Burned Out on Backlashes to Celebrities Saying Political Things

These folks are no more or less important than the non-famous. Once you believe that, all that's left is their argument.

There was a time when it genuinely bothered me when celebrities spoke out about their politics. Part of the reason was that I believed popular entertainers and artists were gifted undue public influence in our culture, and when they used their fame and platform to spout off about political issues — often in dishonest, recklessly uninformed, or demagogic fashion — they were indoctrinating their many fans.

I never questioned their right to speak, of course. It just bugged me when they’d do it.

Some would suggest that my real problem with celebrities getting political was that they are — far more often than not — my political and ideological opponents. After all, I’m a longtime conservative, and most successful actors, actresses, directors, producers, comedians, and musicians are liberals or progressives.

I would concede, to a point, that my personal biases indeed played a role. Back during the Iraq War, for example, I was far more irritated with anti-war celebrities like George Clooney and Matt Damon than I was the relatively few openly supporting the Bush administration’s efforts to oust Saddam Hussein. And it wasn’t always just because I felt George and Matt were pushing false, defamatory narratives (which they often were).

The political lopsidedness of the entertainment industry has long been a frustration to people on the right, especially given the fact that entertainers who lean that direction have largely learned to muzzle their political views for professional reasons. Those on the left, however, are rarely faced with that burden. Because of this, our country’s handful of admitted right-of-center celebrities are treated by their tribe (and few others) as arena-capacity rock stars… even when they’re B-listers and C-listers.

I admit I thought it was extremely cool when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor as a Republican, and when Clint Eastwood spoke at the Republican National Convention (though his speech was incredibly awkward), and even just when James Woods followed me on Twitter (I actually bragged about that to people).

But somewhere along the way, even before my then fellow Republicans proved how needy they were of celebrity-approval by nominating a game-show host for president, I just stopped caring.

Maybe it’s because I realized that celebrities, at least the ones shouting from the sidelines, didn’t have as much political sway as I’d thought. With all their might, they couldn’t stop Bush from being re-elected, and I’m pretty sure they weren’t even determining factors in McCain’s and Romney’s losses.

Or maybe the reason I stopped caring was that I came to see the big flaw in the “shut up and act” and “shut up and sing” rebukes from my side of the aisle, often put forth by cable-news commentators — influencers and entertainers in their own right. I mean, what moral or intellectual high-ground does someone like Sean Hannity have over a progressive actor to publicly weigh in on politics?

Heck, the same could be said about me. Do I have any better argument for having my political views heard than Barbra Streisand and Bette Midler? Am I any more or less important, as an individual, than they are? Like them, I’ve never worked in politics (aside from some volunteer stuff). Does that mean I should I “shut up and write novels”?

I’ve long prided myself on not having to agree with an individual politically or ideologically in order to be their friend. Thus, why should I have to agree with a famous person’s politics or ideology in order to enjoy and appreciate their acting, direction, music, or other form of art?

The answer is that I don’t.

But lots of others see things differently. Whenever a celebrity says something politically provocative, it’s still met with instant outrage by the opposing team on cable news and the internet. Which brings me to a celebrity who’s currently taking heat from the political right. He’s an actor named Alan Ritchson, and he’s the star of the Amazon original series, “Reacher” (based on Lee Child’s Jack Reacher novels).

In a recent Hollywood Reporter interview, Ritchson said, “Christians today have become the most vitriolic tribe. It is so antithetical to what Jesus was calling us to be and to do.” When the interview turned to politics, Ritchson added, “Trump is a rapist and a con man, and yet the entire Christian church seems to be treating him like he’s their poster child and it’s unreal. I don’t understand it.”

Such talk isn’t all that hard to find in Hollywood, but coming from someone like Ritchson, the remarks were deemed particularly noteworthy. That’s because Ritchson himself is a devout, outspoken Christian.

As stated in the Reporter piece:

No matter how busy he remains in paid acting gigs, [Ritchson’s] finding time to stay on camera for a volunteer hobby he calls InstaChurch, a video series he posts on Instagram and a dedicated YouTube channel. Before he started posting the freewheeling clips, which find Ritchson exploring scripture and how it relates to daily life and his work as an actor, he warned his wife. “I told her that it could be the last time I worked in this business,” he explains of worries that he would be shunned in Hollywood for speaking so openly about religion and faith. But he couldn’t help himself. “I’m a Christian quite simply because of what Jesus calls us to do. Love other people until death. It doesn’t mean we’re all to be hung on a cross, but how can I suffer for you? That is a beautiful thing.”

In fact, Ritchson credits his faith in God for saving his life, after suffering through sexual assault and attempted suicide. The actor’s shared religious beliefs and practices, along with his tough-guy persona as a military officer in “Reacher,” has earned him a huge following among self-professed conservatives… many of whom are enthusiastic supporters of Donald Trump. Thus lots of people on the right have cast Ritchson’s controversial remarks as a betrayal. And, similar to the Bud Light situation, they’ve vowed to boycott “Reacher.”

I agree with those who say that, considering the nature of his fan-base, Ritchson’s political comments were an unwise career move. I’m much more skeptical of the opposing argument: that the actor said what he did to impress Hollywood elites, in hopes of advancing his career. If that were his priority, he wouldn’t be taking such a professional gamble by sharing his views on faith day after day, and acting in faith-based film projects (which most rising stars wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole). I think those choices earn him credibility on the issue.

So, as is my approach with other celebrities these days, I’d rather focus on the political argument than the individual’s qualifications (or nerve) to make the argument.

It shouldn’t have to be said that Ritchson’s comments were by no means a betrayal, not in a moral sense anyway; I’m sure the creators of “Reacher” wish he hadn’t made them, but that’s a business calculation. What I think those on the right are most upset about is that the actor voiced what he viewed as a betrayal (or at minimum a delusion) by a lot of American Christians over their idolatry of Donald Trump. And because of his perceived importance and Christian credentials, what he said stung.

One can certainly object to Ritchson’s choice of words, but as off-putting as they were, they weren’t unreasonable. Truth be told, while the former president has never been criminally convicted of rape, a civil verdict last year found him liable for “sexual abuse,” which the judge in the case later explained translated to the commonly understood definition of rape. And it’s of course no stretch at all to categorize someone who’s been lying about an election for the last three and a half years, purely for his own benefit, as a “con man.”

Ritchson said other things in the interview, specifically in regard to law-enforcement, that I strongly disagree with. But that’s not what most people are upset about. It’s the Trump comment that has taken center stage, and in my view, it’s no more worthy of a public backlash than something heard from a stranger on the street.

Entertainers don’t represent the public trust, nor should they. They’re just people with opinions, like you and me. And I think it’s best to treat them as such.