Why are actors and athletes spared from populist wrath?

[Mister A]

It seems that the pro-regulation crowd is not being honest with themselves; they hyperventilate over executive bonus pay yet are indifferent to Hugh Jackman raking in millions for prancing about in a bad haircut.

My theory: Escapism, by its reality-avoidant nature, may be the only product that does not inspire envy.

Thoughts?

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mister A

[Myself]

Your mistake is your belief in the sincerity of their convictions. Liberals don't attack Hollywood for its sometimes lavish "excess" because it is composed primarily of liberals. Why would they attack themselves? Another, similar question, is how to account for the existence of "limousine liberals" if you give them the sincerity of their altruistic convictions.

The answer, in part, is that most of these people live in an almost schizophrenic state of detachment. Their ideals preach something they cannot follow and when they can't follow it, they resort to pragmatism. So creating exceptions becomes the rule, so to speak. That's what allows them to both survive and still hold the ideas they profess to believe in. But it also creates a lot of guilt and low self esteem, which is one reason why practically everyone in LA sees a shrink or turns to drugs or both at some point.

It's not easy being green (or red). The going rate is regular therapy bills and rehab, with the occaisonal suicide attempt. A reasonable price to pay to worship the Earth Father Marx at the alter of Castro-Guevara.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Myself

[JeffS]

I have a theory about this. I think liberals look at professional entertainers and athletes and think, "Heck, I could do that!" They sing in the shower, repeat lines from movies, and tell funny jokes. When they see Hugh Jackman rake in millions they think, "He deserves it because one day I'll do that and I'll deserve it."

In contrast when a liberal sees a successful business person they think, "He must have stolen that from someone, or he oppressed someone, or otherwise took advantage of someone in order to create that wealth. No one is that smart, or that capable." In short, they look at someone like Bill Gates and think, "I'm not that smart. I'm not that capable. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't and he doesn't deserve that wealth."

[Myself]

In short, they look at someone like Bill Gates and think, "I'm not that smart. I'm not that capable. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't and he doesn't deserve that wealth."

So your theory is that all liberals are dumb or have an inferiority complex? What about Bill Gates (most definitely a liberal)? Does he think "I'm not as smart as Bill Gates" too?

[Mister A]

Your mistake is your belief in the sincerity of their convictions. Liberals don't attack Hollywood for its sometimes lavish "excess" because it is composed primarily of liberals. Why would they attack themselves? Another, similar question, is how to account for the existence of "limousine liberals" if you give them the sincerity of their altruistic convictions.

It's a faulty premise that corporations are a reliable Republican constituency, but I guess that's lost on the legions of drooling picket-wavers.

I have a theory about this. I think liberals look at professional entertainers and athletes and think, "Heck, I could do that!" They sing in the shower, repeat lines from movies, and tell funny jokes. When they see Hugh Jackman rake in millions they think, "He deserves it because one day I'll do that and I'll deserve it."

In contrast when a liberal sees a successful business person they think, "He must have stolen that from someone, or he oppressed someone, or otherwise took advantage of someone in order to create that wealth. No one is that smart, or that capable." In short, they look at someone like Bill Gates and think, "I'm not that smart. I'm not that capable. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't and he doesn't deserve that wealth."

But we can't all be like Mike.

[Myself]

It's a faulty premise that corporations are a reliable Republican constituency, but I guess that's lost on the legions of drooling picket-wavers.

Which "drooling picket-wavers" are you referring to?

But we can't all be like Mike.

Who's Mike?

[Mister A]

Which "drooling picket-wavers" are you referring to?

The type ACORN buses onto the lawns of AIG execs.

Who's Mike?

As in Jordan. But I think a point could be made that sports and entertainment are accessible to the mainstream (ie. we can't all be like Mike but we can all play basketball) while practical economics isn't. It's the mystery and obtuseness around the profession that can fuel myths of malfeasance.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mister A

[Myself]

It's the mystery and obtuseness around the profession that can fuel myths of malfeasance.

What's so mysterious about running a business? Even children can grasp the fundamentals after a summer of running a lemonade stand, or through a part time job by watching their manager.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Myself

[IchorFigure]

I think it is because entertainment is not seen as a "need". No poverty stricken bum anywhere will die without watching Britney Spears perform at the Superbowl. In contrast food, water, and a job are things people "need" (the added implication is they have a right to them) and thus politicians are too willing to provide with their altruistic do-gooding. It just does not sell, or at least they haven't figured out how to yet.

Edited for clarity.

Edited June 2, 2009 by IchorFigure

[Mister A]

What's so mysterious about running a business? Even children can grasp the fundamentals after a summer of running a lemonade stand, or through a part time job by watching their manager.

