Should there be a Separation of Entertainment and State policy?

brianlux

I would say, yes, we need this, if for nothing other than our own sanity and sense of humor, we need this.

Just as religion and government were (too often were, not are) supposed to be kept in their own corners by "Separation of Church and State", we are now in a situation which calls for "Separation of Entertainment and State". With people like The Donald and Lindsay Lohan (thank you for that update, InHiding80!) running for president (not to mention previously elected actors Reagan and Schwarzenegger) I say its time to untangle these two career paths.

It could be argued that all politicians are actors and therefore a good actor would make a good politician. I don’t buy it.

But it isn’t going to stop. So here’s my solution:

Let’s create new and separate heads-of-state tier along the lines of King Actor and Queen Actress. Anybody should be able to run but the most popular male and female contestant will win purely by popular vote (no Electoral Cologne) and made King Actor and Queen Actor (or Drama King and Drama Queen. Whatever.) Let them represent the U.S. on an entertainment level and leave the serious governing to qualified, serious, intelligent, politically minded individuals.

hedonist

Maybe all of our politicians should keep away from the Tonight Show, the Late Show, the Daily Show, all the damn shows. It's (almost) as if the need to appear "cool" outweighs the fact that coolness doesn't mean much in the weighty scheme of things.

Entertainment is distraction, shiny objects.

People who are supposed to run shit, should run shit. I'm sure they have their fun side, but why such an effort to show everyone?

HughFreakingDillon

when did politicians start showing up on SNL? did it start with Obama and Palin? or did Clinton play sax with the SNL band?

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

when did politicians start showing up on SNL? did it start with Obama and Palin? or did Clinton play sax with the SNL band?

hedonist said:

Maybe all of our politicians should keep away from the Tonight Show, the Late Show, the Daily Show, all the damn shows. It's (almost) as if the need to appear "cool" outweighs the fact that coolness doesn't mean much in the weighty scheme of things.

Entertainment is distraction, shiny objects.

People who are supposed to run shit, should run shit. I'm sure they have their fun side, but why such an effort to show everyone?

It seems to me the cool entertainer/politician thing started with Clinton, Mr. Cool sax player but the more subtle entertainer as politician started with the smooth talking Reagan as Bonzo goes to Washington. But now it's almost a trend for totally unqualified people (i.e. those listed above) to be getting actual support in the political arena.

So this is my complaint but there are exceptions to everything and I will say that to me one of the brightest moments in entertainers mingling with politics was when Jello Biafra ran for mayor of San Francisco and used street performing to make his point about corrupt government. Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJy_pT78fTU

HughFreakingDillon

hedonist said:

Maybe all of our politicians should keep away from the Tonight Show, the Late Show, the Daily Show, all the damn shows. It's (almost) as if the need to appear "cool" outweighs the fact that coolness doesn't mean much in the weighty scheme of things.

Entertainment is distraction, shiny objects.

People who are supposed to run shit, should run shit. I'm sure they have their fun side, but why such an effort to show everyone?

because it helps immensely to be seen as someone relatable to the "common man", someone who can let their hair down and have a laugh at the same time as making tough decisions.

no different that wanting your boss to come to the work christmas party. it's fun to see them as equals, if even for a short while, as it almost elevates you seeing that.

tempo_n_groove

I would have LOVED to see Howard Stern in office in NY. He had some decent ideas that were actually implemented by other politicians.

hedonist

A fair enough point, Hugh, yet the majority of it strikes me as staged, insincere...PR-y...which usually turns me off.

Perhaps I've just become (more) cynical about these types of things

HughFreakingDillon

hedonist said:

A fair enough point, Hugh, yet the majority of it strikes me as staged, insincere...PR-y...which usually turns me off.

Perhaps I've just become (more) cynical about these types of things

well yeah, of course it's contrived. some just do better than others. I think Trump is going to be a trainwreck.

I really enjoyed the Palin/Tina Fey square off on SNL. it was hard to know if Palin's snarl at Fey was real or part of the act.

PJ_Soul

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at Brian. Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president? Because that doesn't seem very American to me. I don't see any problem with someone having so much ambition that they want to be a movie star AND the POTUS (or vice versa.... I'm still waiting for that to happen, lol). Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.
(also, I think people are taking shit like Kanye West and Lindsay Lohan running for president WAY too seriously in any case. If either one of them actually made the attempt it would bring some levity to an otherwise unpleasant process. I think that shit like that actually gets Americans more engaged in the election, and that couldn't be a bad thing, no matter how silly it looks).
In the end, I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so. I find suggestions like maybe politicians shouldn't be on the Tonight Show, etc a little disturbing. What is wrong with leaders connecting with the people???? I think that is a very positive thing, and so is a leader showing folks that they have a sense of humour, and softer side, and fun side. I think that's the kind of thing needed to engage the population, and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans aren't buttoned up robots. What I find more disturbing is a bunch of stiff suits marching around acting like they are "above it all" as they lead a country full of people they can't relate to. Actually, I find that somewhat terrifying. I'm not saying that I think Joe the Plumber should be a world leader. I don't think that the POTUS should just be an average person because we should expect more than average from our leaders. But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

dankind

I'm convinced that it wasn't the swift boat vets who tanked Kerry's campaign; it was his appearance on Letterman.

