Do Celebrity and Politics Mix?
E! tonight aired a segment dealing with the conspicuous presence of celebrities at the Democrat’s Convention last week. It seems some of the movie stars, musicians and athletes whose political activism leans toward the left bristle at the notion that they should refrain from expressing their enthusiasm for their candidate or their disdain for their perceived opposition.
Since I’ve been involved with my own political activism all of my adult life, I’ve struggled with this question of where to draw the line between voicing one’s opinion and whether or not it’s appropriate to use one’s celebrity status to advance a political agenda. This has become particularly important now that I’m become something of an Internet mini-celebrity myself. Telling a movie star she can’t use his or her money and fame to affect political change seems as silly as telling lobbyists and political action committees that they cannot use their money and influence to affect political change. It also goes to branding, because if you’re acheived celebrity status for acting or singing, one risks becoming better known for your rabid activism than your chosen craft.
So, as a favor to celebrities present and future, I offer the following guidelines on how one might use your money and fame to express your political opinions without harming your personal brand:
- Dance with who brung ya: Odds are, you didn’t achieve fame and subsequently, money, because of your views on global warming or gay rights or your anti-war views. Your acheived your fame and notoriety because you played a part well in a series of movies, or because teenagers bought your CD because your music entertained them, or because you won several Olympic gold medals. Remember that you’re an entertainer or athlete, and when you become better known for your activism than your ability to entertain or compete, your brand suffers.
- Take a stand and you’ll alienate someone: United States elections in the last 2 decades have inarguable demonstrated that the country’s population is split nearly down the middle into the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Republicans, and people are polarized. If you publicly choose a side, the other side is sure to be offended.
- If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen: Knowing that, despite how innocuously you might present your opinions, you’re bound to alienate someone, the decision then becomes, “Do I lose half the people who buy tickets to my movies, or do I speak my mind?” Whatever the decision, you need to be prepared to live with the consequences.
- Don’t be negative: If you believe something strongly and can argue it effectively and with intellectual honesty while remaining positive, your chances of surviving with your brand relatively intact increase. It’s the job of the candidates and their staff to drive up the negatives of their opposition, not yours. Every time you say something negative, your negatives will go up proportionally with those of whom you are attacking.
- Be positive: If you support Obama, say why, but say why without attack. “I’m here because I appreciate Obama’s support for a woman’s right to choose,” or, “I’m a McCain supporter because of his service and support of our military members.” When you attack another person’s candidate, they take that as an attack on them.
- Never attack the civilians: Case in point - When, at a benefit for Vice-President Gore in September 2000, Julia Roberts said, “Republican comes in the dictionary just after reptile and just above repugnant,” I imagine she meant Republican legislators and party leaders, but that’s not how it was perceived. At the time, I was a Republican, and I thought to myself, “She’s calling me repugnant!” Even today, I cannot watch Julia Roberts in a movie or telelvision show without first thinking, “She hates me!”
- It’s not about you: If your celebrity status is big enough, or your activism aggressive enough, your support and presence may overshadow or adversely effect your candidate. While I disagree with George Cloony and Ben Afflect’s views, I appreciate their decision to avoid entirely or downplay their appearances respectively at the DNC convention in Denver. In more extreme examples, a celebrity whose activism has acheived a certain level of notoriety may actually hurt their candidate through their support.
Of course, there are exceptions to these rules. If your celebrity status can be attributed to your political views, or if you represent a minority or subculture that is closely identified with identity politics, you may face little risk. If you are Zack de la Rocha, who became popular though Rage Against the Machine’s political screeds, or Perez Hilton, who is legendary for being a homosexual blogger obsessed with celebrity, being outspoken about politics isn’t a problem, isn’t practically expected. For de la Rocha, it’s obvious: If Rage Against the Machine were to start singing songs about walks in the park with someone you love, fans would be apoplectic with shock.
Perez Hilton is a little different: Being flamboyantly gay is part of Hilton’s personality and branding, and no political party so closely identifies itself with homosexuals as the Democratic Party does. Sure, being gay and being a Liberal Democrat aren’t synonymous, but it’s certainly not unexpected. Actually, the inverse is true. If I were to meet a lesbian who tells me she’s a Republican, I’d be shocked. If I met a Republican who tells me he or she is pro-choice, I’d be shocked. Many groups or minorities convieniently fall into one political mindset, and if a celebrity gains his or her status from one of those groups, it may even be beneficial to be politically outspoken.
So, there you go! These are my suggested guidelines for melding celebrity status with political involvement. It can be done, but care must be taken to not let your views derail your personal brand.
What are your thoughts? Am I making too much of this, or am I spot on?
Leave a Comment