Celebrity politicians are a sign of
our political decline
Cas Mudde
Oprah Winfrey isn’t the first
celebrity to be floated as a presidential candidate. And she won’t be the last
‘Some people are hoping that the “inevitable” failure of the
Trump presidency will once and for all cure Americans of the love for celebrity
politics.’
@casmudde
Wed 10 Jan ‘18 08.00 GMT Last modified on Wed 10 Jan ‘18
16.19 GMT
When Oprah Winfrey gave a blistering speech of women’s
empowerment at the Golden Globes, pundits went into overdrive speculating that
she might run for office. Media networks are now dreaming of a 2020
presidential race between Donald Trump and Oprah.
Although Oprah has not confirmed anything, US media are
brimming with op-eds for and against her candidacy and debates around the
broader issue of “celebrity politics”.
Celebrity politicians are not something new, neither are
they uniquely American.
Before 2016, we saw many celebrities-turned-politicians in
the US, particularly at the sub-national level: think only of wrestler Jesse
Ventura, who served as governor of Minnesota (1999-2003), and Arnold
Schwarzenegger, two-time former governor of California (2003-2011). Former
president Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was a Hollywood B-movie star who made it to
the US presidency after serving for two terms as California governor.
The hope that the 'inevitable' failure of Trump will cure
Americans of the love for celebrity politics is naive
Celebrities have run for office in other countries as well.
In Italy, famous movie star Gina Lollobrigida was unsuccessful, but porn star
Ilona Staller (AKA Cicciolina) made it into the national parliament. Similarly,
while the literary Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa lost the 1990 Peruvian
presidential elections, action movie star Joseph “Erap” Estrada served as the
13th president of the Philippines (1998-2001), while international football
star George Weah was just elected president of Liberia.
This is not to deny that in the past year a stunning number
of celebrities have openly flirted with the idea of running for office: from
Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg and Hollywood movie star Dwayne “The Rock”
Johnson for US president to music stars Robert Ritchie, better known as Kid
Rock, and Tim McGraw for US Senate. But what does this mean? Is it part of the
“rise of populism” that has defined politics in recent years?
Celebrities are not necessarily populists. There is no
indication Oprah would run as a populist, if she runs at all, and
Schwarzenegger was as centrist as they come – a true California Republican.
Even Trump didn’t start out as a populist, selling his own genius rather than
the will of the people. It was only when Steve Bannon took control of his
campaign that Trump became the vox populi, who has brought the White House back
to “the forgotten men and women of our country”.
Celebrities are first and foremost successful, and
non-politicians. The reason that this is attractive is that politicians are
almost universally disliked and increasingly associated with being
unsuccessful. They are not just disliked because of what they are alleged to
do, such as taking bribes and helping their friends, but also because of what
they fail to do – even though most voters will disagree on what that should be.
As US parties have become increasingly polarised, with both
parties pandering almost exclusively to the most radicalized parts of their
supporters (ie donors and primary voters), politics has become seen as
inefficient and insulated.
This has also become the dominant narrative in the media,
which function as the megaphone of the most radical politicians, while ignoring
the fewer and fewer remaining moderates. Journalists are not interested in
highlighting the long hours and negotiation skills that go into difficult
political compromises; they want loud and outspoken politicians of “opposite
camps” who have loyalty only to their own camp or party. At the same time, they
will decry this polarisation, dismiss politicians, and fan the interest in
political outsiders who can “save” the system.
This is where the celebrities come in, often egged on by
frustrated donors who live in similar celebrity bubbles. Even though several
celebrities are motivated by opposition to Trump, they are in many ways much
more similar to him than to traditional politicians. They see politics mainly
in terms of winning elections, but often lack the knowledge and skills to
implement the few concrete policies they have presented.
Some people are hoping that the “inevitable” failure of the
Trump presidency will once and for all cure Americans of the love for celebrity
politics. This is naive and shortsighted. First of all, for many Republicans he
is not failing at all. Second, even when many will be unhappy with him, and be
wary of other celebrity politicians, they don’t see any better alternatives out
there.
This is the main reason that celebrities are (thinking of)
entering politics and that people are (thinking of) voting for them: the lack
of attractive options among experienced politicians.
Remember that Trump started in a field of 17 candidates for
the Republican nomination – only one of them had a similar name recognition,
Jeb Bush. While the Democrats had a clear frontrunner, keeping other party
insiders out of the race, the almost successful challenge by outsider Bernie
Sanders was evidence of the frustration with Hillary Clinton among many
Democratic party faithfuls.
As long as the Republican establishment continues to kowtow
to Trump’s every wish, and the Democratic establishment does not get beyond a
“Trump is bad, vote for us” campaign, outsiders will see a chance to enter the
race, and voters will look for outside options.
In a political system where money and name recognition are
key factors in winning elections, celebrities are well positioned to do well,
particularly within a field of uninspired and uninspiring professional
politicians.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário