In Celebrity News
I don’t think anyone has ever accused me of being star struck. I pay very little to celebrities, and I probably couldn’t tell you who most of the people being profiled in any given edition of People magazine are. With the exception of Jimmy Stewart, who was way before my time, I don’t recall ever admiring an actor as a person. But Mark Wahlberg explaining why celebrities should avoid discussing politics when they know nothing about it may make me reconsider:
A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble. They’re pretty out of touch with the common person, the everyday guy out there providing for their family. Me, I’m very aware of the real world. I come from the real world and I exist in the real world. And although I can navigate Hollywood and I love the business and the opportunities it’s afforded me, I also understand what it’s like not to have all that.
A tip of my non-existent hat to Mark Wahlberg.
That’s downright bizarre. Any yahoo in a bar can discuss politics but “celebrities” shouldn’t because they’re privileged? Really? And that would pretty much eliminate any rich person talking about politics because they don’t live in the real world. Is this the world Real Americans ™ live in? What the hell are people thinking? Politics which affect all of us) should only be discussed by the correct people? Maybe Walhberg should not even make political movies (which his are,let’s face it) because he doesn’t know what the hell he’s making movies about.
This makes me despair for the state of American discourse. TO discuss politics is everyone’s right. To be correct about your analysis is another issue.
Carol,
I read Wahlberg’s comment differently. Everyone has the right to drink alcohol, and everyone has the right to use the phone. Now my alcohol consumption is limited to Nyquil on those occasions when I a catch a cold, but I have heard enough stories to understand that it is unwise to make phone calls while drunk. It can lead to unhappy outcomes.
Wahlberg isn’t out trying to get a law passed that would get celebrities to keep quiet, but he is pointing out that many of them don’t have a clue what is going on so it isn’t wise for them to be giving political advice either.
Indeed it is true that the world, and certainly the U.S., would have been far better off had Ronnie Reagan avoided politics.
Mr. Wahlberg is being incredibly self congratulatory by putting himself in some special category of those who understand the life of the “common person.” On what basis is Wahlberg’s view of the world measured as more valid than anyone else’s? Mike, maybe your computer needs a rest from the strain of having to defend too many bad ideas.
As an academic, I often hear about how academics are out of touch with the real world. This usually comes from non-academics who are out of touch with the real world: i.e., they believe in creationism, climate change denial, GMO foods are dangerous, vaccines cause autism and Islam compels terrorism.
The reality is that none of us lives in “the real world” of experience. We each experience a distinct part of the fabled blind man’s elephant. But we can learn, with effort, about the real world beyond our personal experience by reading, listening and using critical thinking. We don’t learn about the “real world” by embracing solipsism.
I don’t have anything bad to say about Mark Wahlberg. He’s a very successful guy who came out of Dorchester from basically nothing. He did time in prison for shooting a guy in a robbery gone wrong.
Anyone who can turn their life around that way deserves a lot of congratulations, and probably a lot of other people are relevant to that turnaround too who can have pride in their impact.
As to celebrities expressing political opinions: I recall a possibly apocryphal story about Ricky Martin (?) being asked if he was gay or straight, and his response being basically “as long as you buy my posters you can imagine me any way you want.”
Joel,
I have heard the “academics are out of touch” criticism (and heck, on some issues, I have made that criticism myself) and the “celebrities are out of touch” critiques. But there is a difference. Leaving aside the academics that specialize in “underwater basket weaving” type majors, in general, academics have the time and the leisure and the inclination to learn something about politics, particularly as it relates to their field. In an academic community where diversity of opinion is allowed and encouraged, there can also be push-back on a given opinion, which can help an academic hone and fine-tune their opinions better. When that happens, when an academic has data on his/her side, then criticisms that an academic is out of touch says more about the person arguing against the opinion than it does against the academic.
But academia has rules and certain things are verboten. I have spent just enough time in academia to know that. A few weeks ago in comments I quoted James Flynn, of the Flynn effect stating that in his field, even a guy with his weight “cannot say” certain things. I can cite other big names, even (very literally) a name taught in middle school science books, who either noted the same thing or were the subject of a demonstration of what Flynn stated. In a Lysenkoist environment where data is trumped by ideology, being an academic doesn’t help one get at the truth.
And then there are celebrities. Worship by fans is not conducive toward serious thought on any subject, except, perhaps, the topic of one’s own celebrity. Being treated very differently than anyone else doesn’t help. Not sharing in the same concerns as the rest of the population doesn’t help.
Bob,
Lord knows I don’t often defend St. Ronald the Reagan. But is trajectory into politics at least makes some sense, beginning as it did with the Actor’s Guild. There ends my defense. But from my readings of how he completely failed to absorb material from briefings he received, both as a candidate for higher office and as an elected official, it does indicate that he had, in fact, fallen prey to the “what I believe must be true because I believe it” attitude of many celebrities.
Jack,
I have one particular bad idea to which I will be adding more data as soon as time permits. Things have been really busy lately.
“Wahlberg isn’t out trying to get a law passed that would get celebrities to keep quiet, but he is pointing out that many of them don’t have a clue what is going on so it isn’t wise for them to be giving political advice either.”
Perhaps we should start with TV celebrity and clueless Ignoramus Donald Trump.
The way the Hollywood economic model works there are no greater independent free market entrepreneurs than the Hollywood celebrities.
I’m sure that each of these celebrities knows from first hand experience how markets worked much more than the typical right-wing commenters.
What a load of crap. We all live in bubbles. We all have our own blinders on. We all see and process “reality” differently.
and we are all real people, with real problems and our opinions matter…
at least to us.
Welcome to AB, Bean.