George Clooney Meet the Press

Question: What could be better than watching Hollywood actor Leonardo Dicaprio lecture the world on Climate Change when everyone knows he loves to fly around in private jets for pleasure, party on giant yachts, and leave a bigger carbon footprint in one year than the average person would in 10 lifetimes?

Answer: Watching Hollywood actor George Clooney fidget in his seat when he is asked about hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton — couples paid up to $353,400 to attend — while also lecturing Americans on the corruptive nexus between money and politics.

The cherry on top is comic book writer Kurt Busiek inadvertently exposing the left’s rhetoric on unilateral nuclear disarmament while attempting to spin Clooney’s hypocrisy.

First, we have Chuck Todd of “Meet the Press” asking Clooney about his fundraiser for presidential hopeful Clinton and protests by supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“Do you look at how much is being raised, and I think the cost of the Friday night dinner [was] $350,000 a couple to be a co-chair. Do you look at it yourself and think that’s an obscene amount of money?” Todd asked Saturday.

Clooney’s response was to admit that it is a legitimate gripe, but that he was going to continue being a part of the problem anyway.

“Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. And they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics.” — George Clooney, April 16, 2016.

In George Clooney’s mind, the National Education Association can raise gobs of money for Democrats and it’s not a problem because they represent Democrat teachers, but a super PAC for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is “ridiculous” — even though guys like me think his ideas represent us.

George Clooney Chuck Todd Meet the Press

Personally, I think money in politics is overrated (just ask…Marco Rubio! — or any number of Republicans who spent millions of dollars and lost the 2016 Republican presidential primary). If George Clooney wanted money to have less influence on the political process, then he would become an advocate for limited government. He cries about cronyism while asking voters to fuel the vehicle that drives it, but I digress.

The point here is that Clooney, like his buddy Leonardo Dicaprio, is a political hypocrite. Sanders, although a self-avowed socialist who thinks bread lines and food shortages are cool, is 100 times more principled than Hillary Clinton and should be given credit for that.

The reason why men like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have attracted millions of supporters is because they are sick of George Clooneys on both sides of the political spectrum. A candidate cannot say, “[insert behavior] is morally wrong, but I will do it anyway if it benefits me politically … and then maybe it will change when I’m elected.”

Here is where it gets interesting. Comic book writer Kurt Busiek decided to weigh in on the issue over at Deadline Hollywood. In his defense of Clooney’s hypocrisy he inadvertently exposed the danger of leftist activists who essentially push for the U.S. to unilaterally disarm when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Kurt Busiek

“Unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” according to Busiek. “[Clooney’s] point is that it’s bad to have this kind of money in politics overall, not that it’s okay for everyone else but his favored candidate shouldn’t get any.”

If unilateral disarmament “leads to losing” when it comes to campaign-finance reform in American elections, then why would the same idea applied to national security not “lead to losing” between the U.S. and nation states that publicly express a desire to see it wiped off the face of the earth?

Every year activist groups like “Global Zero” try to gain the support of Hollywood activists like George Clooney’s buddy Matt Damon. These actors push for massive reductions of U.S. nuclear weapons, despite the fact that such moves would be cheered around the world by rogue nations.

If liberal guy Kurt Busiek is telling the truth, and “unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” then why do so many Hollywood liberals push for unilateral disarmament when it comes to the U.S. military? Are they just dangerously ignorant, or do they really want the U.S. to lose?

The answer is bad no matter how you slice it.

Matt Damon Global Zero

The moral of the story here is that modern-day liberalism is a tangled knot of contradictions:

  • When its activists act on principle, they often do so based upon a gross misreading of human nature that leads to the consequences diametrically opposed to their stated intentions.
  • When its activists do not act on principle, it is because they quixotically believe the world would behave differently if only they had their hands on the levers of power. (Ask Iranian mullahs, Islamic terrorists, and Vladimir Putin how that worked out after the election of President Obama.)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit back and marvel out how Hollywood activists, election-year politics, and comic books all came together for a blogger who loves to write on each issue.

Exit question: What kind of person plops down $353,400 to eat dinner with a politician? Is there anyone alive whose existence would make you say, “I’d spend $350,000 to eat a seared salmon and parsley-caper sauce with that guy,”?

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

8 comments

  1. Great stuff, Doug. I also loved Clooney’s “pro-democracy” remark about needing a new Supreme Court justice so Citizens United can be overturned. Hey George — if it’s so damn bad, why don’t you start a movement to get a constitutional amendment passed?

    It’s always entertaining when celebrities, whether it be a big-time star like Clooney, or a relatively minor one like Busiek, think that just because of their celebrity status, they’re somehow so much brighter than everyone else.

    1. “Great stuff, Doug. I also loved Clooney’s “pro-democracy” remark about needing a new Supreme Court justice so Citizens United can be overturned. Hey George — if it’s so damn bad, why don’t you start a movement to get a constitutional amendment passed?”

      Why go through the political process when you can get few people in black robes to act as philosopher kings? 😉

  2. “Are they just dangerously ignorant, or do they really want the U.S. to lose?”

