In what state can one find the most important electoral district of the recent election cycle? Contrary to popular belief, it’s not in Ohio, Florida, Minnesota or Wisconsin. In fact, it’s not even in a contested state.
Surprisingly, this influential district was California’s 42nd — home of Hollywood and the country’s new political elite. Actors and actresses are young, beautiful, charming, and most importantly, attract just as much, if not more, media and voter attention as their political pals. Thus, their promotional services are extremely coveted.
Politicians welcome celebrity volunteers who lend their time and famous faces to the cause of their preferred candidate. This trend has been around for decades, but hit an alarming peak during the 2004 presidential campaigns. Countless web sites listed the political endorsements of celebrities ranging from Kevin Costner to Whoopi Goldberg to Martin Sheen. Hundreds gathered in cities across America, hoping to catch a glimpse of stars as they flew in for a 15-minute political pep talk.
We even saw evidence of this new promotional phenomenon on the University of Wisconsin campus. Many Madison students turned out last fall to greet stars like Natalie Portman and Leonardo DiCaprio who spoke on behalf of John Kerry. An even larger Madison representation showed up to see Sheryl Crow and Bruce Springsteen, and — oh, yeah — Sen. Kerry in October and November.
Clearly, a new trend is taking hold in politics. It isn’t what you know in Washington, but who you know in Hollywood that counts. It has always been important for politicians to put their best face forward, but are there negative consequences if it is not their own?
Obviously, Sen. Kerry didn’t foresee any. In fact, his celebrity support was a dream come true. Early in the campaign, when Newsweek magazine asked Kerry what he would change about his campaign, he responded “his face.” Given the wide variety of criticism offered by Kerry’s opponents, one might have expected his response to include communication clarity or senior senator status. However, Kerry felt that his face, which he judged to be unexpressive and lacking warmth, was the biggest hindrance to his campaign. He, like his political peers, fully understood American’s fixation with “face value.” After all, this is the nation that chose a handsome John F. Kennedy over sweating opponent Richard Nixon, put silver-screen star Ronald Reagan in the White House and selected Arnold Schwarzenegger for the governor’s office.
With this in mind, Kerry sought the help of attractive faces in his campaign — enter Natalie, Leo and even John Edwards. Enter a large problem. Kerry, like so many others who look to outside fame to bring good fortune, could not turn latent publicity into practical election results. He soon learned that misguided limelight is a useless election tool. Americans simply get so blinded by paparazzi bulbs that they lose track of the important issues and true messages of a campaign.
One can point to Madison’s recent brush with fame for further evidence of this celebrity phenomenon. Just this week, Michael J. Fox arrived in Madison to promote stem-cell research. Predictably, Fox’s visit to the Waisman Research Center dominated headlines of school publications and citywide papers alike. Excited reporters hovered around the scene to snap a shot of Fox as he toured Waisman’s facilities.
Despite a small stature, Fox’s bright presence overshadowed the real story of what’s happening at the research center. Su-Chun Zang, who had just made the amazing scientific breakthrough of growing human motor neurons using embryonic stem cells, was hardly featured in the article. Sure, Fox’s call for more funding may grab the attention of the Legislature, but shouldn’t Zang’s findings have been sufficient to fulfill the same purpose? Or at least receive mention in the first half of an article?
As politicians already begin to plan for the next election cycle, my hope is that they will remember the risks involved in using celebrity political mouthpieces.
While star appearances may bring out the voters, they do not necessarily bring in the votes. This may be due to the fact that celebrities are oftentimes not fit to discuss the intricate political and policy details that make up a substantive campaign. Americans have a definite fondness for celebrity culture, but they also demand and deserve a robust political climate in which to view and consider the true faces of politics — the politicians themselves.
Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