I'm talking about the big league commodity producers who deal with a lot more variables than gross and overhead.

[JMeganSnow]

Um, since when are actors and athletes spared populist wrath? Two words: Marilyn Monroe. And plenty of people unload masses of bile on celebrities they don't like. I doubt there's a popular singer out there who hasn't been bombarded with claims that they "stole" their songs from some envious mediocrity.

[Mister A]

Um, since when are actors and athletes spared populist wrath? Two words: Marilyn Monroe. And plenty of people unload masses of bile on celebrities they don't like. I doubt there's a popular singer out there who hasn't been bombarded with claims that they "stole" their songs from some envious mediocrity.

But that kind of rancor is the sort of pedestrian tawdriness you can find in any clique of teenagers. It's very different from populist antipathy which is indiscriminate and sanctioned by the intellectual elite.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mister A

[Maximus]

So your theory is that all liberals are dumb or have an inferiority complex? What about Bill Gates (most definitely a liberal)? Does he think "I'm not as smart as Bill Gates" too?

No, he thinks "I'm not as smart as Steve Jobs."

[D'kian]

Another, similar question, is how to account for the existence of "limousine liberals" if you give them the sincerity of their altruistic convictions.

Oh, that's easy. They expiate the sin of being wealthy (however they got wealthy) by pushing an altruistic political agenda on everyone else. If they can make John Doe pay his "share" in taxes, forced volunteerism and such, they can avoid feeling guilty while they travel in private jets and burrow into every tax loophole and shelter they can find.

A better queastion is why they regard the West as sexist and oppressive to women, but defend the Islamic culture that treats women worse than cattle. Consider, in their estimation it's worse to make a joke about women in general than to stone a rape victim to death for the crime of accusing a man of rape. They think it's worse to offend a woman by complimenting her on her appearance, than it is to mutilate the genitals of a young girl.

[Mister A]

A better queastion is why they regard the West as sexist and oppressive to women, but defend the Islamic culture that treats women worse than cattle. Consider, in their estimation it's worse to make a joke about women in general than to stone a rape victim to death for the crime of accusing a man of rape. They think it's worse to offend a woman by complimenting her on her appearance, than it is to mutilate the genitals of a young girl.

I've figured it's a 'sanction of the victim' scheme where the Left manipulate the opposition by exploiting their values and guilt for not strictly applying them. The amoral Islamists have no such vulnerability and the Left share camaraderie with that scum anyway.

[Eiuol]

A better queastion is why they regard the West as sexist and oppressive to women, but defend the Islamic culture that treats women worse than cattle. Consider, in their estimation it's worse to make a joke about women in general than to stone a rape victim to death for the crime of accusing a man of rape. They think it's worse to offend a woman by complimenting her on her appearance, than it is to mutilate the genitals of a young girl.

I don't think that anyone thinks that. It's more like "Islamic culture as a whole should be respected. Introducing things like affirmative action and anti-sexism laws would prevent the obvious human rights abuses. It's not a cultural problem, but a lack of humane rules. Western culture has these sort of rules, but feminism and equality can always be improved. We must promote the betterment of humanity." People who think like that simply don't realize their contradiction.

Actors and athletes have had the most (visible) "populist wrath" as long as I can remember. "I like his work, but seriously, NO ONE needs a private jet..." "I can't believe those baseball players want ANOTHER pay raise." I've also heard conservative pundits say that Hollywood liberals don't deserve their money because they don't produce anything, as though art has no meaning or value.

Maybe the anger is more subdued since actors/athletes don't "control" people's livelihood like a CEO does.

[JeffS]

No, he thinks "I'm not as smart as Steve Jobs."

Bingo.

[JeffS]

So your theory is that all liberals are dumb or have an inferiority complex? What about Bill Gates (most definitely a liberal)? Does he think "I'm not as smart as Bill Gates" too?

Everyone who holds a sacrificial philosophy has an inferiority complex; liberals are just the most obvious who also happen to be members of the "pro-regulation crowd" Mister A referenced in the OP.

[D'kian]

I don't think that anyone thinks that. It's more like "Islamic culture as a whole should be respected. Introducing things like affirmative action and anti-sexism laws would prevent the obvious human rights abuses. It's not a cultural problem, but a lack of humane rules. Western culture has these sort of rules, but feminism and equality can always be improved. We must promote the betterment of humanity." People who think like that simply don't realize their contradiction.

I don't think it's even that good (yes, I said good). I see more an attitude that any non-Western culture is superior by virtue of being non-Western. Sometimes it stops there, sometimes it goes on to twist reality into a fourth-dimensional pretzel to explain why women, not to mention gays and lesbians, are better off as no-class property than as equal citizens in the West. It's nasty.

