Trumpers on Broadway — Page 2

David Foster is the only one I'm aware of (and Mamet but his ex-wife gets all the royalties from Glengarry, so I don't see a reason to boycott that).

Putting the names of people on a list based on heresay is the subject of two excellent Broadway plays this season: "John Proctor is the Devil" and "Good Night and Good Luck."

Updated On: 5/7/25 at 11:46 AM

SeanD2 said: "If you really want to know in the most verified concrete manner, you're free to download the list of all of Trump's donors from the FEC website. It includes employer & occupation information and you can search for specific names / industries."

I think that's a good resource for small donations but it is also a rather quaint survivor of campaign limits for individuals before the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling blew that all up. Now the big dollar donors no longer need to be legally disclosed and can operate in the dark and spend as much as they want.

But in terms of all this discussion of "lists" etc. That is all up to the people who are serious about committing time and resources to pushing back on Trump's attacks on the arts. And so far, I see no public groups organizing around this aside from one-off public statements (which are good and necessary) from unions and recently from Oskar Eustis of The Public Theater.

Updated On: 5/7/25 at 12:40 PM

QueenAlice said: "Putting the names of people on a list based on heresay is the subject of two excellent Broadway plays this season: "John Proctor is the Devil" and "Good Night and Good Luck.""

Thankfully they're in Shubert houses so the OP can see them.

thatdarnzach said: "If you really want to know so bad, federal election contributions are public information and you can search to see who's contributed what to whom. That is the only way to objectively know where someone's support lies."

No, it’s not possible anymore to see who is really funding Federal elections post “Citizens United”.

It is one of the main reasons why things have gotten as bad as they are.

Back Row said: "The unpleasant reality is that Trump is a reflection of who we are as a country. He is a mirror image of the people who support him, and there are more of them than there are of us. We are no longer a country where a positive message can win a presidential election. The torch on the Statue of Liberty has been replaced by a middle finger, and tragically, most Americans are just fine with that. We’re not the good guys anymore. Anynonsense about “agreeing to disagree” cannot apply in today’s America. Yes, Trump supporters are ignorant, naive, and delusional, but they are at their core, just evil, evil people, and we should not cut them any slack."

That's a very reductive look on things.

Took a look at the Federal Elections Commission website, and did a search for Nederlander, and looked for James L. Nederlander, the current head of the company. I'm sorry to say that he is listed as giving to multiple Democratic candidates ansd commitees, as far back as 2015 up until 2024.

Now, old man James M. Nederlander, who died in 2016 did give money to Trump and the Republicans in 2015-2016.

There is a Nederlander, James L. Mr...in 2016-2016 who gave to Marco Rubio's campain, and some Republican stuff...could be the same, but also donated to the DNC, and other Democrats tha smae year.

QueenAlice said: "Putting the names of people on a list based on heresay is the subject of two excellent Broadway plays this season: "John Proctor is the Devil" and "Good Night and Good Luck.""

To be fair, I did say I was looking for verifiable information, and I don't think there's anything at all wrong with publicizing and discussing that information. I appreciate those who have suggested ways to look up some of the data. If I find anything myself, I'll post it here.

TheQuibbler said: "I don’t see how this is any different than choosing not to patronize Chik-Fil-A because of their LGBTQ+ stances. The only power we really have is our spending power. Perhaps it won’t move the needle, at least you’ll know you didn’t contribute to something that goes against your fundamental beliefs. It’s not always easy, or even clear, but I’d say it’s worthwhile."

I think the difference is if it's a corporation vs putting an individual on a name and shame list. In a free democracy everyone has the right (and is encouraged) to express their democratic right to vote. But while everyone has the right to vote, there is no 'right' of organisations to pool their resources together and send it to political movements. That is called political activism.

If you start to identify individual names and go after them and believe they should essentially be out of work or cancelled what you are saying is that you think they should be persecuted for expressing their democratic right to vote in a free society. An easy test I think if this is a good idea or not is think about if the person who controls the power is different and is doing exactly the same actions that you are normalising and saying is ok right now, but instead the persecution is not based on whether you vote for Trump or not but whether you vote for Democrats or not. Would you still think this is a good idea? I don't think you would.

One reason to not go down this path is to take a moral high ground position but it's not just that - it's also trying to avoid the obvious dangerous implications that if you normalise this kind of behaviour we can easily become a victim of this very same thing should the power suddenly change (which can and has proven it does). The same can be said about when people try to control and censor speech.

Every individual has the right to express their democratic right in a free society and if you are persecuting people who do this then we don't REALLY live in a democracy, do we?

One of the things I loved about the progressive movement 10 years ago is we used to always take the moral high ground, but over the last few years we have betrayed some of these principles to try and win a dirty game. I don't think it's right or strategic - to give another example it used to be easy for the progressive movement to justify itself simply because of its aim to tell the truth. Unfortunately, in the last few years the progressive movement has even being willing to betray this principle (e.g. I have now lost count how many times I have seen 'misinformation' spread from intentional misquotes of opponents or disingenuous takes). This is easily exposed and creating a situation where the progressive movement is also now dismissed for misinformation. Meanwhile, the level of conspiracy that the right is now starting to preach is getting crazzzzzyyyyy.....for example holocaust denial is actually starting to become less fringe now it seems. That is crazy! But all a naive individual has to do is go is take a look at the 'fine people' misinformation first hand and then can be led down this crazy path because they lose trust completely.

What happened to "When they go low we go high?". It seems to me that US politics has now descended to something like the Israel-Palestine conflict where each side hate each other and are willing to do awful things to each other with a complete lack of empathy and callousness.......someone needs to take the moral high ground or the spiral will never end.