Bluelight

Thread: Celebrities and Politics?

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. Collapse Details
    Celebrities and Politics? 
    #1
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    47
    Whats up with celebrities running and becoming politicians? Donald Trump obviously takes the cake..., Al franken, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, Jesse Ventura had a short stint. Now we are hearing about Oprah and other celebrities possibly running for president?! Why is the American public so okay with all of this jazz? This is not normal. Maybe I am too young... Or too old. I don't know. I heard Ronald Regan was an actor.

    And the inverse. Whats up with politicians worshiping celebrities? Barack Obama was constantly on television talking with celebrities or hanging out with them. That used to never be done... or atleast very seldom. Presidents used to be busy running the country, as far as Im aware. Trump's inaguration had actors and musicians all over the damn place.

    I was watching an interview with David Cross. He was talking about his experience at the White House Correspondent Dinner and doing coke (or joking about it). Then he brushed on how "gross and soul decaying" it is that politicians idolize celebrities. It got me thinking. Aren't politicians supposed to be intelegent, exemplary, focused people? I understand ordinary people getting giddy about meeting celebrities but Senators and Govenors should be above all that nonsense right?? Why are they throwing parties, inviting celebrities, etc? It seems so off task and irresponsible.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    I don't know, but the shitstem really needs a drastic overhaul. That's for sure. Don't know how or if it will ever happen but we're certainly due.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Twentypointfive View Post
    Aren't politicians supposed to be intelegent, exemplary, focused people?
    Whatever gave you that idea? This is a Democracy, it's literally a popularity contest where the winner can be a total idiot. And celebrities existences are defined solely by popularity. So it shouldn't be hard to see why the two groups would have some overlap.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Cannabis Discussion
    Film & Television
    Cream Gravy?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    Whatever gave you that idea? This is a Democracy, it's literally a popularity contest where the winner can be a total idiot. And celebrities existences are defined solely by popularity. So it shouldn't be hard to see why the two groups would have some overlap.
    Fo

    Rizzle....
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Twentypointfive View Post
    Aren't politicians supposed to be intelegent, exemplary, focused people?
    The traits we value in leaders are displayed instinctively by intelligent psychopaths.

    Politics is downstream from culture

    Culture can change political opinions of the masses, which is why the entertainment industry is so politicized and coercive.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Incognito
    Posts
    4,353
    So politicians aren't supposed to be people who are excited to meet someone they admire and voters aren't supposed to vote for celebrities...?
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by cduggles View Post
    So politicians aren't supposed to be people who are excited to meet someone they admire and voters aren't supposed to vote for celebrities...?
    And celebrities aren't allowed to have political opinions it seems.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Xorkoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In the mountains
    Posts
    28,906
    Yeah I do find it odd, although actually, maybe not so odd, since, as Jess said, politics is a popularity contest, and who is more popular than celebrities in our culture?

    And yes, Ronald Reagan was an actor before he became a president.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Administrator
    Director of Communications
    alasdairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    south lake tahoe, ca
    Posts
    59,589
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    And celebrities aren't allowed to have political opinions it seems.
    unless it's kanye

    alasdair
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Senior Moderator
    Performance Enhancing Drugs
    CFC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8,125
    I wonder if the 'celebrity' thing is only really possible in presidential systems?

    I mean, there was Glenda Jackson in the UK, but I don't think it would be so easy for a celebrity to just become a successful politician like Arnie or Ronnie unless they'd dedicated their lives to climbing the greasy pole like all the other politicians under the UK or Australia's parliamentary-type systems.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Quote Originally Posted by CFC View Post
    I wonder if the 'celebrity' thing is only really possible in presidential systems?

    I mean, there was Glenda Jackson in the UK, but I don't think it would be so easy for a celebrity to just become a successful politician like Arnie or Ronnie unless they'd dedicated their lives to climbing the greasy pole like all the other politicians under the UK or Australia's parliamentary-type systems.
    Hard to say. Thing is ordinary voters don't really have much control over who's prime Minister in a parliamentary system. It would be quite feasible for a celebrity to become a member of parliament. But becoming head of government (prime Minister) requires becoming the leader of the ruling party, and the party itself decides that pretty much entirely separate from the ordinary voter.

    It's still doable. A rich celebrity has the resources to simply create their own party with themselves as the leader, then get people to represent their party in all the electorates. Then try to win by making their party synonymous with them.

    Which Australians might find familiar given its basically what Clive Palmer attempted to do recently. And unsuccessfully.

