We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The joys of blackballing

As a dissent-crusher of some repute, I think I have found a truly inspired means by which this noble art may be perfected.

Perversely, my inspiration was provided by the insistent bleatings of one of our commenters offering his tale of purported woe in response to this posting by Perry.

According to the commenter, Mr.Briant, Hollywood celebrities who have engaged in anti-war activism are now being subjected to ‘McCarthyite’ persecution. It has to be said that Mr.Briant is not alone in this view:

“McCarthy is riding again,” declares Glenda Jackson, Oscar-winning actress turned Labour Party member of parliament.”

To all normal people this is, of course, rubbish on stilts. Anti-war campaigners are not being hauled before tribunals or thrown into gulags. All performers trade on their popularity and their worth is measured by the extent to which the public will pay good money to watch them perform. If the public are unwilling to pay as aforesaid, then it is only natural for producers to re-evaluate said performers contract. It isn’t called ‘showbusiness‘ for nothing. I would expect similar consequences to befall any film-star who spoke out in favour of, say, the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Fame has its price.

But I daresay that neither Mr.Briant nor Ms.Jackson will be the slightest bit moved by these distinctions. Neither will anybody else for whom ‘disapproval’ constitutes ‘repression’ and I wholly expect the cry of ‘witchhunt’ to be ringing around the corridors of the Western leftist pantheon for the foreseeable future.

That being the case, I am prompted to propose that we bring back McCarthyism for real. I don’t just mean the regular anti-idiot fisking with which the blogosphere has become so intimately associated. No, I mean a real actual honest-to-goodness UnAmerican Activities Committee complete with powers of subpoena and blackballing. We, in Britain, could have our own version aimed at clearing out the Augean mess of the BBC. We already have the historical precedents to go by so all we need to do is copy them:

“CHAIRMAN: Mr.Sheen, are you now or have you ever been, an apologist for Saddam Hussein?

SHEEN: Well…I…I.. just want to say…

CHAIRMAN: Answer the question, Mr.Sheen

SHEEN: But…but…my rights….

CHAIRMAN: Never mind your rights. Just answer the question.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Mr.Chairman, I believe Mr.Sheen is being deliberately evasive with this committee.”

The vista is so easy to conjure; the cigar-chomping Chairman, the occasional thwack of the gavel, the murmuring from the public gallery, the flashes from the cameras of the photo-journalists. It isn’t just public affairs, it’s high drama! They could even televise it on pay-per-view thereby enabling the subject film-stars to continue earning a living from the all the legions of people who would tune it to watch them squirming for real. No ‘method’ required.

I realise of course that a lot of solidly anti-idiotarian people might feel a little squeamish at the thought of a proposal such as this but I do urge them to give it serious consideration. Politics is, and always has been, a practical business and resurrecting the legacy of Joe McCarthy is, I submit, quite an elegant solution. Since the Hollywood activists and their supporters sincerely believe that they are being persecuted for their beliefs there is nothing to be lost politically or tactically by actually persecuting them for their beliefs.

Breathing life into a new and serious McCarthyite revival gives the American conservatives a second run at clearing up Hollywood and leaves the radical-chic crowd no worse off than they currently perceive themselves to be anyway. It really is a win-win situation and I thoroughly commend it to the house.

18 comments to The joys of blackballing

  • Elizabeth

    Free speech and freedom to act how I see fit is all I require and will do so until or unless I do something which will hinder the rights of others to do the same. Then I hope I’d stumble and it’d hurt. As well – there is complete morality in defending oneself. If I hurt the one who has struck me first, I do so with full cognizance and to stop them from hurting me ever again.

    I don’t like Martin Sheen or his sons as actors. I don’t care what he thinks about politics or his favorite color. Same goes for many of those former waiters and store clerks in LA.

  • Hep Cat

    Blacklisting is a preemptive canard thrown up by these celebrities to frightened producers and advertisers from making decisions based on business that could effect their incomes. Actors are self-employed subcontractors. And some get into the insular community of Hollywood where all of their nitwitted ideas are reinforced. Most are probably lousy business people and require the services of others to run their businesses. They don’t teach tax law in drama class. So it comes as no surprise that they are dumbfounded when the rest of us give them the finger. They are on the side of the righteous, by God, and we peons should acknowledge that by supporting them financially and not criticizing their behavior. What gall. The art community in general believe themselves to be indespensible. Hence, the public subsidized crap that passes for art. We have the identical problem in academia. And for left-wing actors the only thing worse than panning one of their performances is panning them personally. They are unaccustomed to that kind of feedback in their world and it frightens them. That’s when they panic and get shrill. In the immortal words of John Wayne, “You can’t fix stupid.”

  • 5x5

    I agree with the sentiment, but in practice I’d rather make Martin Sheen a pauper than a martyr.

    What are the main advertisers on “West Wing?”

    Any other ideas on turning the screws on Sheen and the like-minded?

  • 5x5

    Or as a producer said in the NY Observer, “Sean Penn has a constitutional right to speak out on the war. Good for him. But don’t whine about the repercussions. I have a constitutional right not to go bankrupt hiring him. If there’s a black list, it’s not going to be created by the studios; it’s going to be created by the American public.”

    Come on, American public! Step up to the plate.

  • Big Kahuna

    Apropos Ms. Glenda Jackson’s comments:

    I note that, in common with many other members of the British Labour Party, Ms. Jackson is ignorant of the precise meaning of the term “McCarthyism”. This is quite apparent from the context and the way she and others like her use “McCarthyism” as a verbal bludgeon to shut off debate and cow their opponents into silence.

