Why is Hollywood primarily liberals?
- Thread starter Plomeek Broth
- Start date
They don't have to make boring movies. Just look at the stuff Glenn Beck foams at the mouth about - couldn't that be a basis of an interestingly twisted sci fi paranoid fantasy?
Because there are actually people in California who have nothing to do with Hollyweird!
Which shockingly enough is only a tiny percentage of the overall population and economic activity. California's biggest business is agriculture (and that doesn't even count marijuana!) My answer to this question is: why is the business world primarily conservatives? Because right wingers want to go into a profession that will make them money and show biz is notoriously dicey in that regard. A few people make boatloads of money, most make zip. You increase the odds of being on the side of the money by being a producer vs being a director or even worse, an actor or writer. I would bet that the political spectrum follows the economic pecking order.
Maybe those at the top,( just like in any industry) but I've a feeling most Hollywood denizens (as well as Professors) have bills to pay, kids to send to school, problems at work and home and all sorts of "real world" problems. Not every actor is Tom Cruise.
Most professors don't get paid very well so, I assure you, they do live in the real world.
Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger make boring movies?
No, because people who make a lot of money want to keep it and make more of it, and thus they tend to favor political policies such as lower taxes and decreased government regulation of business. People generally drift more toward the conservative side of the spectrum as they get more prosperous, even if they didn't start that way.
The percentage of people who start with ideology and base everything on that is quite low, although those who do think that way assume that everyone else does too. Most people are more practical. Their political views are shaped by experience and circumstance, evolve over time, and don't automatically fall into stereotyped molds.
Absolutely. Only a tiny percentage of actors are rich. Most are working stiffs trying to get by, living from job to job.
Yeah, but why insert reality when you can make generalities and bash entire categories just as easily?
To be fair, many conservatives consider Arnold a RINO.
^Which just goes to show how wrong it is to assume all conservatives, or all liberals, think alike.
We're talking non-porn right?
You'll find a more equal distribution of political orientation among craftspeople and artists than among writers and actors. Simply put, the talents of the latter groups are grounded in empathy and in a kind of fascination with the individual as an exception - an exception to rules, limits, expectations. Conservative political philosophy and thinking is grounded in analysis and general principles - not necessarily good analysis or principles (YMMV) but much more so than modern American liberalism.
Because most people can take only so much 24 and Tom Clancy books/movies.
On the other end of the spectrum, people can take only so much dirty hippy stuff too.
On the other end of the spectrum, people can take only so much dirty hippy stuff too.
Good point.
Schwarzenegger. While Conservative (and maybe a RINO), perhaps the people around him are librul types.
No. That doesn't make sense either. Maybe it's just a money-making conspiracy, whether you're liberal or conservative.
As for Eastwood, he's a rare breed. And he makes good films.
In defense of Clancy, I enjoyed all his novels up until Executive Orders. I thought they were really well-imagined spy thrillers. It wasn't until he blew up the government, made Jack Ryan president, and laid out his Etch-a-Sketch wet dream of government reform that I got turned off.
While I tend to think the statement that Hollywood is made up primarily of liberals probably has some flaws in it, in the spirit of discussion in this thread, I will add another possible reason. A good possibility would be McCarthyism and how it basically attacked the movie industry. Certainly, after that, there would be a bit of paranoia of Republicans in film who might try and ruin their careers.
Of course, this theory would be shot to shit if McCarthy was right, but it's still one possible reason of many if the original question is based in reality.
Of course, this theory would be shot to shit if McCarthy was right, but it's still one possible reason of many if the original question is based in reality.
Bingo!
Just kidding, really. There's no easy answer to this question. It's a combination of factors.
Last edited:
I don't accept the premise of the OP. The business element of Hollywood is very conservative. And that's not a small element--there's a reason it's called the film business. Note that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, who puts on the Academy Awards each year, was initially formed as a Union-busting measure by rich producers and studio moguls. As stj wisely pointed out, antiunionism isn't a strong measure of the left. Though AMPAS was a failure in its attempt to destroy Hollywood unions, the conflict between the various unions (WGA, SAG, DGA, etc.) and business people who control Hollywood rages on. Witness the recent WGA strike, which took months to extract the smallest of contractual concessions from the stuidos.
That's what turned me off too. Still to this day, Rainbow Six is the fastest I've ever read a 1000 page book.
Just like I really liked 24, then Jack tortured his brother "just for the hell of it"
Similar threads
