Hollywood Endorses Democrats...
Shocking as it may seem, Hollywood movie makers appear to be launching an ad campaign for the Democrats in 2008 via new movie releases...the first of which comes from well known
· “The Bush administration’s energy policy to date - a military garrison in the Middle East and drilling for oil in the
· "Because of pending Bush administration policies, we all need to pay attention and take action to protect what we have, including our health and safety. If this ad can call attention to the facts, I'm proud to be part of the project."
Sound familiar?
The other big anti-war flick coming out is Rendition. The movie is deals with the policy of "Rendition" which is where the CIA sends prisoners to countries where extreme interrogations are commonplace. Now of course, no one knows just how this program works for sure. But Film Director Gavin Hood seems to know all about it:
So there you have it. The government has dooped us all into this “war on terror” and we the people have done nothing to stop it (Lions for Lambs). On top of that, the CIA is taking away our loved ones based on phone calls and deporting them for a fun lineup of torture. In the end, Bush is at fault and needs to be taken care of…Oh, and don’t forget to check out all our great food in the lobby!
Leave to liberals hold the mindset that conservatives like myself are evil for not being “fair” on talk radio, however Robert Redford and Gavin Hood can charge me 10 bucks a pop to watch their versions of reality where conservatives, the CIA, FBI and politicians, are one step above serial killers and they could care less. If the Democrats want to bring "Fairness" to media they should look no further then
posted by Christopher Cerami at
10:08 PM
13 Comments:
Hollywood actors tend to be progressive—so what? Televangicals are conservative. Teamsters like Democrats, but corrupt businesmen go for Republicans. You don’t get anything done bashing people for their political beliefs, and you’d be talking about bigger impacts if you looked more at actual policies instead of nit-picking at a policy’s supporters. Besides, I can’t imagine it being easy to argue that Robert Redford is lower than Ted Haggard.
As for the movies themselves, all I know about them is what I can see in the trailers. “Lions for Lambs” seems to critique the neocon (or Rovean, if you will) tactic of forcing simplicity down people’s throats—“If you’re not with us, you’re with them,” and if you don’t like bombing people then you’re either weak or with the terrorists. The movie seems to argue that our current struggles are more complex than what Rove would lead you to believe. If you think we’re in a War on Terror that is a simple, black and white struggle, then you should argue that. But what are you getting done by attacking a movie by citizens (yes, actors are people too) who are simply creating a story that expresses the frustrations of the American majority? I don’t see a point.
Your reaction to “Rendition” shows just how naïve neocons can really be. The Bush administration has admitted to sending foreign citizens to “rendition camps” in Egypt and Syria (which shows just how hypocritical the administration is), as well as in Eastern Europe. There is concrete evidence that these prisoners have been subject to “interrogation tactics” (Bush’s sugarcoated way of endorsing torture without actually doing so), and that none of these prisoners have been given free and fair trial. As a progressive, I’m a constitutionalist—I believe that all people charged for wrongdoing deserve a trial, because the Founders fought for that. The worst thing about rendition is that we know many people in these camps are actually innocent. The US has always opposed torture and the physical abuse of prisoners—the US worked hard to keep Nazi prisoners in WWII safe (and punished them accordingly after they received fair trials). If we could get rid of Hitler (a far greater threat than bin Laden is) without torture, then we should abandon rendition and maintain a moral high ground. In any event, you get nothing done by attacking the people who make a movie—it’s free speech after all. Your post would be more relevant if you tried to defend torture and rendition. Good luck with that.
Your last two paragraphs are just vague attempts at distorting and simplifying progressive arguments. But it’s weird how you’re defending conservative control over traditional media like FOX Noise and talk radio while bashing a bunch of actors for expressing their opinions. Hollywood never claimed to be reporting the news; but FOX does. Isn’t it sad that a bunch of actors are putting more pressure on the administration to talk about policies like rendition than an actual news network is? Shouldn’t the journalists be asking the tough questions?
Wow...interesting post.
