...Are there any Republicans in the arts? — Page 2

In my opinion "the Bushs of Tex were nervous recks because their son was dim" is mean spirited, not political humor.

---

Ok there is regular entertainment which is great! But there are also the really artsy shows. Almost all of the respected playwrights and composers have made political statements in their work. You really should look into some of the acts in Vaudeville. I mean for goodness sakes look at Shaw, Ibsen and a man called Bertolt Brecht. There are all sorts of politics in their work and NOT just in America. It exsisted in Mozart's time! Operas were political and although the kings and queens didn't know it, many of the "legit" stage works were making a direct statement as to what was happening at the time. Someone else mentioned The easliest form of theatre. Just think about greek theatre. It was a religious institution. What's more political than Religion? HEH you can't deny that it's always existed. There were no good ole days of entertainment. I think there were shows that had no political messages at all and were merely for fun, but hey we still have that today. Just becuase there have been about 4 shows that are even in the slightest way hinting to politics doesn't mean the theatre is rampant in them. There are still just fun, entertaining shows.

Updated On: 3/14/05 at 02:21 AM

It doesn't help that Bush is a ****ing immoral moron, but ANYWAY, here are my thoughts on the subject of the arts and celebrities getting political (from my blog):

"I can't count the number of times I have heard or read someone complaining about a celebrity or film's delving into political issues. From Barbra Streisand to Sean Penn to Tim Robbins to Janeane Garofalo, celebrities are ticking people off for doing more than just a song and a dance. From Million Dollar Baby to Ellen to Fahrenheit 9/11, Hollywood has been giving armchair critics apoplexy.

Well, quite frankly, this animosity lacks any knowledge of the fact that art and artists have been political since the beginning of time. The only difference in modern times is that we have much more freedom of speech than our ancestors who had to discuss political and controversial issues in extremely subtle ways.

Art is tied directly to the philosophy of

1. the era of the writer

2. the era of the story's setting

3. the era that the work is viewed or produced

Art is not only meant to entertain. Art is allowed to be provocative and educative.

And artists should be allowed to use their fame for whatever expression they desire. People don't complain when they agree with the celebrity. They don't mind celebrities raising money for charity, entertaining the troops, singing at conventions, or running for political offices like Governor or President--as long as they are Republican.

But how DARE Susan Sarandon admonish our abuse of Haitian AIDS sufferers! How dare Michael Moore question our beloved President!?

So, you can bet your butt that if I ever gain any kind of celebrity, I will not cease being an activist. And, if you want to turn the channel or abstain from buying a ticket, fine. But, remember that I have as much a right to speak out and you do yelling at your TV screen."

---

I still think the War in Iraq was/is probably wrong, but it wasn't as though those innocent little kids were living some peaceful idyllic life before evil Bush came in and starting dropping bombs on their houses. All Iraqis lived in constant fear of the horrendous torture and murder that Sadaam and his Republican Guard spread throughout the country. Misguided as he was, Bush was trying to stop that, among other things.

On the subject of politics in theater, I think they are fine as long as they enhance the play like, for example, in The Crucible instead of detracting from it like in Embedded.

If you've read previous posts of mine, you'll know that I'm obviously not a Republican, but there are Republicans in the theatre. For the most part, I believe that people's political beliefs are private. If you choose to share them, good for you. If you choose not to share them, that's your right, too.

I think the problem with Republicans in the Arts (or rather why they are so often perceived in a bad light) is simply because of the party line on the arts in general. Funding cuts, funding cuts, funding cuts. Democratic administrations typically have much larger budgets for artistic endeavours. I remember being in school during the first Bush's term and watching art budgeting for schools go completely away. When Clinton was elected, it returned. Now, I'm far removed from my school days now so I can't say how it truly is with this Bush without looking at the numbers, but I'm sure it's unfavorable.
Plus, there is the aformentioned "God hates fags" party line of the Republicans, which does make an industry dominated by homosexuals a trifle ruffled.

As was Irving Berlin. He was quite a virulent anti-Communist in the 1950s. Yet he mainained a good friendship with the red-diaper baby "Yip" Harburg.

Back then, the fiscially responsible, goverment-out-of-the-public's-private-lives Republican party was a very different animal.

---

Oh please, cut the crap.

The Democrats were different animals back then as well. That party hasn't been the same since the McGovern bunch took over in '72.

Here's the thing, and republicans I mean no disrespect, but republican agendas are not viewed as gay-friendly. And the arts are very gay-friendly. So, I think it's difficult for non-republicans to understand how people can agree with this administrations stand on things like gay marriage and civil rights, in general, and also be fans of the arts. The arts are all about, freedom of expression and being true to yourself, and most republicans are looked at as having very conservative views and not giving those concepts a lot of value.
I'm not saying this is true, or that it pertains to every republican, I'm just telling you how I think a lot of liberals, artists and fans of the arts think, and that's probably why there are not a lot of republicans, or "openly-republican" fans out there.

---

Actually I think that any musical displays a certain political point of view. It doesn't need such obvious references, political point of view can be seen in the ideal way of living or the contempt of a way of living the show projects. And there is no show that doesn't at least make such a statement.

Updated On: 3/14/05 at 12:08 PM

VERY INTERESTING topic! i have voted in both democratic and republican primaries, and recently have leaned more toward Republican policies, but but hold fast to the desire to vote for the candidate who best represents my views, based on my personal research.

what drives me crazy is condescension that seems to come my way if i mention my support for Bush. i would hope that those who voted for Kerry had done research on his political record as well as Bush's, and had come to an educated decision, as i did in my choice for Bush. and for some one who disagrees with me to question my intelligence based on that decision is maddening to me.

personally, had i been presented with a better option from the democratic party, my decision might have been swayed, but i refuse to vote AGAINST someone, rather than for someone.

i admit that i laugh along with Bush jokes that mimic his idiosyncrasies, but when it becomes a personal attack on his character or very being, that's where i think it goes overboard.

---

Re: people voting for Bush.

As a gay man, I simply cannot understand how anyone expected me to even give serious consideration to voting for Bush (let alone the 23% of gay people who actually did vote for him).

There are people in my life who voted for Bush, and I asked them how, when they profess to respect my relationship with my partner and are so happy that I've found someone, could they vote for the person and party that wishes to deny me the right to legally protect such relationship? Invariably, they tell me, 'Oh...I don't support his stance on gay marriage,' to which I reply, 'Have you written a letter to him or any other member of your party to express that? Have you attended any sort of meeting of your party to say you wish this issue not be a part of the Republican platform?' And then I get the sheepish look and a very quiet 'No.'

In the end, the debate over taxes, big gov./small gov. is healthy and invigorating. But it's a debate that is meaningless if we are not all working from the central conceit that there is liberty and justice FOR ALL.

So you'll have to forgive a small amount of condescention. Those of us who still pay taxes but don't participate wholly in our system of government because rights are denied us may get a little prickly now and again.

---