Okay, so as I'm sure some of you have heard, actress Sarah Jessica Parker had a fundraising campaign at her home a few days ago for the Obama campaign. Disclaimer: I don't want this to turn into a political discussion, I am merely interested in what other people have to say about the relationship between Washington and Hollywood. That's it. We don't need to talk about any candidates specifically, or any policy, because that has nothing to do with the questions I want to pose. Thanks.
With that out of the way, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the closing gap between Hollywood and Washington. Below is the ad for Sarah Jessica Parker's dinner:
Personally I think this sort of relationship between Hollywood and Washington detracts from the legitimacy of the Presidential office. Why, might you ask? Read on.
So, once again, I'm not saying that this commercial or advertisement makes Obama a more or less legitimate President or candidate. Nor does this have any direct bearing on Mitt Romney that I care to discuss. In fact, I'm not going to mention anyone else by name for the rest of this article, because the issue is a macro one: of Hollywood and Washington. All this in hopes that this doesn't turn into another thread where people talk about the topic for 3-5 posts and then healthcare reform and the economy for 50.
So based on the above commercial, this dinner party is open to high-profile Hollywood guests and some number of lucky winners who go to the website and show their support for the campaign in some form or fashion. I would imagine the number of lucky winners is very limited, and although I tried to find some news that made it more clear how many of us "regular folk" were able to attend, I came up short. In any case, the dinner happened a few days ago and high-profile figures were able to attend for the "cost" of $40,000 in donations.
I'll be the first to say that I hold a general disdain for Hollywood and its high-profile figures. With the exception of a few actors (Eastwood, De Niro, Norton, Wahlberg, to name a few), I'm of the opinion that Hollywood is a cesspool, everyone in it is jaded, deluded, far-removed from reality, and generally undesirable. When people talk about the Oscars I almost get sick to my stomach because of how much money is wasted taking pictures of these people and asking them what they're "wearing" for the evening as if _anyone_ gives a rat's rear-end, but I'll stop right there.
Now, perhaps because of this general disdain, I was the only one in a room full of several people as we all saw this SJP commercial for the first time who said "wow this is disgusting". Not because I lean one way or the other toward a candidate (I am very agnostic in this regard), but because of what the video implies. So now in order for me to meet the President, I have to essentially win the lottery to go to a dinner that other people can simply pay into? Are we, the regular folks who elect the office, so far-removed from that person that we have to resort to "sweepstakes" to have access to that individual?
I mean, if I really wanted to meet the President, shouldn't I strive to do something great so that I am invited to the White House? Or shouldn't I try to write a letter a bunch of times until I get a response? But wait, now I can just enter an online lottery pool to go to a dinner with Brad Pitt and the President -- what a novel idea!
And I know some of you out there are going to say that Hollywood is always ready to jump into bed with any Democratic candidate, and true as this may be, I don't doubt that any Republican President would strive to utilize Hollywood in the most effective manner due to the sheer influence that people like Sarah Jessica Parker have over "regular" people. But let's not think about it even that way.
The question I pose is this: does the Office of the President hold a similar celebrity-status as a high-profile Hollywood figure? I had not thought of it this way before seeing this commercial, but now I'm not sure. I know people from both sides of the fence get invited to dinners and such due to donations, but are we moving toward and era where the President is so far-removed from the rest of us that I can enter a lottery to meet him/her? Isn't this just slightly bizarre to you all? Discuss, and be civil please.
i think obama has a decent shot this economy is really turning around we need a real hero though so i might have to vote for ben bernake he has shown kenysian economics is correct
The ability of corporations, super PACs, and HNW individuals to directly influence elections/candidates/the political landscape, as a result of Citizens United, is a FAR more dangerous relationship than what you're discussing here.
Money is corrupting and destroying politics. Your post just shows a symptom of the real problem.
People in Hollywood are retarded.
People in Utah, Arizona and Colorado are also retarded.
Agree with liquid. The hollywood thing is more annoying than it is impactful.
Yes, Hollywood, your fake accents, dramatic facial expressions, and ability to memorize a script are so impressive that I really assign a great deal of weight to your opinions on foreign policy.
Shut up and go make Oceans 15 or something.
I think the point here (not the post writier's, but liquid's) is that even if that does sway "average" people one way or the other to a certain degree, the political direction will be somehow set forth by those super PACs, HNW people and their money, or at least more severely influenced by them.
