Why Do Conservative/Republican Actors Turned Candidates Do Well In Politics?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

And Liberal/Democratic Actors Turned Candidates Don't?


on-edit I added actor... Sorry to those who responded... I mean actors...Obviously it didn't make much sense prior to the change...

[rosesaylavee]

1. Willingness to succumb to corruption?

[jgraz]

2. I'll let you know once we get a liberal candidate

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. That Begs The Question Why One Has Never Run

eom

[jgraz]

11. I wish I had an answer

I do know that a real, fire-breathing lefty would tear it up in a national election. The country is much further left than an of the pols think it is.

[mdmc]

4. THEY FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELEIVE IN!

Where as Liberals / Progressives usually hide what they beleive in.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Amending my post; as I see that you mean 'actors' literally rather than on the political stage

Not always true - Glenda Jackson is a left-wing Labour MP in Britain.

However, it may depend also on the type of actor. Perhaps the right-wingers are more likely to act in tough-guy and/or schmaltzy-family-values roles, and to be able to extend this to real-life politics.

How many liberal actors have run for office in America?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Bill Bradley Was A Liberal Celebrity (Basketball Player)

I actually think a liberal athlete would be more successful than a liberal actor...

Don't ask me why...

[davekriss]

26. Glenda Jackson?

Good for her and for the U.K.! It has always been a joy for me to hear her speak. One of my favorite films of hers is "Stevie", where she portrays the poet Stevie Smith. Sweet film. :)

So she's MP now? Fantastic!

You'll note, however, that your example is from overseas, a decidedly different political culture than over here.

[BOSSHOG]

6. The unlimited ignorance of the Masses

being told that voting for a conservative is just by gawd patriotic. Hey bubba if you vote for one of them damned libruls you ain't patriotic by gawd. Accepting the notion that government is bad and does not work, as republicans tell them - put us in charge and we will prove it. Hey, Arlo lookey there, the republicans were right. Lack of intellectual curiousity, being happy to accept what someone with a flag pin on their lapel tells them.

As Albert Einstein so aptly put it - The difference between genius and ignorance is that genius has limits.

[theoldman]

7. They will do anything to get elected. Nothing is beneath

their lack of dignity. This is what gets them elected in the first place. After they get elected they will lie and cheat to stay elected. It's that simple. Democrats are too honest. It is extremely difficult to get elected if you are honest.

[City of Mills]

8. They keep the message simple

Democratic stances are too nuanced and complex for the average american to comprehend. The Republicans have mastered the positional sound-byte. They are also much more effective and shameless when it comes to smearing and attacking their politial rivals.

[TwilightGardener]

9. They play to our worst instincts--fear, greed, hatred. Those must be

more powerful motivators.

[H2O Man]

10. Organization.

I remember many, many years ago, my father telling me that the republicans on all levels are able to get their voters out, in a much higher percentage than democrats. That translates to disproportionate representation for conservative/republican views.

[soleft]

12. What a lot of republicans seek is based on pure fantasy

A God/Jesus Daddy fantasy figure - and a leader who won't threaten his rule

A return to idealistic fantasy of 1950's Father Knows Best/June Cleaver Americana

American Dream - everyone has a chance to be a millionaire and if you get there you want to keep all of it.

Americans are good, the rest of the world is plotting evil so everything we do in the name of our goodness is justified.


Who better to foster these fantasies than someone who's practiced in make pretend.

[madmom]

13. Because by being actors they are quite skilled at lying, that's what they do for a living,

so what ever they say idiots believe them because they can't separate acting from reality.

[TlalocW]

15. I can't remember which blog it was

But the main point of the posting I read in it (and it was very well constructed) was that republicans prefer to view the world in archetypes that are easily boiled down, and the example used was Chamberlain, Churchill, and Hitler. Any enemy of freedom is automatically cast as another Hitler by republicans. If you don't stand up to them, you're an appeaser like Chamberlain who should be replaced by a steadfast, strong leader like Churchill who would never retreat from the enemy. These are easy concepts to hold as long as you don't look at the details...

