Separation of Cinema and State Needed

Americans worship celebrity. That three word sentence might be common knowledge, but it should also be a warning sign, particularly when it comes to politics and whom we choose to lead us. The ACLU and many other groups have worked tirelessly to erect a formidable wall separating church and state, but perhaps a more useful effort might be to create more separation between cinema and state.

I am concerned about the nearly unanimous clamor for actor Fred Thompson to officially declare his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The poll numbers indicate Thompson possesses a movie star’s presence, a sound bite worthy tongue, and a country singer’s knack for stirring up patriotic fervor. All these characteristics should make me welcome his inevitable jump into the race, but I am restrained from embracing his entry by celebrity political phobia.

As a conservative who had a modest degree of professional interaction with and observation of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as a host of current and past celebrity figures, there is no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan and George Washington were exceptions rather than rules when it came to celebrity being good for politics. It was just as important that Reagan was a former actor as it was that George Washington was a former general. Had either been actively employed in their chosen professions when running for the presidency, it could have been said of them that it was merely their celebrity status that captivated the attention of voters.

Washington was the most popular American when the framers of the constitution sought an appropriate man to serve as the first president. His popularity as the victorious general of the Revolutionary War was enormous, but what endeared him to most to the general population and especially the Framers was his willingness to relinquish control of the Army and desire to retire quietly to private life after the Revolutionary War concluded. These actions cemented his reputation as a man of unquestionable integrity who sought the good of his nation more than he sought to be popular. This made him the ideal choice for a first president, and he demonstrated more integrity and humility when, after serving as president and commander in chief, he stepped aside, refusing to entertain popular pleadings that the laws be changed to allow him another term.

By the time Reagan ran for president, his movie career was decades in the past, and his own personal charisma and dedication to conservative principles ultimately won the hearts of voters. Reagan was prepared by long life experience to be the right man at the right time in the Cold War drama, and despite his landslide victories remained affable, sincere, and unaffected by adulation. In short, Reagan was not elected BECAUSE he was a former actor, he was chosen DESPITE being a former actor. The political accomplishments that ultimately led to his GOP nomination in 1980 were separate from his cinematic achievements. He truly had two careers, although clearly one certainly prepared him for the public performance aspect of the other.

However, the trend toward merging our celebrity worship culture with the selection of our leaders is becoming more commonplace and, well, popular. Instead of reluctantly turning to celebrities, it is now fashionable to nominate them simply because they are famous. The list is long and continues to grow: Sonny Bono; Clint Eastwood; Fred Grandy; Bill Bradley; Steve Largent; Tom Osborne; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Jesse Ventura; Fred Thompson, and more. While some of these men have proven capable in their elected offices, the parlaying of popularity into politics is, in the long term, a dangerous and damaging societal trend.

The desire to boost Schwarzenegger into the presidency nearly convinced members of the House and Senate to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to allow those born outside of the United States to serve as president, all because in a justified fit of pique, California voters chose to throw then Governor Gray Davis out and Schwarzenegger, adopting the slogan “The Governator” in a sickening display of celebrity, overshadowed more qualified GOP candidates like Tom McClintock who had dedicated years and decades to lowering taxes and other cherished conservative ideals.

The groundswell of support for Fred Thompson’s potential run for president in 2008 is disturbing because it is based on his celebrity more than his political convictions. Who wouldn’t want the tough-talking DA from “Law & Order” warning the Iranians to stop seeking nuclear bombs, or the hard nosed admiral from “The Hunt for Red October” staring down Putin in what appears to be a coming Cold War II? The problem is that Thompson is a former politician and current actor, the reverse of Reagan, and thus his name recognition is truly based solely on his acting career. Thompson dabbled in politics, using his movie star status to secure a Senate seat, but when he tired of the ideological battle, he retreated back to acting. Reagan never tired of the ideological battle, fighting it convincingly and publicly until only disease could silence him.

While Reagan’s former aides, such as Michael Deaver, may see in Thompson some similarities with their former boss, the comparison appears shallow at best. Conservatives should not further fuel the fire of celebrity-driven politics by choosing Thompson just because one former actor turned out to be a great choice. I never thought it possible to agree with anything spoken by “West Wing” star Martin Sheen, but, when approached by DNC officials about running for the Senate in his home state of Ohio, Sheen reportedly stated, “I’m just not qualified. You’re confusing celebrity for credibility.” Thompson is clearly more popular than any of the current GOP candidates, but in selecting our future leaders we must curb the trend to allow media popularity to become a virtue in itself. For practical purposes, liberal celebrities far outnumber conservative stars, thus embracing popularity in candidates is potentially suicidal for conservatives in the long term.

In coming months, Thompson may prove himself a worthy candidate, but the high poll numbers in advance of his candidacy may signal that conservatives value him more for his name and face recognition than substantive qualifications. Most voting in these polls have never watched him debate, or deliver a political speech, or write a piece of legislation, or argue on the Senate floor, but they have seen and heard him on TV and in movies, and that is apparently enough to convince them he will be a convincing president. Opening the floodgates of celebrities turned politicians will have a profoundly negative effect on how we govern ourselves. How many times have genuinely well qualified candidates with impeccable integrity been pushed aside because they lacked big name status and were perceived as unelectable nationally? Conservatives must make sure that Thompson is the right man for the job, not merely the best available celebrity.