I love how this other 'Kyle' classifies liberals as "progressives." Must make them all feel better at night, eh?
In response to your points I will make one: You missed the authors point completely. He was not pointing out how bad hollywood people are because of what movies they make, but rather that movies are not the proper forum for political statements...but as you said, the NEWS IS!
The debate shouldnt be next to Transformers (phenomenal flick) at the box office, it should be on news networks and radio. All that is being attempted here by putting politics into movies (specifically targeting the current president and his admin) is to reach and influence people who DO NOT educate themselves through new outlets, whatever they may be. Opinions and politics CANNOT come from films...and likewise, entertainment shouldn't be coming from the news outlets (CNN, MSNBC anyone?).
Hollywood is liberal? who knew?
Kyle
To make things less confusing for you, I’ll use my last initial. Anyways…
1) The “liberal vs. progressive” question is one that interests me a lot, especially as it’s becoming a bigger issue among Democrats. Liberal is a vague and confusing word. In Europe, a liberal (or “classical liberal”) has historically been someone who is economically conservative (you might just happen to notice the similarity between the words “liberal” and “libertarian”). In America, a liberal is simply someone with left-wing political views, but that’s too vague (hence why rightists use terms like neocons and libertarians for themselves). A progressive, in the tradition of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, has more of an economic populist tone. While a liberal is interested in, say, promoting education to provide opportunities, a progressive is interested in that and, say, attacking Wal-Mart for their intimidation of minorities. In short, progressive is a more specific term, and it shows that I’m not only committed to helping the little guy, but I also support candidates who are willing to stand up against the bullies who pick on the little guy. I hope that little bit of political theory wasn’t too much for you to handle.
2) Chris is hardly critiquing a medium here; all I’ve read is that he thinks Hollywood thinks Bush is Satan. You, however, are saying that people should not make movies with political agendas, which is a disgustingly radical idea. A movie (at least the kind we’re talking about) is a story. Nobody is calling Lions for Lambs and Rendition pieces of journalism, but stories do and should convey powerful messages that can be relevant to our politics. Look no further than “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” or “The Jungle”. Those books weren’t pieces of journalism, and conservatives at the times they were published criticized those stories for taking political stances. Those books were also sold in bookstores next to cheap romance novels (as Rendition will be sold next to Transformers); but people with at least half a brain know that there’s a difference between Schindler’s List and Superbad (both of which are great movies) even though they may be sold in the same video store.
Now, no one’s saying that Rendition will be the next Uncle Tom’s Cabin. My point was to show how radical your statement was. As I already wrote, these movies coming out do have legitimate statements that need to be heard. You never actually disagreed with that. But if traditional media is more concerned with Paris Hilton’s jail time instead of asking the tough questions that need to be asked, then the American people (many of which, of course, do try to keep up to date with the news) have every reason to desire movies like Rendition. That’s capitalism, baby. Conservatives shouldn’t whine about it just because they disagree; they should just learn to speak more intelligently about the issues.
kyle d- i do not wish any ill feelings between us, but it is quite clear that you're gravely mistaken in several aspects here. i wasn't planning on leaving a comment because i rarely ever do in these blogs, but now i'm compelled to point out several of the biggest flaws in your argument. i'm going to keep this as short and painless as possible, so forgive me if i gloss over some of the jucier details.
first of all, rendition -actually, the full, correct term is "extraordinary rendition"- is a practice that was actually developed and perfected during the clinton administration. to suggest that our current practice of extraditing suspected foreign-born terrorists to other nation for interrogation purposes, or rendition, was masterminded by "rovean neocons" -which, btw, is an incorrect label in itself, because the "real" neocons are those that came prior to the reagan administration- is a very naive and incredibly biased thinking. blame your clinton first, look at the facts next, then you may comment on the [mis-labeled] "neocons."
