The political landscape since the late sixties has been notable for the fascination with celebrities and the elevation of some of them into political office. California has seen the elections of George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Minnesota turned Jesse Ventura and Al Franken into politicians, as did Tennessee with Fred Thompson and Iowa with Fred Grandy.
Name recognition is certainly a factor, and seems to outweigh other qualifications that would ordinarily expect to be valued. With celebrity comes wealth, which in recent years has been a paramount consideration in campaigns. Celebrities also attract wealth, as donors are eager to be associated with them.
Darrell West, in his 2003 book Celebrity Politics, foretold the current presidential race:
“Celebrities furthermore are advantaged because of the weakness of political parties. It used to be that those who wanted to seek elective office had to serve lengthy apprenticeships in lower positions before they could run for governor, Congress, or the Senate.
“Now, candidates from outside the world of politics who are famous, adept at fundraising, and able to attract media coverage can leap-frog career politicians and run for coveted office. They do not have to wait years serving on city councils or in state legislatures to get a chance to be governor.
“Finally, celebrities make good candidates because of the ‘white knight’ phenomenon. In an era of extensive citizen cynicism about conventional politicians, voters often see celebrities as white knights from outside the political process who are too rich to be bought and thereby deserving of trust from the electorate. This gives celebrities a kind of credibility that normal politicians do not have.”
Voters are entitled to wonder whether a celebrity from outside of politics will be effective. West goes on:
“The ultimate question of Hollywood celebrities is what kind of office-holder will they be. Do celebrities make for effective Governors, Senators, and Representatives? What challenges face them when they win a major office? What determines how successful they will be in the governing process?
“In looking at past cases, celebrities have a mixed record in terms of office performance. Governor Jesse Ventura came to office in Minnesota amid high hopes. He had surprised the experts and become one of the few Independents to win executive office in the United States. By assembling an unusual coalition of new voters, young people, and those who had just moved to the state, he was able to beat an established Democrat and Republican.
“However, as his governorship unfolded, Ventura alienated the state press, made a series of outrageous statements that aggravated the public, and had difficulties working with the Minnesota legislature. Before long, his popularity had dropped and Ventura was not considered a very effective governor.”
Ronald Reagan has become a mythical figure in American politics. Numerous examinations of his time in office have surfaced, which serve to remind us of easily (or readily) forgotten facts about his performance. I found this recent article in Salon to be especially revealing. An excerpt:
“In all fields of public affairs—from diplomacy to the economy—the president stunned Washington policymakers by how little basic information he commanded. His mind, said the well-disposed Peggy Noonan, was ‘barren terrain’. Speaking of one far-ranging discussion on the MX missile, the Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, an authority on national defense, reported, ‘Reagan’s only contribution throughout the entire hour and a half was to interrupt somewhere at midpoint to tell us he’d watched a movie the night before, and he gave us the plot from War Games’. The president ‘cut ribbons and made speeches. He did these things beautifully’, Congressman Jim Wright of Texas acknowledged. ‘But he never knew frijoles from pralines about the substantive facts of issues.’”
Many current politicians, serving now or running for office, have identified with him and utilize a revisionist version of his presidency, adding to and burnishing his myth. At the Yale University Commencement in 1962, John F. Kennedy said this about myths:
“For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Donald Trump, with his celebrity and name recognition, has been able to maintain his front-runner status. He has attracted many with his “white knight” status, being able to say that he is not a politician and isn’t interested in being politically correct. But interestingly, he is now beginning to pivot, taking the advice of political pros. He is toning down his rhetoric. By necessity he is becoming the politician he said he would never be. Will that be a turn-off to his celebrity-obsessed supporters? Time will tell.
D. Norman
Isn’t putting all celebrities into the same category the same as putting all blacks, or all Muslims, or all any things into a grouping? Aren’t people individuals before any group they may be a part of? Isn’t that concept of individually the primary thrust of all the Enlightenment thinkers you noted in a recent critique of a post of mine?
ReplyDeleteThe point of my piece was that celebrity status is not necessarily enough to qualify anyone as a politician. And my impetus for writing it obviously was Donald Trump. I had other sources, but space did not permit me to include them. Here are a couple:
ReplyDeleteElaine Kamarck, founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings Institution, in a commentary last September in Fortune: “The business of the president of the United States is not business. It’s politics, and all the messy sharing of power that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution.”
In a piece in Forbes in February, Stuart Anderson wrote:
“Dwight D. Eisenhower became a candidate for president without previously being elected to public office. However, that is where the similarities between Dwight Eisenhower and Donald Trump end.
“Eisenhower served in government as supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were under his command and he successfully oversaw key elements of the war against Nazi Germany. In that capacity, as well as his later position as supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), he gained valuable experience cooperating with world leaders as well as individuals at different levels of the U.S. government.
“Donald Trump’s primary experience with government has been in making campaign contributions and convincing local and state officials to approve real estate projects. Trump is a successful businessman and he should be proud of what he has achieved. But some of his limited experiences with government, including the use of eminent domain for private commercial projects, have been controversial.”
He continues later in his comment:
“In sum, possessing experience in business does not necessarily translate into the practical political skills needed to govern for an obvious reason – business and government are completely different, including the incentive structure and how failure is treated. Unsuccessful businesses go bankrupt, while unsuccessful government programs typically receive increased funding in the hope that will make them work.”
In my opinion, being an political “outsider” is not a valid credential in qualifying for president. Rather, it is a huge handicap, and the celebrity-entranced Trump supporters are in for a disappointment when his shortcomings are pointed out in the general election campaign and he loses badly. Polls that are in evidence currently do not reflect that- some show that Sanders would fare better than Clinton against him, which is ridiculous.