That was cringeworthy.

"Would that it were, Dave. Would that it were."

hedonist

I don't find my view disturbing - of course not!

Not going on entertainment shows isn't tantamount to being a tight-ass. I've seen speeches, debates, exchanges that showed the "everyday Joe" side of politicians. And again, a lot of what I've observed on entertainment shows (and granted, it's not much - usually in later clips, highlights, etc.) feels manufactured to me.

Look, they're gonna do what they want, as always, and likely also what their puppetmasters decide is best for imagery.

PJ_Soul

hedonist said:

I don't find my view disturbing - of course not!

Not going on entertainment shows isn't tantamount to being a tight-ass. I've seen speeches, debates, exchanges that showed the "everyday Joe" side of politicians. And again, a lot of what I've observed on entertainment shows (and granted, it's not much - usually in later clips, highlights, etc.) feels manufactured to me.

Look, they're gonna do what they want, as always, and likely also what their puppetmasters decide is best for imagery.

I'm not suggesting the MUST go on talk shows. I don't give a shit if they don't. I just don't have a problem with it if they do. I think it's fine. I'm sure there are some who shouldn't just for their own sake.... but frankly, someone sucking on a talk show is just as telling as someone being awesome on one. I'm interested in seeing how they carry themselves in any number of situations, including that one. That it's in a format that is more relaxed so that they seem more accessible to the people is just a bonus IMO. Talk show or no, however, they need to find SOME way to relate to the population effectively. If they can come up with better ideas than tweeting and going on talk shows, more power to them, as long as they do something that works or is at least a solid attempt.

mickeyrat

Any ideas then in how to get in front of young people on a sizable scale and how to engage them?

hedonist

Is it only for young folks? I don't know, how did things roll before all of these nightly shows and social media? Campaigning, grass-roots get-togethers?

mickeyrat

hedonist said:

Is it only for young folks? I don't know, how did things roll before all of these nightly shows and social media? Campaigning, grass-roots get-togethers?

civic minded kids in college. There was a lot less to draw the attention back when. 3 channels on network tv. Clinton doing Arsenio on Fox (the 4th network) set the precedent. Then Daily Show and Colbert Report allowed them to show a humorous side while engaging in political talk.

Now Obama was on a Podcast!!!!

You reach them where they are. Doing "things" that hold their interest.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at Brian. Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president? Because that doesn't seem very American to me. I don't see any problem with someone having so much ambition that they want to be a movie star AND the POTUS (or vice versa.... I'm still waiting for that to happen, lol). Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.
(also, I think people are taking shit like Kanye West and Lindsay Lohan running for president WAY too seriously in any case. If either one of them actually made the attempt it would bring some levity to an otherwise unpleasant process. I think that shit like that actually gets Americans more engaged in the election, and that couldn't be a bad thing, no matter how silly it looks).
In the end, I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so. I find suggestions like maybe politicians shouldn't be on the Tonight Show, etc a little disturbing. What is wrong with leaders connecting with the people???? I think that is a very positive thing, and so is a leader showing folks that they have a sense of humour, and softer side, and fun side. I think that's the kind of thing needed to engage the population, and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans aren't buttoned up robots. What I find more disturbing is a bunch of stiff suits marching around acting like they are "above it all" as they lead a country full of people they can't relate to. Actually, I find that somewhat terrifying. I'm not saying that I think Joe the Plumber should be a world leader. I don't think that the POTUS should just be an average person because we should expect more than average from our leaders. But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Interesting comments here, PJ_S. Thanks!

Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president?

Definitely NOT! Imagine the tax dollars that would be wasted!

I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.

We should have that right but do we really want this? I don't think the average American understands how government works (or should work). The average American is looking for a personality, not a leader, thus my suggestion that we have a separate category for Drama King and Drama King. Let everybody including kids vote for those positions and make it so that anyone voting for the real president, congressperson etc. must first demonstrate a basic knowledge of government in order to be able to vote. (I'll probably get stoned for saying that!)

I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so.

I absolutely agree. I see nothing wrong with being a bit manic depressive that way. Take serious shit seriously as hell and the rest of the time have a jolly good time!


But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Andrew Bacevich once generally implied that the average American isn't smart enough to know how leadership should work and I agree. Give the people a King and Queen (or whatever you want to call it) to represent them in a grand fashion. Let them be glamorous, sing like angels or rock like the Devil and leave leadership to serious, intelligent concerned leaders and if those leaders be somewhat detached from the masses, so be it as long as they do a good job, are accountable and are impeachable.

I'm totally serious about all of this. But will my message be heard? Haha! Nope!

hedonist

mickeyrat said:

hedonist said:

Is it only for young folks? I don't know, how did things roll before all of these nightly shows and social media? Campaigning, grass-roots get-togethers?

civic minded kids in college. There was a lot less to draw the attention back when. 3 channels on network tv. Clinton doing Arsenio on Fox (the 4th network) set the precedent. Then Daily Show and Colbert Report allowed them to show a humorous side while engaging in political talk.

Now Obama was on a Podcast!!!!

You reach them where they are. Doing "things" that hold their interest.

Well, I just hope their "things" are genuine, otherwise the ones they're trying to reach have been duped - presented an image to draw attention.

I guess my doubts stem from this recent trend of doing something (anything) for even a temporary spotlight - it takes off like wildfire, and becomes embraced due seemingly only to popularity.

I know I'm not gonna change how the wheels are greased, just wish there was more sincerity and less playing the game.

brianlux

^^^ Good point, Hedo. I think all of this needs to be taken more seriously.

What I've presented in this thread so far may come off as a bit flippant or as a joke and maybe that's because so much of politics is a joke.

But I really do mean what I say and something I saw last night confirmed that for me. Last night, we watched the movie "The King's Speech", the story of British King George VI whom with the help of Lionel Logue was able to overcome a speech impediment enough so as to be of great encouragement to the British people during WWII. At one point in the story, King George expresses great exasperation at the fact that even being King, he really can't DO anything- at least not in terms of government. Logue reminds him that his job is to encourage the people and with Logue's help, that is exactly what George did. London and other cities were having the shit bombed out of them and the people needed a voice of encouragement and George came through. Meanwhile, the government and military did it's job.

To my way of seeing things, that's what America needs- somebody- be it someone cool or courageous of capable of drawing out emotions or any combination thereof- who can inspire the people- maybe even entertain them. Meanwhile, we need serious, intelligent, capable people doing the job of good governing. So far (any more), it seems all we have is Entertainment Tonight.

ldent42

mickeyrat

hedonist said:

mickeyrat said:

hedonist said:

Is it only for young folks? I don't know, how did things roll before all of these nightly shows and social media? Campaigning, grass-roots get-togethers?

civic minded kids in college. There was a lot less to draw the attention back when. 3 channels on network tv. Clinton doing Arsenio on Fox (the 4th network) set the precedent. Then Daily Show and Colbert Report allowed them to show a humorous side while engaging in political talk.

Now Obama was on a Podcast!!!!

You reach them where they are. Doing "things" that hold their interest.

Well, I just hope their "things" are genuine, otherwise the ones they're trying to reach have been duped - presented an image to draw attention.

I guess my doubts stem from this recent trend of doing something (anything) for even a temporary spotlight - it takes off like wildfire, and becomes embraced due seemingly only to popularity.

I know I'm not gonna change how the wheels are greased, just wish there was more sincerity and less playing the game.

Look for the WTF podcast with Obama . Should still be a free episode either online or via his app.

It is more difficult these days imo to sort through the bs. For the positives of social media for spreading the word , far too much outright untruth is seen as factual as well. Memes need seen for what they are. Created content.

Remains to be seen where we go from here. Fuck me, kids these dayd will be running things.

hedonist

I'm inclined to agree with you, mickey.

Godfather.

brianlux said:

I would say, yes, we need this, if for nothing other than our own sanity and sense of humor, we need this.

Just as religion and government were (too often were, not are) supposed to be kept in their own corners by "Separation of Church and State", we are now in a situation which calls for "Separation of Entertainment and State". With people like The Donald and Lindsay Lohan (thank you for that update, InHiding80!) running for president (not to mention previously elected actors Reagan and Schwarzenegger) I say its time to untangle these two career paths.

It could be argued that all politicians are actors and therefore a good actor would make a good politician. I don’t buy it.

But it isn’t going to stop. So here’s my solution:

Let’s create new and separate heads-of-state tier along the lines of King Actor and Queen Actress. Anybody should be able to run but the most popular male and female contestant will win purely by popular vote (no Electoral Cologne) and made King Actor and Queen Actor (or Drama King and Drama Queen. Whatever.) Let them represent the U.S. on an entertainment level and leave the serious governing to qualified, serious, intelligent, politically minded individuals.

