will be a while before Americans start turning on Obama. Dems will never vote for anyone who won't compromise on every Republican position.

[RadioRaheem84]

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?

This has to be the kicker. I mean, I had always known that class interests play a big part in one's political leanings but I had no idea it could be that strong. I guess I just keep thinking that the truth prevails over all but in reality at the end of the day it isn't reason or about the mind, it's about the heart and what wants. There is no rationalizing the exploitation and realities of capitalism.

I just assumed that rich celebrities, with as much time they have and as much money, would take their beliefs all the way to socialism, considering they devote ample amount of time to pet political causes. But as it turns out they probably likewise invest their money in things that contribute to the system. I know many of them do not just take their big acting paychecks and put them in the bank. They own businesses, they own production companies, and have cleaning staff, chauffeurs, mechanics, etc.

It is probably not in their best interests to devote time and attention to proletariat based solutions to the problem of capitalism. So that is why they tend to be very liberal and contribute their energies to peaceful mediums and compromises between the classes.

Although, a lot of celebs are turning libertarian and Hollywood is also full of Randians.

[GPDP]

This has to be the kicker. I mean, I had always known that class interests play a big part in one's political leanings but I had no idea it could be that strong. I guess I just keep thinking that the truth prevails over all but in reality at the end of the day it isn't reason or about the mind, it's about the heart and what wants. There is no rationalizing the exploitation and realities of capitalism.

I just assumed that rich celebrities, with as much time they have and as much money, would take their beliefs all the way to socialism, considering they devote ample amount of time to pet political causes. But as it turns out they probably likewise invest their money in things that contribute to the system. I know many of them do not just take their big acting paychecks and put them in the bank. They own businesses, they own production companies, and have cleaning staff, chauffeurs, mechanics, etc.

It is probably not in their best interests to devote time and attention to proletariat based solutions to the problem of capitalism. So that is why they tend to be very liberal and contribute their energies to peaceful mediums and compromises between the classes.

Although, a lot of celebs are turning libertarian and Hollywood is also full of Randians.

Indeed. Another thing I forgot to mention is many celebrities, caught up in their status and popularity, often isolate themselves from the lower rungs of society. Although many of them may proclaim to be in favor of progress and may champion causes such as fighting against poverty, they are ultimately have little to no connection to the average working class person outside of those workers who make their movies, music, or whatever other medium a reality, and even then it's a very hands-off approach, with the exception of a few like Keanu Reeves.

As for some of them being libertarians or Randroid, again, it goes back to them being constantly awash in the limelight. Popularity can do tremendous things to one's ego, and libertarianism is the ideology of egomaniacs.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. The problem of not being connected to the lower rung leaves them thinking that solutions based in the lower rung are useless. They think that anything that is not compromise, stability, or diplomacy is hopelessly radical and inefficient. It's no different from ruling class/owning class or even petit-bourgeoisie thinking.

They champion anti-poverty measures but at the same time dismiss anything that says that the poor they champion can be their own agents of social change. They, like, the rest of the upper class believe in proper channels to address grievances and that "peaceful" and compromising measures should be exhausted first.

There is really no difference between them and other liberals in the upper stratosphere.

The reason why I think that most celebs really do not care about real issues and instead pose as worker friendly people is because they can do one movie that champions a radical liberal message and then do something entirely different. How some could be in a movie that seems ardently liberal and then say that Ayn Rand is their favorite author, seems opportunistic or utterly clueless.

They like to chalk it up as being open minded and working with people they disagree with, yada yada, but I really just think most of them do not care and use it as PR fluff.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well yeah, but my post was an answer to the question of why celebrities tend to be liberal but not socialist. And even if they have to answer to fat cat execs, they are still quite well-off, some raking in more in a year than any of us will ever make in our lifetimes, and they are surrounded by the limelight of the media 24/7. It's no secret that becoming a celebrity often coincides with a certain "celebrity lifestyle," and to put it bluntly, attention-whoring becomes a prime concern for many of them. Even if they end up in the tabloid covers with their naughties hanging out and such, bad publicity is still publicity, and the celebrity status certainly encourages this mentality, and I need not mention why this hinders the development of a socialist consciousness.Very true, but I think being more petty-bourgeois in outlook is why they tend to have a liberal outlook in the absence of significant working class struggle.

As to why a lot of the liberal celebrities tend to be more inclined to not turn against liberal politicians, I think has something to do with their wealth. If you can donate huge amounts of money to campaigns, host fund-raising parties for Obama etc. In short whereas working class people drawn to liberalism can often become more active at the grassroots and then have their liberal assumptions challenged through their experiences, people with lots of money have more influence on politics and have "the ear" (even if it's just hollow) of public officials.

But because I think people like this - the top artists and intellectuals too - are more petty-bourgoise than ruling class, I think it's too deterministic to simply say that they won't be influenced by a powerful working class movement. That's just what the middle class is like - in times of non-struggle there's no pull on them to move left, but when there is struggle, they can be pulled towards supporting the working class or the oppressed over the system. Again there are many examples of artists and celebrities that did champion liberation and even radical causes when struggles were at a high-point.

Edit: one more thing about being "disconnected" from the working class. I think some celebrities and performers are like mini-industries (again probably making them more like professionals/small business owners in outlook) as they have publicists, agents, and so on that they hire (but are not always the "boss" of). In music and movies there are also performers who own their own production companies - this would definitely put them more solidly into a capitalist camp.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Hollywood used to be fairly socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) until Mccarthyist blacklisting in the 1950's. In my opinion it's because when cinema first came about as a mass media, the people who associated with it (actors, writers, directors etc.) saw it as an art, and artists are notoriously leftist. Nowadays, films are first made to generate profit, with any artistic intentions taking a backseat to money, so the kind of people it attracts/makes famous are petty-bourgeois and bourgeois people looking to make a crapload of money.

[RadioRaheem84]

Hollywood used to be fairly socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) until Mccarthyist blacklisting in the 1950's. In my opinion it's because when cinema first came about as a mass media, the people who associated with it (actors, writers, directors etc.) saw it as an art, and artists are notoriously leftist. Nowadays, films are first made to generate profit, with any artistic intentions taking a backseat to money, so the kind of people it attracts/makes famous are petty-bourgeois and bourgeois people looking to make a crapload of money.

Nailed it.

I really wish that the progressive cinema era circa 1930-1946 would return.

We need more Charlie Chaplins and less Russell Brands.

[Dimmu]

Who cares what these hollywood "big-shots" think? They only care about hookers, blow and filling their pockets with money by making crappy sequels..

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hollywood used to be fairly socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) until Mccarthyist blacklisting in the 1950's. In my opinion it's because when cinema first came about as a mass media, the people who associated with it (actors, writers, directors etc.) saw it as an art, and artists are notoriously leftist. Nowadays, films are first made to generate profit, with any artistic intentions taking a backseat to money, so the kind of people it attracts/makes famous are petty-bourgeois and bourgeois people looking to make a crapload of money.I think the studio system was pretty interested in only making profits. The big difference is the social influences at the time: there was a growing radical movement during both the initial phase of Hollywood (with early stars like Chaplain championing "populist" and "common man" themes) and then in the 1930s, Hollywood imported a lot of theater writers and actors influenced by the CP and the public theater project and the social theater scene that was going on back then.

[gorillafuck]

Maybe because they have no interest in genuine socialism per their material class interests?Tbh it's not only celebrities who read Zinn and Chomsky but then vocally support Obama come election time. More like, half of the American radical community in the year 2008.

[Amphictyonis]

LrvRpIokeAg