1. Chamberlain liked Hitler's anti-communism and thought that he alone would be able to rein him in, surrounded himself with yes-men, and dismissed critics as not being as smart as he was.
2. Churchill, on the other hand, was more open to input, realized that England wouldn't be able to go it alone, and in the 1920s had written to the then-prime minister that it was time to withdraw troops from - of all places - Iraq as they weren't doing any good there.

Bush and his supporters are hoping that he will eventually be seen as Churchillian instead of as a stubborn moron who got in over his head.

Anyway, Reagan did a lot of military films so he was seen as very patriotic and pro-military. Arnold's a big strong tough guy. Thompson... Well, I don't watch tv so I don't know what character he played, but I'm sure that it's one that makes republicans swoon.

TlalocW

[stanwyck]

18. Your "swooning" reference is particularly apt

in a very thoughtful post. (thank you). Republicans are particularly vulnerable to man worship/man crushes. Karl Rove was positively gushy over meeting GWB for the first time. He sounded like a 13 yr. old girl meeting Justin Timberlake. Even Harriet Mier was less girly in her "you're the best president ever!" love notes. Listen to what people say. It's not about policy, it's about that mad crush on the latest conservative symbol of old-time America. It's flag waving, apple pie, women in the kitchen, and a big, strong guy with a John Wayne smile.
Those Republicans sure love to swoon.

[TlalocW]

19. I pissed off a lot of conservatives in a comments section about a Nugent story

Because I summarized this idea of archetypes and then said something like, "You conservatives keep on swooning over the image projected by people like Ted and keep sticking your fingers in your ears when people mention his draft-dodging, adultery, etc. Maybe next time he's signing autographs, he'll write a little message and dot his i's with little hearts... just for you."

They didn't appreciate that. :)

TlalocW

[sofa king]

16. Because the liberals are smarter.

No, I'm serious. Generally speaking, liberals are better educated and informed. We can assume that the same goes with liberal actors.

With better brains, liberal candidates invariably attempt to exert more control over their own campaigns, and since they're adhering to a code of ethics and the boundaries of logical thought, they fail to play to the lowest common denominator which is the only important thing in American politics.

Since Ronald Reagan, the successful conservative game plan has been to front-load the ticket with a doofus who's not smart enough to exert any effective control over his own campaign or his Presidency. Instead, they surrender a lot of control to their campaign staff (and their White House staff when they win).

And that's where the liberal actors lose, because felons are smarter than liberals.

[Withywindle]

28. Yup. Throw anti-intellectualism into the mix and it's toxic.

Gore and Kerry were both painted as elitist, ivory-tower bores because they used words of more than two syllables and actually talked in complete sentences about complex issues. Sometimes they even paused to think about what they were saying!

YOu think the same thing won't happen to Hillary or Obama in the general? Ha! It will. They're both highly intelligent people who do a lot of researching and thinking, so of course they're "out of touch" with "Joe Sixpack", who is assumed to be a complete moron. (When are people going to be pointing out on a massive scale how insulting this is to "the average voter," whoever that is?) Edwards has a Southern accent - that'll help him, no matter what he says. Yes, it really is that superficial. (Note: I am not using this to make a case for Edwards and I am CERTAINLY not making a comment on the intelligence of Southerners - wanna defuse those flamey misreadings right off.)

[stanwyck]

17. They appeal to the emotional voter, not the

informed, discerning voter. Already, Fred Thompson is being touted as "strong", a "real leader". Ask pointed questions about his policies, his background, his voting record and you'll get a blank stare. However, he looks the part and talks the part. And for too many Americans, that is enough.
Bush is a prime example. He's lazy. He is blissfully proud of his lack of knowledge. He doesn't know history or geography. He can't speak intelligently. He lacks tact and empathy.
BUT. Wearing his leather jacket and keeping his jaw clenched, he exudes Americana straight talkin' rancher guy.
Nevermind, that's all theatre. The ranch has no horses. He bought it as a Hollywood set right before the election. And he's about as straight talkin' as Paris Hilton.
Talk radio knows what works. Emotion. Forget the facts.

