Celebrities'
political lives historically ineffective
ITHACA,
N.Y. (U-Wire) -- By the time you read this,
election history will have been made in
the New Hampshire primary as the Democratic
Party moves one step closer to naming its
candidate. As in years past, government
officials and news outlets have weighed
in, endorsing candidates whom they feel
can best lead our country. Yet, unlike in
recent years, entertainers have begun to
endorse candidates with reckless regard
to both their relevance, and their own ignorance.
While this practice has not been occurring
in recent years necessarily, it is not a
new one. In fact, it dates back to well
before even the creation of the United States.
The
year was 1642. England was in a state of
turmoil as civil war and dissent spread
throughout the countryside. The roundheads
of Cromwell were fighting the Cavaliers
of King Charles, as both sides fought desperately
for public opinion, working tirelessly to
sway the Britons -- and hopefully the war
-- to their side.
One
balmy June evening, William Shakespeare
was in his study working when he heard a
knock on his door. Outside, to Shakespeare's
amazement, was embattled British King Charles
I. Charles sat with Shakespeare for hours
as the two sipped fine brandy, discussed
the tenets of mercantilism, and basically
enjoyed each other's company. It is even
rumored that the monarch suggested the name
Mercutio for Shakespeare's famous Romeo
and Juliet character, as a reference to
the mercurial nature of the British people.
As late night turned to early morn, the
conversation turned serious as Charles asked
Shakespeare to endorse him in the war. He
discussed the difficulty of being challenged
and Charles said he felt the support of
Shakespeare could greatly aid him. Feeling
kindly toward the embattled monarch, and
a little bit tipsy from the brandy, Shakespeare
agreed. Charles was sure that with the support
of England's finest playwright he would
win the war.
Unfortunately,
he didn't. For all of Shakespeare's support,
Charles was beheaded soon after.
In
reality, none of what I just wrote is true,
but it proves a point. In fact, William
Shakespeare died in 1616, 26 years before
his historic, but inherently fake, meeting
with King Charles. But while this piece
of "historical fiction" is completely
made up, it is this event that provides
us with guidance for the future.
There
is no way William Shakespeare could have
affected the public opinion on the war,
nor could he have swayed a military operation
one way or the other. Though saddening,
none of this is to be surprising. For all
of Shakespeare's success and adoration from
British society, he had no knowledge or
expertise in issues of diplomacy and war,
and, therefore, there was no need for his
input.
If
only the fake mistakes of William Shakespeare
could prove to be learning experiences for
today's very real celebrities. Recently,
a number of celebrities have deemed themselves
important enough to endorse candidates for
the democratic nomination for President.
Madonna and Helen Hunt recently endorsed
General Wesley Clark. Egregiously irrelevant
rock band Hootie and the Blowfish have lent
their sunny brand of forgotten leverage
to Sen. John Edwards. Gov. Howard Dean has
received the endorsement of family failure
Billy Baldwin and comedian and filial parasite,
Jim Belushi -- I think Dean hopes people
get these two confused with their more successful
older brothers.
Pardon
me for criticizing, but I tend to doubt
these people can even possibly change an
election. If William Shakespeare could not
hypothetically swing a revolution he was
not alive to see, I don't think that Helen
Hunt could swing the 2004 presidential election.
She
couldn't even land the 8:00 spot on "Must
See T.V." Billy Baldwin? This guy couldn't
even get a show on the PAX network. I have
a sneaking suspicion these people are using
these elections to help them re-enter the
public consciousness. Yet, the idealist
in me hopes that these actors are not attempting
to use the presidential primaries to gain
more media attention. I like to think that
these people are choosing their candidates
for a reason. But, they're not. Madonna,
who endorsed Wesley Clark after he came
to visit her in her Los Angeles home, said
she liked him because, "I think to
be a general for as long as he's been, this
is a man who knows how to deal with pressure
and make decisions under pressure."
If
all you have to do to gain Madonna's endorsement
is work in the military for a long time
and work under pressure, I think that Wesley
Clark should consider KFC mogul Colonel
Sanders as his running mate. It would definitely
spice up the White House Mess Hall food.
In such a close race, anything these candidates
could do to help their cause is worth doing.
But, the absurdity of some of these really
C-list celebrities endorsing people, thinking
that anyone is combing the Associated Press
wire to see what Jim Belushi thinks of Presidential
candidates is a ridiculous confirmation
of our culture's obsession with celebrity.
Hopefully, this is just a one-time celebrity
grab, but I have a feeling that William
Shakespeare is going to be rolling around
in his grave.
This
column by Josh Mendelsohn originally appeared
in the Cornell Daily Sun at Cornell University.
|
