Actors, politics and IAE (Inappropriately Assumed Expertise)...

Okay, I didn't really want to be political in this blog, but since I am political, and since this blog is supposed, to some extent, reflect who I am, I can't help myself. Here's my complaint: why is it that actors, who are known for excelling at pretending to be someone else, believe they have expertise when it comes to pronouncing on politics, current events, wars etc.? It is as if, since they have expertise in one area, they inappropriately assume expertise in another. The fact of fame gives them a platform from which to speak, and they expect to be taken seriously. The fact that the media give them such a platform show that either the media think they have something useful to say, or the media think that WE think they have something useful to say.

Of course, every citizen has the right to comment on public affairs, but we don't usually attribute expertise to them. Why then do we attribute expertise on politics to actors? I don't expect my dentist to know about banking, nor my doctor to advise me on mutual funds... but I'm willing to listen to an actor talk about politics? Martin Sheen may play a powerful, effective president on The West Wing, but do I really believe he could run the country? Or more worrying, does he?

Simply put, expertise in one area does not qualify you to spout forth as an expert in another. I am tired of bleeding heart actors arguing against the war in Iraq with (in my humble opinion) no real background understanding. What I would like to ask them is what their plan is for removing a genocidal dictator maniac like Saddam, who is proven to have tortured hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, and unleashed chemical warfare (poison gas) attacks on the minority Kurds in the country? What is their plan, or justification for allowing such tyranny to continue?

Yet they would also (rightly) complain about the human rights abuses in Darfur, Sudan. Either you accept tyranny and torture or you do something to stop it. If you decide to do something, that something might be war. Would anyone seriously argue that Hitler should have been allowed to continue rampaging through Europe?

What also galls me is their outcry when the public rebel against their politics. Tim Robbins has every right to state that he feels the war is unjust. But if those who hear his comments don't like them, and vote with their feet at the box office, then he must accept that, not whine about how he is being punished. If your career as an actor depends on public popularity, which it does, and you annoy your public to the extent that they don't want to see your movies (are you listening Tom Cruise?), then don't complain about it. Enjoy your principled stand, and the price you are paying for it.

Actors today are the most massively rewarded of all employees - there are few jobs where you can earn millions for two months work. By all means, let us applaud them for their expertise in acting, and reward them handsomely if we must. But actors, on your part, do some thinking. Don't just parrot anti-war slogans without thinking about what "not war" entails, about what unchecked tyranny might involve.

Senator McCarthy... where are you when we need you? ;)

For more on this theme, check out: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/smarter.asp which compares the relative education of the administration with famous actors who have commented on politics. I don't agree with the whole article, but it makes some good points.