[davekriss]

27. If Fred Thompson ends up President...

...I will have to leave this country. It would be too much in these last days of the American empire...

[Canuckistanian]

20. I think it's mostly fame and name recognition

Half of the battle in politics is getting your candidate's name out there to be talked about and debated for their character.

With celebrities, that's already been taken care of.

And it's not just entertainment figures, either. Look at all the father/son/daughter relationships there are in Republican politics. The offspring of those politicians have the name advantage over lesser-known candidates. Never mind that most of those politician's offspring end up being disasters.

There are exceptions on the left, though. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy are examples of politician's children that went on to make their own mark.

[Johonny]

21. I think it's because

They're not much different than the normal Republican candidate. Most Republicans are short on actual knowledge of the political system and have no real interest in actual governing. They are all mostly empty shells. Good at reciting the 1, 2 lines of talking points and knowing how to accept a lobbying check. I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican sit down and discus a political subject with in-depth knowledge of a situation. It's a party of 99 % empty suits and the "think tanks" that produce the products the empty suits are selling.

[napi21]

22. The 2 actors you seem to referring to (Reagan and Thompson)

learned how to play to the people. Bill Clinton did that very well too, and he wasn't a professional actor.

Many of the liberal actors are activists, and not trying to play to the people as much as trying to advance their adgenda.

[sutz12]

23. Sincerity....once you can fake that, you have it made.

RW nutjobs are used to being lied to, mostly on religious grounds. After all, anybody who can crawl out of the mudstained wreckage of their house, look around at their storm ravaged community, and declare how much God loves them is quite accustomed to living in denial of reality. Actors are the best liars, and the best at connecting with their audience's willingness to latch on to the most implausible BS that sounds better than reality to them.

The Republican party in general is based on the same thing as all fiction is......the willful suspension of disbelief.

The 'Golden Age' they look back to is based on a series of TV sitcoms with canned laughter. Reagonomics is a blatant sop to corporate greed and the belief that richer is better. They claim religious piety and spiritual superiority, but their only measure of success is how big a pile of cash they can amass.

[spanone]

24. the tv generation....and it's only worked once that i know of.

[davekriss]

25. I thought the reasons would be obvious

The "liberal" mainstream media would tear apart a liberal candidate. However, a rightwing candidate, someone who would advance the interests of the owning class, would be praised by every TV pundit incessantly. The same goes for not just a "Liberal/Democratic Actor", but any truly progressive candidate. The media champion their own; their "own" are the ruling elites at the top of our political-economic pyramid.

After the 2000 election, someone here did a Nexis-Lexis search on articles critical of Gore vs. critical of Bush. The search revealed 2,051 (the search limit) articles critical of Gore's brown suits, carrying on about the Buddhist temple "scandal", about how "stiff" Gore seemed compared to the jovial guy in a pickup truck George Bush. On the other hand, the search revealed just 35 articles critical of Bush. Despite Harkin. Despite going AWOL. Despite the crony capitalism of the Texas Rangers deals. Despite his cocaine use. Despite the fact that he signed more death warrants as governer of Texas than all governers combined. Despite the fact that Bush drove Texas to the bottom when ranking healthcare and environmental saneness in his state. Bush always was a dispicable man, it just wasn't talked about much in the mainstream press.

Here is the quote (from Crewleader, I can't find it in the archives):

And as for the damn liberal media:

There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about (the) flap of Gore inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush failing to show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were well over 1,000 stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the Buddhist temple. Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at Harken Energy. There were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but only 10 about the fact that Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq and Libya.

2,051 anti-Gore articles vs. 35 anti-Bush during the 2000 election cycle. Hmmm. Of course, the Gore articles were primarily about fluff versus what, for the case of GWB and Cheney, any open mind would equate to "high crimes and misdemeanors". And we wonder why the right prevails over the majority interests of the American people!