Hollywood Democrats
by talking to Hollywood Republicans. I thought I’d start with the stars. This plan offered the advantage of instantly narrowing
my prospects. After years of hanging around Republican politics, I could name only three stars I felt reasonably certain were
members of the GOP: Tom Selleck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Charlton Heston (Bruce Willis and Kevin Costner used to turn up
for events at the Bush White House from time to time, but friends in the Bush administration told me that they did so out
of loyalty to the Bushes, not to the GOP). I called all three. All three stiffed me. Tom Selleck’s publicist put me off by
saying that Selleck was an Independent, not a Republican. Schwarzenegger’s publicist put me off by the still more direct device
of refusing to return any of my calls. Heston’s publicist assured me that his client would get in touch with me as soon as
he returned from Spain, where he was shooting a movie. I’m still waiting. I might as well have been in Moscow during the old
days, trying to get the stars of the Bolshoi to attack the Politburo on the record. When the stars refused to speak to me,
I had no choice. I was forced to turn to dissidents.
* * *
During his two decades in Hollywood, Michael Medved became a film critic (for a time he was the co-host of the television
program,
Sneak Previews
), then a critic of Hollywood itself, attacking the entertainment industry in a number of books, perhaps the best known of
which is
Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War Against Traditional Values
. Eventually Medved got sick of Southern California and did what many Californians who get sick of Southern California do,
moving north to Seattle. Now he hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show. An intense, energetic man with tousled brown
hair, large brown eyes, and a drooping handlebar mustache, Medved talked to me in his studio after one of his broadcasts.
He offered two explanations for why Hollywood is so Democratic. Medved’s first explanation: In Hollywood, emotion is more
important than reason.
“In the entertainment industry, you have to have your emotions constantly available to you,” Medved said. “You go to the set
in the morning and meet some snot-nosed kid who makes it clear that he doesn’t especially want to work with you. Then you
have to spend all day crying because the script calls for the kid to have cancer. People in Hollywood spend their careers
engaged in emotional self-manipulation, and a town that operates on emotional self-manipulation will lean to the left.”
The Democratic and Republican positions on welfare, for example, illustrate Medved’s point. Democrats say the government should
spend more to help the poor. The emotional appeal of that position is immediate. It feels good. Republicans say, Not so fast.
To spend more, Republicans argue, the government would have to raise taxes. That in turn would have a dampening effect on
the economy. Can we be sure, Republicans ask, that the government wouldn’t push as many people into poverty as it intended
to help? When government money reached the poor, Republicans go on to ask, would it truly help them? Or would it demoralize
them, making them dependent on the government? Instead of increasing government handouts, Republicans conclude, it would be
better to fashion programs, like the welfare reform of 1996, * that help the poor get jobs, enabling them to care for their families on their own. The Republican position thus involves
a thought process of three or four steps. And the thought process is made up of just that, thought. In a town that would rather
emote than think, the Republican position doesn’t stand a chance.
Medved’s other explanation: sex. “The chief motivation for anyone in Hollywood,” he said, “is getting laid.”
Hollywood takes its morals from the marketplace. Competitive pressures are such that if one studio shows
by talking to Hollywood Republicans. I thought I’d start with the stars. This plan offered the advantage of instantly narrowing
my prospects. After years of hanging around Republican politics, I could name only three stars I felt reasonably certain were
members of the GOP: Tom Selleck, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Charlton Heston (Bruce Willis and Kevin Costner used to turn up
for events at the Bush White House from time to time, but friends in the Bush administration told me that they did so out
of loyalty to the Bushes, not to the GOP). I called all three. All three stiffed me. Tom Selleck’s publicist put me off by
saying that Selleck was an Independent, not a Republican. Schwarzenegger’s publicist put me off by the still more direct device
of refusing to return any of my calls. Heston’s publicist assured me that his client would get in touch with me as soon as
he returned from Spain, where he was shooting a movie. I’m still waiting. I might as well have been in Moscow during the old
days, trying to get the stars of the Bolshoi to attack the Politburo on the record. When the stars refused to speak to me,
I had no choice. I was forced to turn to dissidents.
* * *
During his two decades in Hollywood, Michael Medved became a film critic (for a time he was the co-host of the television
program,
Sneak Previews
), then a critic of Hollywood itself, attacking the entertainment industry in a number of books, perhaps the best known of
which is
Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War Against Traditional Values
. Eventually Medved got sick of Southern California and did what many Californians who get sick of Southern California do,
moving north to Seattle. Now he hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show. An intense, energetic man with tousled brown
hair, large brown eyes, and a drooping handlebar mustache, Medved talked to me in his studio after one of his broadcasts.
He offered two explanations for why Hollywood is so Democratic. Medved’s first explanation: In Hollywood, emotion is more
important than reason.
“In the entertainment industry, you have to have your emotions constantly available to you,” Medved said. “You go to the set
in the morning and meet some snot-nosed kid who makes it clear that he doesn’t especially want to work with you. Then you
have to spend all day crying because the script calls for the kid to have cancer. People in Hollywood spend their careers
engaged in emotional self-manipulation, and a town that operates on emotional self-manipulation will lean to the left.”
The Democratic and Republican positions on welfare, for example, illustrate Medved’s point. Democrats say the government should
spend more to help the poor. The emotional appeal of that position is immediate. It feels good. Republicans say, Not so fast.
To spend more, Republicans argue, the government would have to raise taxes. That in turn would have a dampening effect on
the economy. Can we be sure, Republicans ask, that the government wouldn’t push as many people into poverty as it intended
to help? When government money reached the poor, Republicans go on to ask, would it truly help them? Or would it demoralize
them, making them dependent on the government? Instead of increasing government handouts, Republicans conclude, it would be
better to fashion programs, like the welfare reform of 1996, * that help the poor get jobs, enabling them to care for their families on their own. The Republican position thus involves
a thought process of three or four steps. And the thought process is made up of just that, thought. In a town that would rather
emote than think, the Republican position doesn’t stand a chance.
Medved’s other explanation: sex. “The chief motivation for anyone in Hollywood,” he said, “is getting laid.”
Hollywood takes its morals from the marketplace. Competitive pressures are such that if one studio shows
Similar Books