Military service should be a prerequisite for office of the president IMO, if a person makes the jump from entertainment to politics then O.K but they must have Military experience.

Godfather.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at Brian. Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president? Because that doesn't seem very American to me. I don't see any problem with someone having so much ambition that they want to be a movie star AND the POTUS (or vice versa.... I'm still waiting for that to happen, lol). Frankly, I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.
(also, I think people are taking shit like Kanye West and Lindsay Lohan running for president WAY too seriously in any case. If either one of them actually made the attempt it would bring some levity to an otherwise unpleasant process. I think that shit like that actually gets Americans more engaged in the election, and that couldn't be a bad thing, no matter how silly it looks).
In the end, I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so. I find suggestions like maybe politicians shouldn't be on the Tonight Show, etc a little disturbing. What is wrong with leaders connecting with the people???? I think that is a very positive thing, and so is a leader showing folks that they have a sense of humour, and softer side, and fun side. I think that's the kind of thing needed to engage the population, and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans aren't buttoned up robots. What I find more disturbing is a bunch of stiff suits marching around acting like they are "above it all" as they lead a country full of people they can't relate to. Actually, I find that somewhat terrifying. I'm not saying that I think Joe the Plumber should be a world leader. I don't think that the POTUS should just be an average person because we should expect more than average from our leaders. But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Interesting comments here, PJ_S. Thanks!

Are you suggesting that a law be made saying that someone who was or is in some way connected to the entertainment industry not be allowed to run for president?

Definitely NOT! Imagine the tax dollars that would be wasted!

I have absolutely no problem with entertainers becoming POTUS, under the assumption that the people who vote are able to decide who they want leading them.

We should have that right but do we really want this? I don't think the average American understands how government works (or should work). The average American is looking for a personality, not a leader, thus my suggestion that we have a separate category for Drama King and Drama King. Let everybody including kids vote for those positions and make it so that anyone voting for the real president, congressperson etc. must first demonstrate a basic knowledge of government in order to be able to vote. (I'll probably get stoned for saying that!)

I think the world is entirely too serious already; we don't need to put a concerted effort into making it even more so.

I absolutely agree. I see nothing wrong with being a bit manic depressive that way. Take serious shit seriously as hell and the rest of the time have a jolly good time!


But being great isn't synonymous with being detached from the people.

Andrew Bacevich once generally implied that the average American isn't smart enough to know how leadership should work and I agree. Give the people a King and Queen (or whatever you want to call it) to represent them in a grand fashion. Let them be glamorous, sing like angels or rock like the Devil and leave leadership to serious, intelligent concerned leaders and if those leaders be somewhat detached from the masses, so be it as long as they do a good job, are accountable and are impeachable.

I'm totally serious about all of this. But will my message be heard? Haha! Nope!

I am very sorry that Americans are so stupid? I guess I can only look at this from a Canadian point of view.... And from that view, I have a lot more faith in my fellow citizens than you seem to Brian!

PJ_Soul

Godfather. said:

brianlux said:

I would say, yes, we need this, if for nothing other than our own sanity and sense of humor, we need this.

Just as religion and government were (too often were, not are) supposed to be kept in their own corners by "Separation of Church and State", we are now in a situation which calls for "Separation of Entertainment and State". With people like The Donald and Lindsay Lohan (thank you for that update, InHiding80!) running for president (not to mention previously elected actors Reagan and Schwarzenegger) I say its time to untangle these two career paths.

It could be argued that all politicians are actors and therefore a good actor would make a good politician. I don’t buy it.

But it isn’t going to stop. So here’s my solution:

Let’s create new and separate heads-of-state tier along the lines of King Actor and Queen Actress. Anybody should be able to run but the most popular male and female contestant will win purely by popular vote (no Electoral Cologne) and made King Actor and Queen Actor (or Drama King and Drama Queen. Whatever.) Let them represent the U.S. on an entertainment level and leave the serious governing to qualified, serious, intelligent, politically minded individuals.

Military service should be a prerequisite for office of the president IMO, if a person makes the jump from entertainment to politics then O.K but they must have Military experience.

Godfather.

That's insane.

dankind

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

HughFreakingDillon

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

dankind

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

mickeyrat

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

dankind

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

Why the hell would we do that?

As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

Agreed. I think the idea is actually preposterous. Talk about limiting your options.

mickeyrat

dankind said:

mickeyrat said:

dankind said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.

Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.

Why the hell would we do that?

As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.

I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.