The Perils of Endorsement

It may come as a surprise to many political observers that Angelina Jolie has not yet decided which candidate will receive her vote this November. Her stated reasons would indicate that she’s weighing her options carefully and waiting to hear more from the candidates on the issues most important to her. (These will come as no surprise to those familiar with her extensive work in human rights and aid to children around the world.)

Both campaigns have reached out to her, apparently to court her support. But in a statement to Variety provided by political adviser Trevor Neilson, Jolie says that she is waiting to make up her mind.

“I have not decided on a candidate,” Jolie says, “I am waiting to see the commitments they will make on issues like international justice, refugees and how to address the needs of children in crisis around the world.”

I suppose it’s understandable that some politicians might be interested in the endorsement of Ms. Jolie. Unlike most actors, she actually has some degree of credibility in the political arena, given her work as a United Nations “Good Will Ambassador” and fundraising for international aid. It does make me wonder, however, why Jolie would want to put herself in that position. I’m not saying that she (or anyone else) isn’t free to endorse, support, campaign or fundraise for the candidates of their choice – she certainly is. But celebrities make their living on the good will of the public, regardless of their political affiliation or preferences. When they endorse candidates or make controversial remarks they put at least a portion of their potential income on the line.

Hollywood carries, for better or worse, a reputation for being heavily-liberal and supporters of the Democrats. (There are, of course, exceptions.) For this, the entire establishment has been excoriated by conservative, Right wing pundits who seem to take particular joy in every piece of bad box-office news. They frequently note sagging ticket sales as evidence that America doesn’t care for their “liberal, anti-American” sentiments. (None of this seems to have affected the current series of summer blockbusters, including Dark Knight, which currently is threatening to eclipse Titanic for all time profits.) Parallels can be found in the music business as well, where the Dixie Chicks paid a price in popularity for criticizing the president.

As such, I would think that actors and singers would be more cautious about jumping into the circus of American elections. For a cautionary tale of exactly how fast the worm can turn, the stars need look no further than Condi Rice. Admittedly, Secretary Rice is not a celebrity and holds appointed rather than elected office, but she is very much in the public eye. She recently made a seemingly casual statement about the election. When asked if she would “feel safe” if Obama were elected president, she responded saying, “Oh, the United States will be fine.”

Keep in mind that Rice has long been a darling of the conservative base, with widespread movements to “draft” her to run for president this year and, having failed at that, to have McCain pick her as his running mate. But upon saying that one line – not even endorsing Obama, but simply opining that the republic would not fail were he to be elected – a post appeared at the popular Right wing blog Hot Air. It contained only one paragraph of commentary and quoted Condi on this subject. Only 180 seconds after the article went up, a comment appeared saying, “Blood is thicker than water.” Only nine more minutes passed when another commenter corrected that, saying, “No no! It’s black is thicker than reality!” These were interspersed with other calls for “throwing her under the bus” and “Damn, she doesn’t like us honkies either. It’s a shame.”

(As a side-note to the management of Hot Air, is there no comment moderation over there? I understand that registration to comment is generally closed to cut down on the trolls, but does anyone police the comments? I would think that “black is thicker than reality” would be beyond the pale for anyone. I understand it’s hard to keep track of more than 350 comments, but these showed up in the first two dozen on a very popular thread.)

Condi Rice has no need of further support for political ambitions nor a career on the silver screen. If she is treated in this fashion so rapidly, actual celebrities risk a lot by taking sides in public. Angelina Jolie has a very successful film career going as well as extensive charity work. I have to wonder if she wants to risk all of that by throwing herself into the fray during such a contentious election season.