Celebrities and Politics: Deck of Weasels
May 23, 2003
by Mike Spinney

The FM receiver in my car doesn’t work. But there are some advantages to my FM-less commute. Fewer listening choices means no more classic rock, and a lot more talk radio. I do miss classic rock in the morning and blues/jazz in the evening. But in spite of its dearth of music AM radio can be an interesting affair.

The trend in AM talk leans heavily toward what I’ll call “Conservotarian,” and local Boston radio talk mavens Howie Carr and David Brudnoy, who dominate my evening drive-time experience with their eponymous talk shows, are the epitome of that bent. In the morning I listen to the unlikely duo of Blute and Ozone (former conservative Massachusetts congressman Peter and a former FM rock jock). They are usually entertaining, occasionally very good, and always better than ESPN Radio.

Sometimes I even catch a bit of the irrepressibly over-the-top Savage Nation.

I bring it up for the simple reason that I’ve heard a number of references lately to something called the “Deck of Weasels.”

The Deck of Weasels (a parody of the “Deck of Death,” issued by the U.S. military to soldiers currently occupying Iraq and meant to aid in the search and capture of Iraqi war criminals) features 54 luminaries who took positions contrary to the Bush Administration’s recently executed Iraq policy. The goal of the DoW seems to be to expose foreign and domestic enemies of the conservative agenda as morons (which is often the case). Newsmax.com is the brains behind the DoW, but I’m being generous with that description.

The faces of political figures such as Jacques Chirac, Jean Chretien, Teddy Kennedy, Moammar Gadhaffy, Kofi Anon, and many more grace the cards in the DoW. So, too, do the faces of outspoken entertainers like Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, Ed Asner and more.

The problem I have is the intellectual inconsistency with which outspoken conservatives have embraced the DoW. One moment, righteous rightist gabmeisters are railing against the Hollywood liberals for being empty-headed idiots who have mistaken their celebrity status as political expertise. The next, these same talk hosts are embracing the idea of putting celebs in the same category as world leaders.

It’s an inconsistent position. Either the liberal entertainers are relevant to national political discourse, or they aren’t. If they are, fine; slap their faces and silly quotes on a deck of cards and mock them on the airwaves. But if George Clooney’s ultra-leftist views are truly invalid, don’t grant them validity by putting them on the same stage as Vladimir Putin and Jimmy Carter. You can’t have it both ways.

For the record, I tend toward the camp that disdains celebrities – liberal or conservative – who use their position as a pulpit. Entertain me, but don’t try to tell me how I should think on a particular matter.

My problem with their behavior (here’s the theme) is a lack of consistency.

Most of the time these people have no skin in the game. Barbara Streisand (or any other opinionated star) will decide she doesn’t like something the president said, or the way the government is handling a certain situation, and she’ll spout off in front of a camera – then jet to some remote location or be chauffeured to an opulent home where she can forget about her problems and those of the world.

And when these celebrities do decide to get (temporarily) involved in a cause beyond wearing the lapel ribbon du jour to some high falutin’ gala event, they make sure there are plenty of cameras in the vicinity to record their magnanimity in action.

To be fair, there are instances where celebrity is used effectively to bring about change. Bono comes to mind as an outstanding example of a major entertainment personality who is working like a dog to have a meaningful influence on public policy. His money and reputation are on the line, and he’s demonstrated true leadership and vision in his approach to reversing the economic fortunes of some of the world’s poorest nations. When he speaks, Bono articulates a familiarity that goes deep into the issues. He’s established a level of credibility that gets results and commands respect – even among his ideological opposites.

That doesn’t mean I agree with Bono, but I cannot argue with his approach, and I do respect him and his methodology. To perpetuate a cliché, he walks the walk. He is consistent.

So, to Michael Moore, Woody Harrelson, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin and friends: please, continue practicing your craft. Entertain the public and help create for us an outlet where we can take our minds off all the badness in the world.

But when you are done, please leave us alone.

(Mike Spinney is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)

Response from: Brent Prescott, Arizona
May 27, 2003

I cannot agree more. As a conservative, I cringed when conservative pundits began celebrating Dennis Miller's "coming out" as a conservative celebrity, and began bringing things he said to the debate. Either celebrity opinions are relevant, or they're not. I lean towards NOT. I think it's a sad day when the court jesters start to use their time in the spotlight to try to criticize the king, and even sadder when everyone listens. They get one vote just like everyone else, and that's about it. Just shut up and entertain me please. Of course, all this leaves you asking, what about that Ronald Reagan guy? I guess every rule has its exceptions. As far as I am concerned, if Bono wants to forgive debts, he can start by emptying his own accounts and giving the money to the third worlders. That money came out of my taxes, he didn't put in on this, so he's going to have to figure out some other way to help the third world besides demanding more cash from America. But you're right about his being consistent. He is always very consistent when it comes to blaming America for everything, except when there is publicity to be had by wearing a jacket with our flag on it in the wake of 9-11.