The question of why does Hollywood tend to lionize liberals but demonize conservatives is more complex than it initially appears. Mostly, though, the answer is rooted in the cultural progressiveness that Hollywood is often inclined toward; a progressiveness that is certainly not embodied in the often conservative, archaic and leisurely unaware Republican presidency.
Too often, in the interest of entertaining mass audiences who are generally preoccupied with indulging in sodium and caloric nutritional catastrophes and slurping on brown soda sludge, Hollywood races to “the bottom of the barrel,” as the syllabus points out. Consequently, the popcorn-pondering consumer is confronted with gratuitous violence, open legs and language that would made any sailor look like a saint.
Traditionally, family groups and other conservative organizations have been against the violence, sex and language of many Hollywood productions. Interpreting the aforementioned in a Biblical, moralistic light and choosing to conscientiously ignore the creativity and art of the craft, the conservative right has often aligned themselves in such a manner as to encourage their leaders to censor or otherwise limit the unbabashed discourse of the movie industry.
George W. Bush, in particular, was purported to rarely see a movie or read a newspaper-for that matter. His general ignorance and that of his Republican predecessors toward entertainment and the comedic wit and contemplative plots of Hollywood translated to his popular unpopularity among celebrities. Oh, and it did not really help that he was also a meat-eating, war mongering and wire-tapping. Hollywood is never quite eager to celebrate an individual who essentially contravenes everything Tinsel Town touts. Need we be reminded that meat bashing, anti-war protesting, moral relativism and civil rights are standard ideals that actors espouse?
Recently, there has been a thematic trend toward films that elevate the humanistic cause. Global warming, conspiracy speculation and political corruption have been among the issues depicted. Historically, Republican presidents have disputed-and indeed acted against legislation and measures that mitigate the emission of green house gases, among other things. This absolution against the planet is viewed as pseudo demonic; and in Hollywood where it is generally “trendy” to do anything for the planet and award-worthy to picket for the saving of endangered whales, those people who do not are seen as “backward” and uncultured. Acting in accordance to its collective progressiveness, Hollywood elites tend to marginalize conservative presidents and remove any remnant of political halo that might exist among viewing audiences.
Republicans’ tendency toward moral absolution, particularly defining world events in a “black and white” “good versus evil” manner does not particularly befit the Hollywood elite, either. In a town where dollars are made to tightrope the boundaries of morality, any attempt to establish a precedent for inarguable moral conduct is frowned on more than shouting in a public library.
Contrarily, Hollywood often lionizes liberal presidents. The reasoning for this is the converse of why they demonize conservative presidents. Because the majority of those in Hollywood would identify as openly liberal, it is not surprising that the films they produce are inclined toward progressive politics. Hollywood regards liberal presidents much as evangelical Christians regard Jesus: as humankind’s savior.
One recent portrayal of a conservative politician, Ronald Reagan, while objected by many right-wing pundits as “unfair” was rather positive. “The Reagan’s” a CBS miniseries was eventually pulled due to the incessant bitching of revisionist-history Republicans. The series, though, did attribute disproportionate credit to Reagan for concluding Cold War hostilities, among other creative liberties.
Maybe, the only reason Reagan was semi-haloed in this film is that Reagan himself had an artistic presence of Hollywood. After all, it would be considered “turn coat” and “Benedict Arnold-like” to completely condemn a former colleague to hell. Of course, it is difficult to condemn someone to “eternal fire” when you believe that hell is just another fanciful invention. As Andy Dick once said “I guess that is just how things are in Hollyweird.”
Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra
