The irrelevance of Hollywood

Do people care what Hollywood stars think about politics? Can celebrities opine in a manner that sways elite and common opinion?

George Clooney seems to think so. The actor and director recently penned an op-ed calling on President Joe Biden to bow out of the 2024 presidential race. By publishing that piece, The New York Times appears to agree.

Both Clooney and the Times misread Hollywood and its relationship to political opinion. Perhaps in Tinseltown’s golden years, an endorsement from an icon like John Wayne might have swayed a notable amount of voters. But the public hardly has the same connection with Hollywood stars that existed at that time. Some people still follow actors’ off-screen lives, but often they’re seeking the thrill of watching a train wreck, not the assurance that a larger-than-life hero concurs with their worldview. Others might still be influenced by these stars but not on weighty moral matters. Instead, regular people may just look to Hollywood for fashion trends.

Part of the reason for this shift comes from a deeper rift that has opened up between Hollywood and Main Street. The distance between them used to seem more like lives of glamor versus the ordinary. We thought the actors and directors were much like ourselves, telling our stories on the big screen. Now, the relationship is much more antagonistic. Hollywood produces so many films openly opposing the values of ordinary Americans. Even more, these films do more than contradict; they condescendingly preach to their audience in flyover country that such persons are bigoted, backward, and deplorable. This wasn’t always the case. Hollywood used to have plenty of Republicans, including Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, and, yes, Ronald Reagan. Yet it now is nothing more than an echo chamber of progressivism and a series of endless fundraising events for Democrats.

When these same contemporary screenwriters, actors, and directors then preach left-wing dogmas in interviews or op-eds, it feels to many like a foreign, tin-eared imposition. That is, if it is heard by much of America at all, so siloed our sources of news and entertainment have become.

Moreover, Hollywood stars do not deserve the political influence Clooney hopes for himself and his fellows. John Adams, a Founding Father and the second president of the United States, wrote that aristocracy exists in many forms. At its best, aristocracy in popular government consists of virtuous persons influencing fellow citizens to know, desire, and pursue the common good.

However, much sillier and pernicious forms of aristocracy can and do exist. These include persons gaining influence over others for their beauty, wealth, and fame.

To which kind of aristocracy does Clooney potentially belong? To describe the two forms is to answer the question. The Hollywood elites might think of themselves as something akin to Socratic philosopher kings. Yet their direct appeals, if influential, surely come more from their social and economic status rather than any other factor. They have risen to fame through their ability to entertain while sounding and looking good in the process.

Yet here we must note a significant caveat. Appeals like Clooney’s now largely fall on deaf ears. However, Hollywood, in fact, does influence American politics in a significant way. These men and women do not do so by direct appeals or endorsements. Instead, as I noted before, these actors, directors, and screenwriters make their mark through their art.

On-screen storytelling always has been and continues to be a powerful medium through which to shape perceptions and beliefs. We can develop loves and loathings for characters despite knowing they are fictional. We can feel outrage or inspiration and be driven to rethink past assumptions through the stories we watch.

The stories must be well told. Browbeating with a side of plot won’t do well at the box office, much less change minds and hearts. But subtle messaging within well-crafted characters and tales has and will continue to make a mark. That’s the danger we need to recognize.

If Clooney wants to make a political mark, he should not do so by writing columns for newspapers. Biden remains in the race and, even if he drops out soon, it will not be because of Clooney. Instead, the path to influence lay in the medium to which Clooney has dedicated his career: film.

The question, though, will remain: Will he and Hollywood have anything to say worth hearing? Will that art point toward truth and the good? Or will they continue to rage against God the Creator and Redeemer?