second, the "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy is a natural derivative of the anti-communist policy that we've operated under for 40 years preceding it. it is and it has always been a black and white struggle. when, in history, have three competing nations fought in a war against each other at the same time? you may contend that simplifying the world to a black-white issue is an unfair arrangement given the multitude of issues and the complex state of the world today, but when it really comes down to it, no two democratically-led capitalist nations have ever fought one another. so is it arrogant for the current administration to suggest "if you're not with us, you're against us?" no, not really. it's merely stating something that we've always known and have operated under. it's how all nations operate. so let's start being realistic and stop with the bush-bashing nonsense, shall we?
third, i ask you: what exactly is wrong with the government taking necessary measures to protect its citizens anyway? last i checked, that is one of two fundamental responsibilities a government owes to its people (the other is to protect its citizens from each other). yeah, that's right: i believe that the very purpose of the government is to ensure its citizens safety from foreigners and from each other. that's the very philosophy upon which our government was founded upon (uh...locke anyone?). so if our government has to take the necessary precautions and question foreign born citizens -many of whom are detained with reasonable and convincing evidence, contrary to what you've ignorantly stated- with whatever measures necessary, i have absolutely no problem with it.
which gets to my final point: kyle, there is absolutely NO WAY you're a consitutionalist because i consider myself as a constitutionalist. you can't be progressive and contsitutionalist at the same time. if you're genuinely constitutionalist, we wouldn't actually be arguing about anything, really. see, i hate social welfare (both pension plans and healthcare), government intervention (in all other aspects), and the bureaucracy; i don't give a damn about the environment or the state of third-world nations; and i think the federal government should have absolutely no say in regards to social issues. as a matter of fact, i believe that the government should be as minimalist as possible while ensuring the safety and economic prosperity for its citizens and maintaining supreme defense from foreign aggressors. but since you disagree with me in every single one of these aspects, you're clearly NOT a constitutionalist. so don't claim to be one.
Peter, whoever you are, youre the man...Great insight and intellect my friend.
~The better Kyle
Pete,
It’s great to see someone provide an actual argument, holes aside.
Yes, rendition did start in the Clinton administration. That doesn’t mean I like it, and it certainly doesn’t justify it (nobody ever said Clinton was a perfect, or even a particularly great, president). My use of the term “Rovean” applied to the first movie, not the second, and I never said that neocon was necessarily Rovean. Certainly, though, Rovean campaign tactics are made to help neocons (the 2004 election proves that). Read what I actually wrote before misrepresenting my argument.
Black-and-white approaches can only apply to conflicts between two sovereign states, if they can even be applied at all. A simple look at the conflict in Iraq (or any basic understanding of the Arabic world) shows that you can’t simply divide people into “moderates” and “extremists”; there are multiple sides in the struggle that need to be addressed and understood. OF COURSE it’s arrogant for the current administration to argue a “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. First of all, if that mentality doesn’t allow me the freedom of thought to oppose illegal wiretapping, torture, and preemptive strikes, then that mentality takes away from the moral high ground America normally relies on. Second, that mentality doesn’t acknowledge factions that are with us on some things but against us on others; the biggest example I can think of here are Sunni militias in Iraq who help fight al-Qaeda but don’t welcome Maliki’s government. Groups like them can’t and shouldn’t be pinned into simple labels like “ally” and “enemy.” The complexities of the situation need to be understood, and you have not made enough of an attempt to understand them.
Measures like rendition AREN’T necessary to protecting we the people. They just don’t work. None of these prisoners are tried in any way, and many of them are known to be completely innocent. (Sure, it’s possible that the vast majority of these prisoners are guilty. If we’re so confident that they are, then we should have nothing to be afraid of by giving them fair trial.) Furthermore, torture isn’t an effective way to extract information. If you’re put through enough pain, you’ll tell people what they want to hear even if it’s wrong—that’s just basic psychology. OF COURSE governments should protect their citizens—it therefore follows that they should do so intelligently and ethically.
