In a much-discussed op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post, the Industrial Areas Foundation’s Michael Gecan argued that the Dems’ “celebrity worship” hints at the party’s inability to connect with regular Americans.
Thirty-two years ago, in the Auditorium Theatre of Roosevelt University in downtown Chicago, I believe I witnessed the destruction — actually, the self-destruction — of the Democratic Party. I was attending a rally for George McGovern. The place was packed. And the stage held scores of Chicago pols — red-faced aldermen and county committeemen in dark suits.
There were the usual speeches from the usual Democratic functionaries, but the warm-up act for the candidate was not some tongue-tied Polish pol from the Northwest Side. Onto the stage strode an actor everyone knew — Warren Beatty. He was a vision — handsome, tanned, long-haired and dressed almost entirely in black leather. He dramatically discarded his floor-length leather coat, only to reveal leather pants and shirt. The crowd inhaled, gasped and burst into applause. The faces of the pols onstage went white with shock or red with rage.
Beatty is now a married man, with a family, back in California, but the Democratic Party is still the same star-struck, celebrity-driven, immature mess that it was in 1972. Instead of Warren Beatty, this year’s headliners were Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen and the inimitable Michael Moore.
Very little, if any, of this argument makes any sense to me, but Gecan isn’t the only one who believes this. Indeed, Thomas Frank, whom I generally like, wrote something similar back in July.
Did Dems use celebrities to generate public interest during the campaign? You bet. Michael J. Fox appeared in a Kerry ad about stem-cell research, Springsteen and Bon Jovi boosted attendance at rallies nationwide, and Ben Affleck was on Kerry’s bus for a while. But there’s no reason to believe this changed the mind of a single voter and it’s hardly a sign of a party overcome with “celebrity worship.”
The truth is, both sides rely on well-known figures and entertainers to generate attention. Gecan didn’t mention it, but the Republicans embrace their celebrities with equal vigor. At Bush’s first convention, attendees and viewers saw Bo Derek, Ricky Schroeder, former quarterback Steve Young, wrestler “The Rock,” and former Miss America Nicole Johnson hobnobbing with GOP delegates. In 1992, George H.W. Bush brought Bruce Willis with him on the campaign trail. This year, Republicans utilized Jessica Simpson, country music artists like Lee Ann Womack and Toby Keith, and pitcher Curt Schilling. Hell, Kid Rock was at the GOP convention the same year he performed at the Super Bowl using an American flag with a hole in it as a shirt.
And, if I’m not mistaken, the Republicans gladly embraced some bad actor to be the chief executive of California. In fact, they’ve done this twice.
This isn’t a “I know you are but what am I” defense, just a realization that political parties see utility in tapping celebrities to capture the public’s interest. Some of us may not like it, but regular people care about celebrities. When famous people are at an event, the media shows up because they know we’ll tune in. I wish for all the world that subscriptions to The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and The New Republic rivaled that of Entertainment Weekly, but for reasons that escape me, Americans remain fascinated with people who entertain them.
Is there any proof that voters are influenced one way or the other by celebrities’ involvement in campaigns? Not really. The only proof I can think of is the enormous turnout we saw at Springsteen events in the fall, suggesting that voters were hardly disgusted by Kerry’s ties to this celebrity.
For that matter, and getting back to Gecan’s point, what did Warren Beatty have to do with McGovern’s defeat in 1972? The candidate won one state; voters simply weren’t embracing his message. By any reasonable measure, McGovern’s vague connection to a movie star was probably the least of the campaign’s troubles.
If Gecan’s primary complaint is that the party should do a better job reaching out to working-class families, fine. It’s an argument with merit. But to suggest that Kerry’s defeat has something to do with the Dems’ connection to Hollywood doesn’t work. After all, it’s those working-class families who go to the movies, read the sports page, buy CDs, and subscribe to People in the first place.