Several years ago, after I emerged from the fog of knee-jerk Liberalism that envelops most of the entertainment business, I began to wonder why it was that so many of my colleagues remained mired in the magical thinking that so often seems to characterize the Left. After all, many of my colleagues were reasonable, kind, and intelligent people. Among my friends, were musicians, actors, photographers, and writers – all of whom were highly creative and dedicated to their craft yet, as is typical of those on the Left, they couldn’t be swayed by facts if those facts contradicted the prevailing winds of Liberal dogma. So, the big question emerged: why is the entertainment industry so disproportionately skewed to the Left?
I soon decided that some of it could be explained by the pervasive insularity that characterizes the creative community. Musicians hang out with other musicians, actors, with actors, etc. And it quickly became apparent that despite the grandiose pretensions that entertainers maintain about being free thinkers, the incestuous idea-swapping of Liberal slogans was the easiest way to stay in the “club” and not have to waste too much creative juice on real societal problem solving.
But there had to be more to it than that. What makes so many creative people cling so tenaciously to their “brain-dead liberal” ideas?
I got an insight into the answer from a chance encounter with a neighbor of mine who happens to be a writer and movie director. He has made a couple commercially distributed movies, both of which were somber, internal dramas, the scripts for which emanated from his dysfunctional upbringing and reflected his dark and somewhat twisted view of the human condition. Both films opened with great fanfare and garnered tremendous critical praise and, predictably, both films were miserable box office flops. The first, a grim drama about adolescent sexuality coupled with inappropriate adult prurient interest made about $1.2 million while the second, sporting a cast of some very well known actors, involved murder and dystopic familial angst. It brought in a worldwide take of just over $900,000; barely enough to cover the cost of the lunch wagon. Remarkably, he’s found backing for yet another film. (Please forgive me for being deliberately vague about the details of these movies. After all, I am writing about someone I interact with frequently.)
I ran into him, walking his dog just after his second movie opened and casually asked how it was doing. “Alright.” he answered somewhat dejectedly. “Well,” I said, “it really doesn’t look like the kind of movie I would want to see.” “Yeah. It’s not for everyone,” he replied and then added, “You’re an artist. You can really understand how important it is to be true to your art and you can never compromise when it comes to your artistic vision.” “That may be,” I responded, “but first and foremost, I think of myself as an entertainer.” There was a long pause as he digested that. Finally he retorted, “Well… uh…There are some people who find this kind of film entertaining.”
That brief interchange highlighted for me a big divide between how Liberals and Conservatives see themselves and their role in the entertainment industry, and is another way of looking at the classic divide between Liberals who esteem “rights” over all else, versus Conservatives who view “responsibilities” as their most important value. If I see my work as a classical violinist as primarily “entertainment,” then it’s my duty to make sure that any performance I give provides my audience with a respite from the cares and stresses of life. If someone plunks down thirty or forty dollars to hear me perform, then I feel an obligation to bring them as much joy and inspiration as possible. My friend, on the other hand (a dyed-in-the wool Liberal) views himself as an “artist” and as such, his self-absorbed worldview says to him, “My feelings trump all. My inner world is so important and meaningful that it needs to be placed on worldwide display regardless of whether or not anyone else enjoys it.”
Don’t get me wrong. When I write the word “entertainment” I don’t mean frivolity. A Beethoven Sonata or a movie like “Sophie’s Choice” are works of depth yet at the same time they are entertaining. The debate about what is “art” or “not art” is better left to another article but I believe one of the biggest factors in determining what is “not art” is how narcissistic the work in question is.
I certainly can’t deny that a healthy amount of narcissism is useful, even vital, to the creative process. Without a strong belief in the value of one’s individual vision, no one would do anything creative. (If I didn’t think I had something of value to say, I wouldn’t be writing this.) But, until relatively recently, society and the system of patronage (whether via the local King or the Studio boss) that existed in the arts, served to constrain unbridled narcissism. Even an artistic giant like Beethoven, although fiercely independent and neurotically narcissistic, had to answer to a whole host of societal and creative limitations if he expected to make any money from his art.
As many have observed, modern Liberalism is largely feelings-based. The self-absorbed slogan, “If it feels good, do it!” was a rallying cry of the 60’s and many would argue that now, several decades later, society is reeling from the negative consequences that resulted from the breakdown of societal constraints that sort of thinking helped bring about.
Starting in the 60’s, the media became actively complicit in elevating entertainers to the exalted status of “artist” and that appellation was bestowed upon almost anyone who could more or less hold a tune or say a few lines on camera. By now, the whole concept of “artist” has become stretched so thin as to be meaningless. Obviously, if everyone is an “artist” then no one really is. Here, for example, is this quote from 17 year old Miley Cyrus’ web page: “She may be young, but Miley Cyrus loves what she does, fearlessly embracing new creative directions every chance she gets. That’s the meta-message in “Breakout,” her brilliant new Hollywood Records album. “Breakout” is nothing less than Miley’s declaration of artistic independence.”