Finally, Pete, conservatives aren’t loyal to the constitution like progressives are, or loyal much at all. (I shouldn’t have to look further than Cheney declaring himself outside of the executive branch, but that’s only the frosting on the cake.) Constitutionalists believe in ideas like free speech and fair trial, things which conservatives have taken for granted and tossed aside. And for all your senseless bashing of the federal government, a basic look at history should remind you that the Civil War and the constitutional amendments following it made pretty concrete statements about the supremacy of a strong federal government instead of a weak and inactive one. Can you point out a single amendment that forbids the government from helping its citizens economically? No? Didn’t think so. Whiny conservatives should stop manipulating the word “constitutionalist” for political gain.
How can one be a progressive and a constitutionalist at the same time? The only thing that progressives (liberals) do with the constitution is interpret it in different ways and change the meanings of its message.
Kyle D,
Uh, what?
Sincerely,
Confused reader
I hate commenting on my own post but in this case I feel I must. Let me just say that the point of my post was simply to illustrate the bias in Hollywood and how it is resulting in movies coming out right near the election obviously aimed at shaping it. Second this dicussion in the comments section is what should take place and I am glad it is. Kyle D, despite you not understanding my post your actually playing into my point. Political discussions should be had between people on an equal plan not during a primary season trough a one sided propaganda film. Thanks for reading and look for more articles here at rfaronline.com
kyle, my friend, i'm afraid you're quite mistaken.
let's first consider what you've said; then i'll do a quick run on the constitution; then i'll reference back to your segment and point out what was wrong with it.
you said: "Can you point out a single amendment that forbids the government from helping its citizens economically?"
let me start with a simple definition: a constitutionalist, BY DEFINITION, is one who strictly adheres to the constitution. more specifically, true constitutionalists follow the constitution as intended by the original framers. pretty self-explanatory. or so it seems.
see, the us constitution is a brilliant document. absolutely genius. it's the oldest surviving constitution in the world, because the framers included two incredible provisions: the first one -the amendment process- you know; you've even referenced it. it allows for us to keep up with the times and also correct any deficiencies that the framers could not forsee. brilliant. but i'm afraid you're not aware of the second provision: the constitution is, by design, a limiting document.
see, the constitution outlines how the government is to be set up, and how it is to operate. curiously, the framers specifically ENUMERATED the powers of all three branches of the government (with some branches, such as the congress, more strictly laid out) in the document. this point is SIGNIFICANT because it tells what a government CAN do, NOT what it CANNOT do.
now, let's take a look at what you've said earlier. you asked me if there was an amendment that forbid the government from helping its citizens economically. the question was rhetorical (as evidenced by your "no? didn't think so..." rebuttal, so you're operating under the assumption that the government CAN help its citizens economically -- that is, with welfare, healthcare, etc. unfortunately, you were wrong to assume that our federal government was even given this right in the first place.
see, you're asking the wrong question. more specifically, you're asking a biased question to serve your own needs. if i may, you're "manipulating the word 'constitutionalist' for political gain." the question is not and never was "is there an amendment that forbids the federal government from doing this or that...," but rather, "did the constitution ever provide for the federal government to do this, this or that..."
let me answer for you: the constitution does not give the federal government the right to intervene in everyday lives and provide for their welfare. so no, an amendment is not and never was necessary to limit the government. the constitution itself was limiting, by DESIGN.
i never was arguing against our implementation of federalism. as a matter of fact, i think federalism is brilliant. why? because federalism allows for both the state/local governments to coexist with the overarching federal government.
then what is the federal government? better yet, what is the point of the federal government? well, the federal government only exists because of the constitution. so if you think about it, none of these current modern-day issues (gay marriage, abortion, environment, etc) or policies (welfare, healthcare, etc) should be a concern of the federal government. why should it be? it does not say anywhere in the constitution.
what i'm trying to get at is, if you are a constitutionalist, like i am, you wouldn't be saying "well, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the government can't do that," because the constitution was never meant to be open to interpretation. rather, you'd be saying "well, it doesn't say in the constitution that the government can't do that." they're two completely different things. i'm afraid you're of the former, which would not make you a constitutionalist.