    They are actually indoctrinated and brainwashed. That’s kind of a spooky concept, but I think there’s some real truth in it. Hollywood, the culture, just issues constant rewards and punishments. You eventually figure out what is acceptable thought and what is not. Speak of global warming, equality, and people will cheer. Speak of anything outside the party line and you will suffer. It’s a subliminal form of social engineering that much of our Hollywood eye candy isn’t even aware of.

    “The moral of the story here is that modern-day liberalism is a tangled knot of contradictions”

    That’s how brainwashing and indoctrination works, it bypasses our reason. So you aren’t speaking to people using their critical thinking processes, you’re speaking to ideology and rhetoric, most of which is emotionally and biologically driven. So the grand conspiracy theory that our comic book writers should really be exploring is who orchestrated the whole thing? 🙂

    1. “That’s how brainwashing and indoctrination works, it bypasses our reason. So you aren’t speaking to people using their critical thinking processes, you’re speaking to ideology and rhetoric, most of which is emotionally and biologically driven.”

      I definitely agree with you in terms of emotion being one of the prime movers of Hollywood’s preferred ideology.

      Guys like Clooney are very savvy. You have “Group A,” which adopts an “ends justify the means” approach because they really just want “smart” (i.e., leftist) guys in power at any cost.

      Then you have “Group B,” which are everyday Americans who don’t make the time to delve into the intellectual or philosophical consistency of well-known activists. Instead, they use the emotional arguments as a shortcut to really doing their homework.

      Is it easier to blame “Wall Street greed” for their problems, or is it easier to bone up on Economics 101? The “greed” argument wins 9 times out of 10 unless the person making the Economics 101 argument is incredibly articulate.

  3. I remember my Bernie loving niece putting up a post about how we need to become more like Denmark. Then I posted Denmark’s abortion laws. Which are only open in the first 12 weeks, and require permission over certain circumstances afterwards. Actually much of Europe is like that…waiting periods, ‘harsh’ restrictions, counseling…many things that the Feminist liberal would completely lose her bodily fluids over in America. She suggested nobody is perfect, I suggested perhaps Denmark’s abortion law maybe indicative of a truly compromising society, as opposed to a liberal wing that will get what it wants no matter how much it lies to get it.

    Ignorance is Strength.

    Lets ask an ‘educated’ liberal what she would think about certain issues…I’m paraphrasing here based on just what I see in the social media mess:

    LGBT:

    Gays are being thrown off buildings and murdered by islamic terrorists: “who cares!”

    American companies, and entertainers that support gay rights are doing business with countries that condemn non-heterosexuals to death: “So what?”

    Bathrooms: “WHAT AN ASSAULT ON ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY. WE MUST FIGHT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD!!”

    Feminism:

    Women are being imprisoned or executed for being the victims of rape in a horrifying patriarchal society: “we can’t criticize their culture, we are equal”

    Women are being sold into sexual slavery, and have even formed into military units to protect themselves and their basic human rights “Jennifer Lawrence is a feminist hero!”

    A guy made an insensitive remark at Art class: “I’VE BEEN TRIGGERED! THIS IS VERBAL SEXUAL ASSAULT!! OUR SOCIETY IS FALLING APART!!! WHITE-MALE-CIS-OPPRESSION!!!!!”

    Religion:

    In poll after poll, most islamic believers support the subservient role of women to men: “It’s different when they do it”

    Islamic society shows a complete disregard for western society and values, most recently shown when migrants sexually assaulted young women in Germany and Sweden: “We need to protect Muslims who are being persecuted by the right for their race! (?!?)”

    Christian breathes air: “CHRISTIANITY IS A THREAT TO LIBERAL SOCIETY AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN!”

    They are very,very strong.

    1. I often get a kick out of people who think small Scandinavian nations — racially, culturally, and politically homogenous populations smaller than Trenton, New Jersey — can be compared to the U.S. in an apples to apples fashion.

      One thing countries like Sweden understand is basic accounting. Compare debt to GDP in Sweden (40.6% in 2013) to debt to GDP in the U.S. (94.3% in 2012), for instance. If American socialists were like Scandinavian socialists, then at least guys like us could have an adult conversation with them. As it stands now, America’s liberals treat money like Harry and Lloyd did in the original “Dumb and Dumber.”

      “That’s as good as money, sir. Those are IOUs.”

  4. Not to mention that Scandinavian countries are actually more economically laissez-faire than we are including a far more forgiving corporate tax rate, school voucher system, so on…

    Like his followers, Bernie’s is only interested in the parts of Scandinavian policy that supports his worldview, not the other way around.

    1. I remember hearing Dolph Lundgren speak once on the difference between America and Sweden, why he left, etc., He basically said something along the lines of (I’m paraphrasing here): “America is the place where a man is able to go as far as his dreams will take him. Sweden isn’t like that.”

      America’s founding was truly unique in that it really did find that sweet spot between culturally championing the individual while also stressing values that cultivate a healthy civil society.

      Certain people get angry when you mention what a key role Christianity played super-charging our growth, but I don’t see how it can be denied. Free market capitalism mixed with scientific research, a “Protestant Work Ethic,” and fidelity to the 10 Commandments … how can one not succeed?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s