Taste My Squirrelly Wrath!

Jane Fonda is at it again. This time she’s traveling across the country on a bus in the hopes of ushering an end to the Iraqi occupation. Now opposition to the war is one thing, but what Fonda is asking is that we abandon the people of Iraq, leave them to fend for themselves, and embolden the terrorists who share Fonda’s vision of an unoccupied Iraq. President Bush was absolutely right when he said in his last State of the Union address that setting a timetable for leaving Iraq “would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out.”

But tell that to Jane Fonda.

Fonda has apologized numerous times for her conduct in Vietnam over thirty years ago, and one might give her the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was merely an ignorant youthful error to entertain and encourage the enemy. But Jane Fonda isn’t a kid anymore. Even if she doesn’t have a Ph.D in political science, she should realize the foolishness of her pursuit. Yes, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and yes, many people have died, but what on Earth does she hope to accomplish by protesting a war that has already been fought? Where was her bus and entourage when Colin Powell was making his case before the United Nations, BEFORE the war began? All she can hope to accomplish now is securing an abandonment of the Iraqi people (if you think the rest of the world hates us now...).

I thought about how I’d like to ask Fonda myself what she hopes to accomplish, but then I remembered, Jane Fonda is a celebrity, and celebrities are known for their leftist political activism. Jane Fonda will continue to be Jane Fonda, Robert Redford will continue to be Robert Redford, and Danny Glover will continue to make no sense at all. When I saw images of Jody Foster at the premier of Fahrenheit 911, I thought (quite cruelly) to myself, ‘Is she trying to get another president shot?’ That one is in bad taste, I know, but it remains a curious thing why such a large number of famous celebrities are involved in liberal activism.

As always, I have a theory.

Hollywood is quite a Darwinian environment. You will never find a place more loyal to the concept of “survival of the fittest.” In short, Hollywood isn’t exactly a cozy environment for social conservatives. Hollywood’s ten highest paid actresses are all sex symbols (Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Drew Barrymore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, Renee Zellweger and Jennifer Lopez), all of whom have done nude scenes (sometimes research is fun), with the exception of Renee Zellweger, who has nonetheless done simulated sex scenes and once worked as a bartender in a strip club.

Now let’s look at a few successful male actors. Can you think of one highly paid actor today who has done strictly PG material? I can’t think of any, but I can think of a few who resist the Hollywood debauchery and can’t get good acting jobs to save their lives. Take, for instance, Chuck Norris. For over a decade, Chuck Norris was one of the ultimate action heroes, right up there with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. In the 90’s, however, Chuck Norris had a spiritual transformation and became a committed Christian. Now when is the last time you have seen Chuck Norris in ANYTHING? Then of course there is Mel Gibson, formerly one of the most in-demand actors in Hollywood, now the scourge of the Hollywood elite.

So what’s the point?

The most successful actors are the most flexible actors; those willing to take on different types of roles and be “open-minded.” This presents a problem for social conservatives, who are more often unwilling to strip down for the camera or dance around saying, “Do I make you horny, baby?” I don’t like to use the word sellout, but unfortunately the road to success in Hollywood is paved with compromise. And it isn’t just Hollywood. It is the entertainment industry in general. Just look at the evolution of Britney Spears, America’s favorite “virgin.” Bob Saget was once America’s favorite wholesome TV dad; now the only acting work he can get is in raunchy cameos in films like Dumb & Dumberer and Half Baked (remember, he was the guy who infamously became known for the line, “I suck d*** for coke”). Even the Family Channel, which was once evangelist Pat Robertson’s safe TV haven for audiences young and old, is now laden with sexually explicit shows like “Wildfire” and syndicated episodes of “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” and “Gilmore Girls.”

And what about Hollywood’s famed conservatives? Well, most of them are liberal. I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but that’s why I specifically used the term “social conservative” in the previous paragraph. Most of the people in Hollywood often cited as conservative, people like Tom Selleck, Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey and Kurt Russell, are in fact libertarian. So you see, even the conservatives in Hollywood aren’t conservative. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Bo Derek, who often stand up for neoconservative values. I’m sure there are others, but they are in short supply. Simply put, liberals have an easier time surviving in Hollywood because Hollywood is a place of liberal demands, just as giraffes survive in environments with tall trees because of their long necks suited for eating the leaves high above.

Survival of the fittest.

The question remains, however, if there are varying degrees of liberalism, why does all the activism in Hollywood seem to be leftist? Well for one thing, the libertarians and conservatives (despite their growing numbers) are still vastly outnumbered. As I mentioned before, most of the rightists in Hollywood are libertarian, and liberals already outnumber libertarians in general, and by vast margins. But despite the minority status of the libertarians in Hollywood, they do at times involve themselves in activism. It just isn’t always as heavily reported as the leftist rallying. Tom Selleck is an avid 2nd amendment advocate, for instance, and former MTV VJ Kennedy often speaks out about her libertarian views. And did someone say Arnold Schwarzenegger?

I’m not saying that liberals and libertarians are, by nature, immoral. I myself am of the libertarian persuasion and try to maintain the moral decency with which I was raised, but some degree of liberalism is nevertheless a necessary prerequisite for the demands of a successful acting career. Even the most committed moralists have to compromise to stay on top, as demonstrated by Natalie Portman, who performed semi-nude in the film Closer after declaring numerous times that she would never exploit herself physically on film.

There are other theories about the Hollywood slant as well. Some have speculated geographic influences, since many celebrities hail from liberal states like California and New York, and I am sure there is some validity to that. Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham theorized in her book, Shut Up and Sing! that many celebrities feel, based on their own struggles to break into the business, that success is based on luck, and therefore big government is necessary to ensure everyone has their fair share. I am sure there is some validity to that as well. By and large, though, I think it’s a big Darwinian rat race. A young girl moves to LA from the Midwest with stars in her eyes, willing to do ANYTHING to make it big, and soon becomes immersed in a community surrounded by people who have already done anything and everything. Either she becomes one of them, or she makes a living doing Burger King commercials.

Nobody said it was easy.