My recent blog has generated a lot of heat for my position on Fox using his illness to promote certain democratic candidates. Also in play however is the anti-stem cell response featuring among other Patricia Heaton. The ad featured 5 people, but she, perhaps because of her own name recognition from the successful Everyone Loves Raymond TV show, has become the focal point.
That fact makes a comparison to the two, and a comparison of the ethics of using Hollywood stars to promote political agenda's an interesting one. In truth, I have begun to question my own beliefs regarding the use of celebrities in political ads, so I took some time to watch each ad, research the people and evaluate the differences
To start, I will note that on the conservative/republican side of these issues, there are far fewer Hollywood heavy weights. Hollywood has for decades become a very liberal environment, and for every Patricia Heaton there are probably 25 Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon or Rosie O'Donnell.
That said, the use of big names in promotions is obviously attractive, to both sides. Star power means name recognition and that obviously attracts some loyalty. Stars are role models and plenty of impressionable people use them as models of all manner of opinion.
Obviously this is not an absolute, or the country would be overwhelmingly democratic and liberal, but there is no doubt that the liberal set in Hollywood has had an influence. The liberals in Hollywood paved the way for and elected Bill Clinton in 1992. How? By using careful name placement in sitcoms, using sympathetic appearances and using lots and lots of cash.
And be clear, the fact that Liberals get so much mileage out of these tactics has as much to do with the democrats being more savvy and willingly to leverage Hollywood, so this is not a one sided equation. The democrats are simply more adept.
In my opinion, only the fact that Kerry and Gore were uncharismatic and somewhat unlikeable kept them from using their advantage in this arena. But that is my opinion.
Back to the topic at hand, looking at these two ads, one features a national celebrity (Fox) with no local ties (he is a naturalized Canadian) but a powerful emotional tie (Parkinson's). Why he was used isobvious, as his testimony to the Senate had already noted him as a recognized spokes-victim. The other featured 2 national figures with no local ties (Caviezel and Heaton), and three sports stars (Sweeney, Warner and Suppan) with local local ties. I am unsure of Caviezel's political leanings, and one liberal commentary sarcastically noted that his making a comment in what is assumed to be Aramaic at the beginning of the ad was intended to bring a What Would Jesus Do element into the equation. The Sports guys were obviously picked for local appeal, but Heaton was a curious choice- Until I found out that she is the honorary chairwoman of the group Feminists for Life. It may have been that and her being a woman that was used to select which part of the ad she narrated. After all, a woman should know more about donating eggs.
I think that one difference is that the Fox ad (and similar ads he is doing) are being used in several campaigns, where as the Heaton ad was limited to a single regional ballot measure.
In essence though, both derive a measure of attention from the people in them. Sure the issues are intense ones, but the issues are really secondary to the people this time. The biggest difference is that Heaton and her co-spokesmen have no particular moral authority on the issue other then passion of belief.
Fox has his disease as a measure of validity and credibility, giving his words an extra weight.
In summary I guess I see it like this:
Both sides will continue to grab on to any high profile star they can, and to a degree, I guess that is understandable and acceptable. Where I draw a line in my own distaste is specifically in cases like Fox and Reeves, or in similar cases like Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls, when a person is picked either for their status as Victim, or as a Celebrity/Victim in order to give their opinion disproportionate weight, and to insulate them from criticism, contradiction or disagreement.
In all four of the names I have indicated above, they have all been used as totems for a cause that is essentially political (even if it has other ethical moral or social ramifications) and if anyone said the slightest word against them they were branded as hatefull and mean. In other words, when the status as victim and or celebrity is used to shield the person from critcism, I think it is wrong. When these people enter the public debate they must be prepared for debate.
The perfect example is Fox. The initial criticism was based on interviews and appearances where he did not appear as symptomatic. The fact was recalled that he had not taken his meds before appearing before the Senate to let them see the disease in full force. So the logical question was raised "did he do that again?".
It is a fair question. Granted some like Rush went overboard and accused him of faking/acting. Rush to his credit did retract that and apologize.
But to see some of the counter attacks and outcry, you you would not know it. The essential sentiment is "How Dare you Question Him!!"
And that is my objection. We cannot discuss his words without being seen as attacking him personally. And behind this lies a more insidious problem:
All the discussion is about Fox, Rush and Heaton, and not the real issue, which is Stem Cell Research.
As I said in a forum today:
That to me is the real damage of the ad. It takes a scientific argument and moves it into an emotional and rhetorical place where the facts don't matter, just the feel.
But that is a concept I have blogged on before.
I welcome any comments and criticism on this blog.
Update: Here are two other posts in regard to this issue, which I found after posting mine, that I thought were well written and very enlightening.
The Michael J. Fox ad controversy: one more on a long list of shameless attempts by the left to stifle the debate by Sister Toldjah
Once Again, Nobody Is Attacking Fox by Brian at Iowa Voice.
A few other similar links: Michelle Malkin, Allah at Hot Air, Anchoress (also guest blogging at Captain's Quarters here), Pirate’s Cove, more from Brian at Iowa Voice, and Brent Baker at Newsbusters
(links gratefully stolen borrowed from Sister Toldjah)