Work and politics do not mix. It was a mistake for Schultz to think he can defend his positions with his colleagues and superiors. And it's too bad, because he's a great actor and could have gone much further than he has.
Yet in some states, it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their out-of-work campaign activities. Some companies, in their policies, even prohibit IN-work political expression as a means of ensuring that there will not be the perception of such discrimination. In corporate America, the law is set up to try and ensure that people are hired and fired on their abilities, not on characteristics that don't impact their work quality. (In fact, a lot of civil rights legislation, when geared to the workplace, is intended to ensure that outcome.)
In other words, what's happening in Hollywood is behavior that's not acceptable in corporate America. Schulz's politics--or those of any actor--should not be used in place of acting skill/resemblance to the character required, to determine whether someone gets a role or not.
I appreciate his writing, but come on now. Artists seldom lean right, and there are good reasons they don't. You'll find moderates and libertarian types, but seldom a straight-up GOP supporter, especially a Christian Conservative like Bush. And even if it were not so, defending a President who was responsible for the torture, and murder, of prisoners, ummm yeah. That might make you feel like an outsider, Mr. Schultz.
It might have something to do with that particular President being diametrically opposed to that which artists and musicians tend to represent.
Fuck, it's like complaining about feeling ostracized for being a pro-gun control Socialist who works in a gun shop.
Or like marveling at the conspiracy of sticking your hand in boiling water, and getting burned.
All that said, it takes balls to write a blog like that given the atmosphere. And Barclay might have been my favorite TNG character. I sincerely hope Schultz hasn't been denied opportunity because of his politics.
I think this is a very common misunderstanding about the nature of art and creativity, and one that leads to the kind of discrimination we're seeing in Hollywood.
It's a huge mistake to assume that the creative drive will only manifest itself in those of a liberal persuasion. Creativity in fact appears in people of all political persuasions, and to automatically dismiss the talent of conservatives is shallow at best. True, prominent conservative artists, actors, what have you do seem less prevalent these days. But the real issue these days is one of patronage, not talent.
Go back, for instance, to the medieval/Renaissance days. In those times, in order to make a living, an artist often had to be sponsored by a wealthy patron. These tended to be people in political power who were conservative in bent. That said--I think we can safely say some extremely high-quality art came out of that time period, whether or not you agree with the Christian bent that most of it took.
These days, the patronage situation has reversed itself. Those in "power" (i.e. running the film and publishing houses) are now of a liberal bent, and "sponsor" those of a similar ideology. They also espouse a certain definition of creativity that typically requires one's work and speech to be of what I would call a transgressive nature--that is, it must be seen as attacking the boundaries of the art form, the past, or society itself, in some form or fashion. To a liberal, this attack is viewed as justified, because they believe they need to reshape society in their image, and may not believe there is any value in tradition.
A conservative artist, however, may not see the need to destroy those particular boundaries, and their art may well express itself differently. Yet the talent is still there! It just does not fit the definition established by those who would be patrons to an up-and-coming artist/actor, and therefore they are turned aside. And even more insidiously, their contributions themselves are often seen as lesser because of this definition of "what creativity is" that has been promulgated by the liberal Hollywood establishment.
Again, I could point to some examples of extraordinary talent in people throughout history whose political views would be considered extremely conservative today, throughout history. That they held those beliefs did not make them any less creative or talented. It simply made them people you (liberals) would disagree with were you to talk with them.
I thought it was an interesting article. I am sure there are a lot of conservative actors that are afraid to admit it for fear of being blacklisted. It is a shame that Dwight wasn't allowed to audition for a part because he had different political views. So much for a "free country."
And I think that's a shame. The lack of decorum that Schulz points out is a major problem not just in artistic circles but in fan and media circles as well. The fact that one can hardly have a civil discourse on politics these days, without bringing emotions into it to a destructive degree is a tragedy. The open discussion Schulz had with Paul Newman is much more what SHOULD be occurring: both sides able to talk to each other without insults and without cutting each other off simply because they disagree.
I am glad, therefore, that Schulz was willing to dissent. Perhaps if the discussion became more balanced, the "mob mentality" on the more populous side (in Hollywood) would vanish and its policies on hiring would have to come more in line with corporate America (i.e. casting solely on the basis of talent and fit to the character required), simply because one side could not intimidate the other by sheer numbers.
Sucks. He puts a lot of nuance in his performances. Personally, I think he's A-list in talent. To turn someone like that aside, not even audition, because of what the lunchtime coversation might be like, is lame and unproffesional.
"Unprofessional" is a very good word for it. See what I had to say about corporate America above.
So basically now he's washed up, he speaks out - he has the courage of a mountain lion.
Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability.
That's not what I got from the article. He opens by stating that he's been an open conservative for
43 years. That's a pretty far cry from only speaking up at the end of his career. His views weren't a mystery to anyone he would've been working with--and that's what actually
caused some of the discriminatory incidents he describes: his known reputation preceded him.
This might be the first time the general public is hearing about it, but it seems to me that he's been bucking trends for four decades and having to absorb the consequences for it the entire time. That, in my mind, is pretty brave--to know you had the chance to go to greater heights, but to possibly have sacrificed that chance for one's principles. Even if he does say he's had failings and times where he didn't stand up where he could've, I'd say the fact that he recognizes it is very important. That's much "bigger" than a lot of people would do.
(I did notice he was also quite clear in explaining that he wasn't perfect either, and not pushing off all of the failures of his career onto politics. Also quite brave--nobody likes to make that sort of admission even though we all know it's true for everyone.)
Personally, I'd sooner accept the theory of UFOs being alien craft.
, separate entertainers/performers from their own individual or any politics.