Eventually, singers, actors, musicians, and writers, all started believing their own hype — imagining that they were not simply entertainers but were in reality, “great artists” whose every fleeting thought and whim was of monumental social importance. “Great artists” don’t like being constrained by the same moral values or issues of financial pragmatism that constrict the common folk. “Artists”, being anointed by God for greater things should, after all, be above such plebeian concerns. So this newly swelled class of “artist” took upon itself the right, nay, the duty to lead the unwashed masses into compassionate and politically correct thinking. In his day, no one would have given any more credence to Clark Gable’s ideas on politics than they might their plumber, yet today the likes of Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand pontificate on topics well beyond their ken and many listen in slack-jawed reverence.
As more and more entertainers became “artists,” the enticement to join the club became too great. For instance, it’s no longer cool to simply be a news reporter, relegated to objectively conveying the facts of an event. Reporting on “who, what, when, where, and why” is too mundane and not societally transformative, and besides, it takes great “artistry” to be a skilled creative writer. So, reporters have transformed themselves into “artists” and as a result, their ideological opinions have replaced simple truth telling. No wonder newspapers are failing.
The moment an entertainer imbibes this elitist outlook, a conflict with “ordinary” people arises. Lawyers, postal workers, mechanics and the like are viewed as just consumers of all this “art”. Worst of all, in the view of these “artists”, is the military. What could be more antithetical to “art” than the high-tech destructiveness our military must engage in to keep us all safe? As a result, they look down upon the mere mortals who aren’t gifted with the holy vision that enables them to perceive “truths” reserved only for anointed “artists”. How else to explain the staggering hubris that entertainers so often demonstrate in preaching about subjects like same-sex marriage and global warming?
Finally, what often seems to happen is that entertainers (particularly very successful ones) who buy into this “artist” mindset will become wracked by an existential guilt. Deep down, a part of them knows that what they do, while a valuable service, is vastly over inflated in its significance. Believing the hype about their “artistry” can drive them mad, as it did Britney Spears, or they just go off the deep end in their support for Leftist causes in an effort to assuage the guilt that comes from taking so much money from “the common people.”
It’s easy to understand how creative people fall into this pit. By definition, entertainers have to be in far closer touch with their feelings than most people or they couldn’t dip so easily into the pool of emotion that informs their work. Leftist positions appeal to the emotions because they are easy to understand and seem compassionate, even if they lead to larger problems in the long run. And, since they don’t necessitate a lot of facts to clutter the mind, they are easy to embrace and promulgate. I know from my own past that I accepted a lot of Leftist rhetoric simply because it was easier to allow myself to be swept along in the feel-good tide it engendered without being forced to think my positions through with any depth.
Big problems arise, though, when the media gives unfettered permission to entertainers to express their feelings in all areas of life. The Left has been very careful to nurture its relationship to celebrity “artists” and since so many are high profile entertainers, they are constantly giving what amount to Leftist product endorsements via the roles they portray or the interviews they give. Then, sadly, when their pronouncements are taken too seriously, society gets led into a ditch. As a result, even those of us who feel that being an entertainer is a dignified calling are forced (like myself) to opine in areas that we wouldn’t otherwise, simply to counteract the pernicious effect of “artists” spouting their feelings-based claptrap.
When all is said and done, none of this would be that important were it not for the staggeringly negative impact this all has on our society. The countless films, television shows, and interviews that Left-wing entertainers have produced since the 60’s have done a horrific disservice to the cultural and moral foundation of not only our own country but to the public perception of America abroad. When American military, business, and religious interests are all routinely portrayed as rapacious, evil, and corrupt, an entrenched mindset develops against which real events are judged. Is it any wonder, then, that many Europeans think the United States represents the single greatest threat to world peace, or that a significant number of Americans believe that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the 9 /11 attacks? Back in the 60’s there was a huge outcry when Jane Fonda consorted with the vicious North Vietnamese regime but decades of similar celebrity endorsement has blunted that sense of outrage, to the point that it seemed commonplace for Robert Redford and Sean Penn to consort with a murderous thug like Fidel Castro. Ultimately, it is this cultural brainwash from the Left that explains why it is so difficult to sway a Liberal with facts. If one has spent the last several decades marinating in a sauce of conspiracy theories and images of American greed and brutality, then it’s easy to imagine that President Bush “stole” his election or that Vice President Cheney is beholden to Halliburton.
All is not lost. There are signs that some knees are not jerking quite so frequently to the Liberal side and the “brain-dead” are beginning to awaken from their long coma. The monolithic far-Left dominance of the entertainment industry is beginning to show some cracks. Openly Conservative entertainers are banding together. The very existence of “Big Hollywood” is a tremendously hopeful sign, as it is a vehicle for entertainment professionals to be exposed to Conservative ideas and reasoned debate emanating from within the profession. As a result, the fear Conservative entertainers feel about “coming out of the closet” regarding their views may slowly begin to dissipate.
For creative people, the best thing will be to reclaim the noble calling of being an “entertainer” and with it the healthy sense of responsibility to the audience. After all, it is our work that makes it possible for some people to endure their otherwise mundane lives. If we focus on bringing as much light into the lives of others, “artistry” will take care of itself and we also won’t need to be concerned with seeking narcissistic gratification in ways that are peripheral to what we do best. By doing that, a critical mass of clear thinkers in the entertainment industry may eventually develop and it will again become “cool” to support American values.