    So, it could still be done, but it's probably a bit more complicated.

    It's still not as simple as it sounds even in the American system though, you still need to use your resources to get a slate of electors in every state if you wanna be president. It's not as simply as just saying "vote for me I'm famous!". So either way it requires some resources beyond just advertising to get the man power either for your party or your electors in the electoral college.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    47
    @JessFR is that like in the states: an elected official vs. an appointed official?

    I dont like the correlation between wealth, popularity and power. It's inevitable though, I guess. Generally in America, money has a corruptive quality.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Incognito
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Twentypointfive View Post
    Generally in America, money has a corruptive quality.
    As opposed to __?__, where money is not corrupting.

    I've never even heard of a country where corruption wasn't a major force in politics/policy.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Twentypointfive View Post
    @JessFR is that like in the states: an elected official vs. an appointed official?

    I dont like the correlation between wealth, popularity and power. It's inevitable though, I guess. Generally in America, money has a corruptive quality.
    Well, in a parliamentary system, the head of government is still not an appointed position. It's just not publicly elected, not even indirectly like with the US presidency.

    In the US, it's largely the public who elect the president. Yes there's the electoral college, but it's still fairly direct.

    In a parliamentary system, you essentially vote for a party, and that party internally elects a leader. That party can decide to change their leader and thus change the prime minister at any time without the voting public. Because essentially the voting public just elects a party.

    Like saying the president is elected by the public isn't entirely accurate, neither is saying in a parliamentary system people elect a party, it's a bit more complex than that. But it's essentially the right way to think about it in terms of understanding the practical difference.

    Like how with the president, you're not really voting for the presidential candidate, you're voting for electors who've pledged to vote for the presidential candidate. In a parliamentary system, people talk like they're voting for a prime minister, but they're not, they're voting for their local representative once the elections over the dominant party, the party who's representatives have the majority, can then form a government with its leader as prime Minister.

    The big difference is that in the US, the president is part of the executive totally separate from the legislative branch where you elect local representatives. In westminster parliamentary systems, the executive isnt entirely separate from the legislature. It's a subset of the legislature. So the legislature votes for the executive. Which means the public are largely disconnected from the process of who becomes prime Minister.

    Imagine we had congress elect the cabinet, it's like that. This is still very simplified, there's lots of su tleties and implications that aren't immediately obvious.

    Personally I slightly prefer our congressionap system, but only slightly. Largely because I don't like the extreme levels of party discipline parliamentary systems require.
    Last edited by JessFR; 16-05-2018 at 03:37.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    47
    I kind of like that (the parliamentary sys) Thats seems like an effective system as long as everything is running smoothly. However, If there is corruption in a party it could go sidways. I cant really say Either way. It sounds relatively fair democracy to me.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    47
    Thanks btw. That was a very good explanation. I appriciate you taking the time.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Xorkoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In the mountains
    Posts
    28,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Twentypointfive View Post
    Thats seems like an effective system as long as everything is running smoothly.
    So are a lot of other systems... unfortunately, that's a big "as long as". Corruption always happens eventually, it seems to be human nature.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    47
    @Xorkoth. Ur def right. And what a bummer that is. But whadda ya do?
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    I said earlier one thing I'm not a fan of about the westminster parliamentary system is that it requires a high level of party discipline. What this means essentially, is because the executive is pretty much voted in by the legislature and subject to being changed the same way at any time. To have a stable government its essential that parties make sure their members vote the way the party wants. It's very rare that anyone votes in contradiction to the orders of the party leadership.

    In the US system, such voting against your own parties policy is common place. It's nothing unusual. The US system doesn't need such discipline because representatives voting against the parties wishes can't cause the executive to collapse. Because they're totally separate.

    People sometimes compare the number of third parties in the US vs say, Australia and talk about how much it sucks that there aren't more effective third parties in the US. But it's an unfair comparison. In the US, you can vote against your partys policy without any real problems. So it's already inherently more diverse.

    In a parliamentary system, if you do that without permission, the party will disqualify you. You'll become an independent. And since in most cases people think of it as voting for a prime minister by voting for their party without much thought as to the specific party representative. Except on very rare circumstances, being disqualified and made an independent means you have no chance of reelection.

    What it ultimately means, is overall the legislature is probably less diverse. With many votes being foregone conclusions. Even if on the surface it might look more diverse.

    Don't get me wrong, all in all I think both systems work about as well as each other. It's largely my own personal preferences.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •