Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?
Posted by | Posted in Political Debates
photo taken from ballslist.com
Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
We just installed a new spellcheck feature. While you are typing, all words that are underlined in red could be misspellings.
A lot of wealthy people are politicians and actors are wealthy.
Question probably suffers from a bit of a confirmation or sampling bias.
Reagan, Arnold, and Fred Thompson do not compose the entire sum total of actors-turned political figures, despite their relative success (for example Springer was a mayor and Al Franken is a Senator now). The wiki list (not exactly an authoritative source I know) was about evenly balanced between D and R with a couple random Independents. Republicans have a slight edge, perhaps in part because they've had the more successful political figures.
If you throw in sports it's a similar dialogue. Other than Bill Bradley (who made an interesting insurgent campaign against Gore in the primaries back in 2000), there are not that many prominent Democratic athletes turned political figures. But you do have instead Jack Kemp, Jim Bunning, and JC Watts. The overall numbers are still about the same.
Do you think celebrities should be politicians?
If a lot of wealthy people are politicians and this is supposed to explain the prevalence of Republicans, then how come so many Democrats are in politics and seem to be doing so well at it of late? Democratic political figures are not by and large poorer on average than Republicans. In fact the average net worth of Congress just increased substantially this past election despite having a bunch of new Democrats.
Isn't their whole belief system based on supporting big businesses?
I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure politicians are in a sense, celebrities (see: Obama, Barack or Clinton, Bill). If a private citizen who happens to be a celebrity (or is otherwise independently wealthy and prominent in their community) wants to run for public office, I have no problem with that. Someone else can always humble them by beating them or they too can become disillusioned about the business of politics once they get into it.
I also don't care if they want to spout off as private citizens about some political cause for which they are often ill-informed.
That's true of both parties, yes.
However, a lot of these celebrities have no political education and they make a living for playing pretend.
Most Americans have no real political education, certainly over the complex issues they in theory determine public policy for. Or any awareness of which political figures actually support and understand such issues in a way that they then think adequately reflect their own principled knowledge as such. And they thus make a practice of voting by pretend as well.
What's the difference?
Yea, but what happens is those that have studied political science in college will run against these celebrities and lose just because everyone knows the celebrity.
That is what happens now. yes. The root of that problem isn't the celebrities though was my point.
It's the public.
The first predator movie
http://www.filmdetail.com/archives/2008/07/09/pre...
2 of those 3 weren't republicans, continuing to make this question seem like it's presupposing a problem which in fact doesn't exist in reality.
It is pretty funny nonetheless.
similar views and style, want to help the rich.
To answer your question; It is an unequivocally proven fact that these actors turned Republicans have suddenly awakened from their Liberal-Induced comatose state and discovered the error of their ways and that is why Hollywood will now be turning away from the Democrats and become a Republican political stronghold!
Not.
Uh, actually . . . . To tell you the truth . . . . . I have no idea, other than that is the individuals party of choice.
Bet I had a lot of Liberals going bazonkers for a second there . . . hehehe.
Fruedian slip? papadawg is hitting pretty close to the mark in a kinda-sorta way. It seems that Hollywood is populating there movies with mostly unknown actors these days after so many had posioned their names by expressing political viewpoints. The irony is that what once had been condoned by writers and producers is now frowned upon as a result of dwindling profits. It seems as though movie patrons decided that if they wanted to hear political whining they could have stayed home and watched network news. Butts in seats is the bottom line and many top names have apparantly been kicked to the curb. Their are only so many job openings on the Hollywood Squares so where else is a person with unilateral skills (acting) to go?
Politics is all just one big talk. That's the way I look at it. The thing about politicians is that all you pretty much have to do is be able to respond to a question in a confident and assuring way. Most of these politicians don't know what they are talking about. They have crappy backgrounds, little or no education, but they know how to talk to the people.
That's the problem with society. We have these people that know how to talk to the people and give speeches, but when it's time to pass a bill, you have a bunch of talkers, not intellectual people.
We need smart people creating and passing the bills and have the politicians just do all the talking. That's why there is so much scandal in Congress, because you have immoral talkers.
Most actors aren't Republican though. Even though Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are prime examples, Hollywood is mostly liberal.