if i were to take what you're essentially saying, then i can "mold" the constitution to mean whatever i want it to mean, albeit within reason. i'd argue that that's precisely what judicial activism is, and to a lesser degree, progressivism. progressivism, which is grounded upon the idea of a loose reading of the constitution, is the ANTITHESIS of constitutionalism.
whew, now that i got that out of the way, i'm going to consider what you said about us conservatives.
but before i get into that, let me point out another contradiction in your argument. you claimed that neocons weren't necessary rovean in the first paragraph, only to lump all of the conservatives into a loose group to suggest that conservatives aren't loyal to the constitution by citing cheney, at the very last paragraph. i know it's hard to keep arguments consistent given the forum here, but if you're going to accuse me of misrepresenting your argument, you can't be contradicting yourself in the first place.
now, about "us conservatives": well, you pretty much already said what i was going to say, by differentiating neocons from all other conservatives. there are many different sects/branches (or whatever you wanna call it) in the conservative group, and you can't assume the current bush administration's reading of the constitution and suggest that conservatives, in general, are all wrong. now how the heck is that fair?
as i said earlier, "progressivism" is inconsistent with "constitutionalism." those two things are mutually exclusive. but i'd argue that "conservatism" is consistent with "constitutionalism." perhaps not all conservative mindsets, such as that of the neocon group, but surely the libertarians. but then again, i guess it all depends on your own understanding of our government and on your definition. feel free to correct me. but i'm quite confident that i'm going by the natural understanding of both the constitution and these definitions.
before i conclude this rather long-winded rebuttal, i want to make a quick last point regarding the black-white issue. i'm not suggesting that we gloss over the complex details that surround each case. but i AM suggesting that when it comes to taking action, it's always going to come down to a "yes" or a "no"; a "war" or "peace"; or "black" and "white." how else are you going to go ahead and do anything? by discussing? what you're suggesting is a very utopian thinking. but given our present society where the danger is very much real, the government must not be hesitant. it's being realistic.
look, i might sound overly zealous when i say this, but all i can say in defense of our government's practice of rendition is: look at the evidence. both you and i know that there has been an increasing number of terrorist activities. but we haven't been attacked since 9/11. the world is, arguably, a safer place. at least on us soil. i'd credit at least some of this to the efforts of our intelligence agencies.
kyle, no one ever reports of foiled plots. there might be hundreds. or thousands. who's to know, really? but a terrorist attack will never go unreported. ...i'll just leave it at that.
kyle, it's quite apparent that you're very well read and quite informed. and your arguments are very insightful. but i think there are a lot of holes in your argument. re-read the constitution yourself (and the federalist papers too) and see if you have it right. i can assure you that my understanding of constitutionalism is more coherent, though.
p.s. (my icing on the cake): i would argue that true constitutionalists would actually vote against the bill of rights. why? because the inclusion of the bill of rights actually undermine the very notion upon which the framers designed the constitution in the first place: that the constitution was supposed to be limiting. that's why the first federalists (hamilton, madison, jay) argued against the inclusion of the bill of rights. they feared that 1) it was unnecessary, because the government was never given the power to infringe upon individuals' rights; and 2) that it would set a precedent. the logic makes sense: it would be infinitely harder to list all of our rights instead of assuming that all of our rights are protected. don't believe me? try it yourself. try listing out every single one of your rights. then try to assume a world in which all of your rights are protected. follow?
Pete, I hope you’re enjoying this as much as I am.
I’ll start by addressing what you wrote at the top and at the bottom, because I feel it can lead us to the core of our division on the subject. At the beginning, you point out that “true constitutionalists follow the constitution as intended by the original framers,” which is a fair statement that I can agree with. Yet you also write at the end of your post, “I would argue that true constitutionalists would actually vote against the bill of rights.” I’ll first point out the obvious contradiction that the framers did ultimately vote for the bill of rights. You’re right that some of them expressed initial reservations against the Amendments, but they ultimately voted for it some of they agreed that the federal government should protect those rights, and also because some of the constitution’s strongest limiting language comes from the Bill of Rights itself, particularly the ninth and tenth amendments. Much of the expansive language, on the other hand, comes from the main body of the constitution, particularly the fifth and sixth articles. (This is interesting because, by rejecting the bill of rights, you’re also rejecting much of that limiting rhetoric.) As far as your critique of my question goes, plenty of amendments illustrate what a government can NOT do, starting with the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”).