I'd expect this Hollywood association is major for those who are perhaps undecided as to who to vote for. Its just a simple fact of life, people look up to these people way more then politicians. Agree with liquid however, Hollywood association has rather innocent motivations in comparison.
Sarah Jessica Parker....What place did that horse face come in at Belmont?
What? You are saying that Ms. Parker looks like an equine? Nayyyyyyyy:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_zco0K5rdvw
I'm kind of confused here. So, if I'm an average, rather general, person, I can't go to the dinner even with the $40,000 donation?
Hey let me invite you to the lottery pick, and if you're picked in the lottery, you get to come to my party. Oh by the way, you are more than welcome to pay me $40K regardless of your lottery status.
??????I just wrote this but this doesn't make any sense... ahahaha..
Well, I hate to break it to you, but the president always was a high-profile celebrity figure far removed from most people. All of them are practically hand picked and groomed by a select group. The Washington Post admits that the Bilderberg Group picks the VP candidates beforehand. So too do they pick the presidential candidates beforehand. All of the presidents come from fairly elite backgrounds. As another poster mentioned, Citizens United and the resulting pacs and superpacs that are flooding $1 billion plus into this campaign is an even greater threat.
Frankly, Hollywood and its actors/actresses like Parker, Jolie and Pitt who try to shift public opinion are out of their league. Sarah Jessica Parker and others are only trying to use Citizens United in their favor but they simply cannot compete with the machine that is funded by the Koch Brothers who raised $100 million in one day for example.
If you look at Zbigniew Brzenski's outlook years ago, you will note that his vision was that the marketing of the presidential candidates would be like that which they utilize when "creating a Hollywood celebrity." If you look at recent years, candidates and presidents are put on Oprah, Good Morning America, The View and on front covers of magazines like GQ to give that every man vibe. This is not by accident. It is in line with CFR/Bilderberg's goal to ensure that the public is manipulated into accepting a person because of their looks, the way they talk, and whether they are photogenic. In other words, they are being used for mass appeal. In that sense, the making of a president into a Brad Pitt type persona is intentional and certainly real. It is for the public's consumption and manipulation. It ensures that people do not vote based on issues, but rather because the person is appealing, attractive and evokes positive emotions.
In that spirit, the creation of exclusive events where most people would have to win a lottery to see the president is in line with the above mentioned agenda. Exclusivity creates an illusion of prestige and celebrity status, which creates false demand.
We all assume that more money means a better chance at being elected. This is all based on the assumpton that people are stupid and will be swayed by political advertisments. I'm not saying that isn't necessarily true... But I do believe it is all a huge waste of money. Of the people that will vote, we have X% that will DEFINITELY vote republican no matter what, and Y% that will DEFINITELY vote democrate no matter what. I tend to think that an undecided voter may be smarter than the average X or Y because they are not following dogma but trying to make a rational decision. That being said, wouldn't they be LESS susceptable to advertising? And if so, how much is being spent to sway these people only to be wasted money?
Politcal spending is wasteful. It is not used to create or provide value, only to amass power. We should have a rule that requires candidates to give 50% of what they earn to charity (or to reducing the national debt!) At least then they'd be providing a useful service (other than generating material for comedians) :)
She is so damn ugly. Some take her out back with a shotgun when she gets sick or hurt next
Hollywood, like Wall Street, is an industry that has the resources to lobby and plug for its own little pet projects and causes. This is how they do it.
There is a very good episode of the "The West Wing". When Bartlett and his teams go to LA to visit a rich and famous gay producer.
The film producer is trying to strong-arm into lobby for his causes and and Bartlett explains he would be doing more harm than good but is listening to his views.
Romney does have the backing of billionaires and wall street. And don't forget Donald Trump's pseudo-celebrity status endorsement of Romney too. If that's okay, then what's so different with Obama and Hollywood.
Quo necessitatibus quibusdam ratione et molestiae. Consequatur molestias est vitae libero. Et et omnis dicta natus voluptatem quae. Aspernatur ducimus pariatur sed quae reprehenderit.
Expedita et aut animi corporis cum. Et et iure id et. Molestias qui dolor officiis. Nesciunt possimus et voluptas magnam sit aperiam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Necessitatibus consequatur voluptas quos quod amet. Dolorem in soluta deserunt delectus.
Non sit molestias est beatae. Omnis cupiditate delectus dolor enim. Sed ut aut vel et eaque ex dicta. Id ut cumque sequi ab esse quis. Facere magnam corporis dolore et.