Actors and athletes have had the most (visible) "populist wrath" as long as I can remember. "I like his work, but seriously, NO ONE needs a private jet..." "I can't believe those baseball players want ANOTHER pay raise."

Not that so much, it's more subtle. One good example is Pete Rose, the former mannager and player of the Cincinnati Reds who was booted off baseball for gambling. People literally jumped on him with glee. I thought it was sad an icon in a pro sport, or even baseball, would sink that low (there being so many other things to gamble on); but most comentators loved to have found the feet of clay in this particular personage. I recall lots of columns in SI about how the only thing Americans love more than a celebrity is to bring that celebrity down.

[Zip]

Because they have "talent" and that's something divine. :?

[GoKartMozart]

I don't think it's even that good (yes, I said good). I see more an attitude that any non-Western culture is superior by virtue of being non-Western. Sometimes it stops there, sometimes it goes on to twist reality into a fourth-dimensional pretzel to explain why women, not to mention gays and lesbians, are better off as no-class property than as equal citizens in the West. It's nasty.

Second that. As a rising high school senior and thus current college searcher, I was reading up in my Fiske Guide one day when I came across a quote from a student at Columbia (known for it's extensive core curriculum on the Western canon) who asked why we should study Western canon when Western society was just a long history of racism, sexism, and oppression. I sort of wondered what society he thought was better. Sure, historically, Western society has had its tremendous faults, and everyone acknowledges that. But did he really not see that not only could the same be said of every other world culture historically, but also that, of the options, Western society was probably the best historically, even if far from perfect? I think it's just that - a contempt for the historical faults of Western culture that both fails to realize its incredible successes and fails to realize the same faults in other cultures.

[Uttles]

It seems that the pro-regulation crowd is not being honest with themselves; they hyperventilate over executive bonus pay yet are indifferent to Hugh Jackman raking in millions for prancing about in a bad haircut.

My theory: Escapism, by its reality-avoidant nature, may be the only product that does not inspire envy.

Thoughts?

This is simple. They all bow down to the statist agenda and most even go to great lengths to spread the lies and propaganda that surround the statist cause.

Therefore, celebrities are a part of the elitists that rule over us serfs, and are exempt from the rules of morality that we must live by.

To a rational person, they are hypocrites through and through.

[Erik Christensen]

eh?

Edited June 9, 2009 by Erik Christensen

[SapereAude]

The simple answer is cognitive dissonance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

for anyone unfamiliar with psychological terms.

People see themselves as taking part in the fruits of the actors labour to a greater extent than the things they use everyday like cars, gas, computers, mining, logging, etc.

A CEO gets on a private jet to go to a meeting and the villagers get out their pitchforks. Oprah takes one to go to a spa and not a peep.

Think of all the "environmental activists" actors... think of how much damage (by their own claims, not mine) they do everytime they make a movie. All the private planes, all the transport, all the set building, all the stuff getting blown up, all the "greenhouse gasses" all the bottled water ..and on and on and on...

In a way I see all the pandering to "the left" that Hollywood does as a form of protection money. Throw out some Habitat for Humanity PR here, a $1million donation there and they're seen as being on the side of "the good guys".

You can find all this in Atlas Shrugged actually. For the most part the villians were as wealthy and powerful as the heroes they worked to turn the population against. ..but with a few high minded speeches and some donations and some acts that could be taken as working with the progressive agenda the attention turned away from them.

A brilliant wealth keeping strategy if one is willing to live a lie.

I'm fairly well known of in the town where I own my business.. and when the Obama election was going on I had people threatening to boycott my business over my views on personal property- by people who have far more than I.

What people hate (right now) is not having it- but saying I earned this, I deserve it, it MINE.

As long as actors keep in line with what the other second handers believe the eye won't turn on them.

People will start resenting the having itself after the producers stop producing.

Long live Clint Eastwood!

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

Liberal politicians suffer from a bad case of van guardism who see actors and athletes as the perfect vehicle to 'educating' the great unwashed masses to the need for a socialist revolution through veiled appeals to crisis - the 'environmentalist' movement being the best example (its interesting how so many Green Party members in New Zealand were former Communists - and not of the Anarcho-Communist type).

The actors and athletes make their way before the alter at the church of environmentalism, genuflect and pay their penance in the form of 'carbon offsets', install a couple of solar panels and drive a hybrid and apparently all their sins are forgiven. They get to do anything they want and the politicians get high profile propaganda agents to spread their message. It is the same sort of relationship one saw between the Bolsheviks and the artistic movement; too bad many of them were too stupid to realise that they were supporting a party who will eventually destroy their art if they dare show originality or willingness to push the boundaries.