I feel the real difference between our viewpoints comes from how much of the constitution we look at. Your comment has emphasized the perceptions of the Framers in relation to their own time, which is a fair approach. But what’s been ignored is the fact that the Framers knew that they were creating a living document for a changing world, that maybe one day Congress will find it “necessary” (in the words of Article 5), say, to institute a federal income tax (as the sixteenth article calls for). If you would like to argue that the difference between us is one of strict versus loose constructionism, I suppose that is possible. But if you were to do so then you’re saying that your strict view of the constitution calls for laws in the 1700s to apply perfectly to the world of the 21st century. In the case of progressivism, one of the reasons why the ideology flourishes today is because of the rise of the corporation in ways the framers did not see. The Constitution was made as America was just starting to industrialize (and industrialization, of course, provoked many of the worst-case scenarios of near-laissez-faire capitalism); progressivism therefore became popular to direct capitalism and industrialization in beneficial ways which, though not perfect (as you pointed out, what is?), were at least better for the economy and ensuring a free and opportunistic society. If we can agree that the Framers envisioned a living document for a changing world, then progressivism is compatible with constitutionalism even if it may potentially also believe in loose construction.
Conservatism, especially considering the issues we’ve been talking about, is much harder to label as “constitutionalist.” In the case of our prisoner programs like rendition, we aren’t providing fair trials which are called for in the bill of rights. The bill of rights also protects against cruel and unusual punishment (forms of torture like water-boarding and religious intimidation are as much punishment as they are interrogation techniques), and promises due process. You may argue that your form of constitutionalism allows the rejection of the bill of rights, but I say that if it’s part of the constitution, it should be acknowledged. The disregard of these aspects of the constitution is seen in conservative judicial activism. It should stop. You also argue, in regards to rendition, to look at the evidence. You said it yourself: terrorist attacks have been on the rise. I’m not so sure there is any concrete evidence that we’ve prevented significant terrorist attacks through rendition. What I am sure of, though, is that our human rights abuses enrage many around the world—-those people who might have otherwise helped us instead may be (and many are) encouraged to pursue our nation’s destruction. At the end of the day, we can both agree that it’s a bad idea to motivate our enemies.
I haven’t been lumping all types of conservatives into one uniform group; there are stark differences between neocons and libertarians. My reference to Cheney was simply an example of how some conservatives have grossly misunderstood the Constitution. If you consider yourself a conservative (or a libertarian, more likely in your case) and disagree with Cheney’s statement, then I’m glad you see how he was wrong. It was merely an example of my point that many conservatives today (particularly neocons) don’t fully respect the constitution. Referencing instances within the Bush administration to prove my point is perfectly fair, as the original post was about Bush’s policies and rhetoric surrounding Iraq and rendition.
You’re not understanding the direction of my point with the Bush administration’s “black-and-white” mentality. I never disagreed that with US policies we either take an action or we don’t take an action. That is not the issue. We clearly have soldiers fighting extremists in Iraq, that’s a concrete fact that can’t be disputed. The idea of “black and white” refers to how Bush has dealt with the world around him, and the way he assumes that we have enemies, allies, and nobody in between. In your last post, you defended that by arguing that we had a single, concrete enemy. I’ve already responded to that, and now you’re changing what “black and white mentality” refers to.
Something I’m really liking about this exchange, Pete, is that we’ve maintained an intelligent debate that delves into specifics instead of relying on sweeping generalizations and cheap rhetorical tactics. I’m glad that we’re avoiding those.
"No book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude."
-George Orwell
-Zacky d.
Post a Comment
<< Home