Liberals & Hollywood

Much to write on this topic, but there's limited space here (not to mention attention spans).

It's generally taken for granted that Hollywood is full of bleeding-heart liberals. Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Janeane Garofalo, and on and on. Republicans in Hollywood include Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and Charlton Heston, but you rarely hear about them. That's because it's the liberals who get blamed by conservatives for the breakdown of society. They won't yell at John McClane or Thomas Magnum because they're the good guys, but get mad when other celebrities speak their minds about politics.

Why do they care? Why do we? They have a platform from which they can command attention, and if they wish to focus attention on politics, then so be it. You and I do not have to listen to them. Linda Ronstadt criticized Bush in Las Vegas and got in trouble for it. That was during a show, so her critics may have a point there. We all know what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they dared speak their minds. We also see people like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand getting roasted for speaking their minds. Barbra Streisand is a talented woman who happens to be a liberal celebrity. Her years of supporting liberal causes have earned her the wrath of conservatives who depict her as the face of a Hollywood that corrupts our moral values (there they are again), a Hollywood that promotes drug use and encourages abortion, or something like that, I guess.

What if Ms. Streisand turns the tables in the next election and supports the Republican candidate (but still votes Democrat)? Then they would have no reason to yell at her. It would confuse them and possibly get the votes of some red-staters who also blame Hollywood and the "liberal elite" for trying to ruin their lives. Yentl would then join Moses, Magnum, and John McClane in the "OK" list.

The Red-Blue Cultural Divide

Michael Moore plans to make a sequel to Fahrenheit 9-11. He said that "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," (Variety, 11/11). Now, I don't know about that. Certainly there are people who would have voted for Bush no matter how much Mr. Moore "educated" them, and it is within their right to do so. Personally, I felt the movie was a bit over-the-top in places, but that's a topic for another day.

It raises an interesting point, though. In terms of education (and not just about the election and political matters in general), is there a difference between blue and red voters, and does that make a difference in the way they vote?

The link below is to an interesting column about "Liberal Blue Staters" and "Conservative Red Staters." We have to share this country with each other, and while articles like this do not necessarily promote healing, they do provide a deeper look at things and examine the "why" in addition to the "what." It is biased, but does back up its arguments.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall

Democratic Leadership

There is currently talk about who will, or should, replace Terry McAuliffe as the head of the DNC. The person needs to do more than just raise money. McAuliffe was a champion fundraiser, but look where all that money got the Democrats. It needs to be someone who will put forth a plan. As my buddy Rob points out:

The Dems need to kill all talk of Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Edwards and their consultants and find the next generation already. Then they need to find some people who are not me-too or socialists...We have no one yet who will speak up and lead. Regardless of what we felt about the Contract with America, it was a document that stated what the GOP stood for and the Democrats have never done that, even during Clinton. Let them say "we will fight for equality of opportunity with an inclusive society that protects freedom domestically and externally. We will do it by pushing for sustainable education, jobs and health care within a fiscal responsible model."

Nicely put.

Who do you think should head the DNC?

Pictures Are Worth A LOT of Words

I can't post it here, or haven't figured out how just yet, but there's a picture going around on the Internet of President-Elect George W. Bush that is composed of photographs of the soldiers who died fighting in Iraq.

Right before the election, Bush referred to Kerry as a man who would rush to judgement before gathering all the facts. This from a man who did just that in a clumsy attempt to justify his attempt to settle a personal grudge. How pathetic that he would then describe Kerry that way. How pathetic that it worked.

WL

The Moral Values Debate

It now seems clear, based on exit polling, that "moral values" was the reason that the Democrats took such a beating. Well, I am thoroughly confused.

So is it true that people might be worried about losing their jobs or a terrorist attack or a zooming deficit, but are even more worried about the prospect of gay marriage? I read somewhere that during the campaign, people passed out flyers in a southern state (possibly West Virginia) warning that if the liberals were elected, they would "take your Bibles." I laughed at the time, but it's pretty clear that a large portion of the country fears the Democrats.

At what point did the GOP become the standard-bearers for moral values? Was it the Clinton scandal, when they tried to paint all Democrats as being like President Clinton? Does it go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which played upon racial fears and prejudice? What role does Fox News play in tapping into these fears...I remember a parody of the network on The Simpsons, where the news ticker read "Do Democrats Cause Cancer?" What other factors come into play, if in fact these are part of it?

If people are more concerned about gay marriage and abortion and "God's Will" than with their own well-being, how do you convince them to vote for you if they fear you so much? The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to convince these people that they are indeed on their side.

What do you think?

For more on this, please see http://www.carenlissner.blogspot.com