    In fact, as you point out, a public boycott of a performer to register disapproval of his/her opinions is not “McCarthyite.” Furthermore, the activities if the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) were perfectly proper and justified. The committee was inquiring into the activities of the Communist Party in the United States. That Party openly advocated the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. As its structure made clear, it was a conspiratorial organization whose members were expected to work actively in the interests of the Party. Ergo, members of that Party were engaged in a treasonous conspiracy directed against the American constitution and government. They got what they deserved.

  • Excellent work, Bob.

    First Stephen Pollard, now Samizdata. We need firebreathing commentators rather than pallid hasbeens like myself.

    Of course I must admit that as a libertarian I disagree with everything you say but I defend your right to say it.

    Hats off to you, sir.

  • Thank you for demonstrating once again why Americans fought for eight hard years to throw your kind out of our country.

  • Steve W

    To the British guys at Samizdata,

    I can only speak for myself, but the Revolutionary War (which can spurn yet another argument about the name) was a long time ago, so no hard feelings…. I assume the post above is a joke?

  • Stamey

    Philip Chaston wrote: “Excellent work, Bob. First Stephen Pollard, now Samizdata.”

    Philip, who are you addressing as “Bob”? What’s the reference to Stephen Pollard? “Now Samizdata” what? Sorry if I sound thick, but I really hate being confused.

  • Chris Josephson

    Excellent article!!

    Wanted to add my 2 cents:

    We have a cult of celebrity in the US. Celebrities are treated like gods here. I guess they don’t realize that the people who worship you one day can castigate you the next.

    As you stated fame does have its price. Also, it’s fleeting and can be removed by the same people who bestow it.

    The negative reactions they are getting are not merely because they ‘expressed an opinion’. The ones who are getting the biggest reactions (organized by some bloggers, btw) are the ones who have gone beyond ‘just expressing their views’.

    We have celebrities who act like US Ambassadors and visit Iraq, give interviews to the European press about how bad the US is, take out full page ads in major newspapers against Pres. Bush, and make ‘commercials’ telling us how bad we are.

    It’s not that these celebrities ‘just voice their opinions’, they go out of their way to try and shove their point of view down our throats and help fuel anti-Americanism.

    They don’t realize that even people who are not thrilled about the actions we may soon take in Iraq (like me) view their actions as a slap in the face.

    The celebrities, like many of our elite media and academicians, are very much out of sync with how the US public feels right now. They probably thought they were voicing the opinions of ‘average Americans’. Boy, were they wrong.

    They probably don’t know that some blogs have listed contact information for the celebrities’ managers, studios, sponsors, etc.. and have urged an email/snail-mail/phone campaign and are encoraging people to let their views be known.

    The most frequent way the views of the public are expressed is via threat of boycott of movies, TV shows, sponsors, etc… financial. The producers and sponsors understand (and care most about) money.

    They probably do feel beseiged right now and blame it on some ‘right-wing McCarthy type conspiracy’. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

    I’m from the ‘liberal state’ of Massachusetts. First I identified with the liberals (it’s in the genes here), now I identify myself as being a mix of liberal, conservative, independent and libertarian. I hardly qualify as a ‘right-wing McCarthyite’.

    I don’t want to hamper anyone’s right to voice their opinion and the celebrities can act as they please. But, so can I. Don’t call it ‘McCarthyism’ if people show their displeasure via their wallets and the producers listen.

    You write the truth in your article. There are no lynch mobs or congressional hearings being called to investigate these people. The pampered elite are not used to having their views criticized by the ‘unwashed, uneducated masses’.

    They can dish out the criticism, but they can’t take it. Too bad. They need to grow up.

    Enjoy reading your blog when I can..

    Chris J. from Boston, MA.

  • Chris Josephson

    Sorry for the second posting in a row, but wanted to comment on this post:

    >Thank you for demonstrating once again why
    >Americans fought for eight hard years to throw >your kind out of our country

    In the event this is *not* a joke:

    I really *hate* it when my fellow citizens spout such utter nonsense. I’m from the Boston area, steeped in the traditions of the ‘Boston Tea Party’, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World”, etc…

    I’ve grown up on stories and the history of the American Revolution, especially the early history that started here.

    It’s pure fallacy to say that it was the Americans who beat the British. Actually, it was the British who beat themselves. Most Americans may not be aware of the fact that only a very few colonists (in the beginning) viewed themselves as anything other than British.

    Many colonists, in the early part of the war, believed they had to act because the rights they believed they had as *British Subjects*, were being ignored.

    We are the free country we are today because of the values and freedoms Britain instilled in its citizens. One of those values was to fight for what you believed was right.

    Of course, as the war dragged on, the colonists came to realize they weren’t going to be a part of the ‘mother country’ any longer, so we are now Americans.

    Also, the famous ‘quote’ attributed to Revere: ‘The British Are Coming’ is viewed as false by many historians. Since the colonists viewed themselves as British, this would not alarm them.

    Historians believe Revere said something like: “They’ve called out the Regulars”. The colonists would understand what this meant in light of recent events that had taken place in this area.

    Sorry for the ramble,

    Chris from Boston

  • Sandy P.

    Especially with the files Russia has released during the past few years, McCarthy was right. But he targetted the wrong coast (and country. Wasn’t a chauffeur of the Queen a spy? Also someone major in the art world?)

    We great unwashed uneducated masses don’t have $56K to take out a full-page ad in the WaPo, but if enough of us boycott, we’re going to cost them a lot more than $56K.

    Notice how most of them don’t have the guts to express themselves in America.

  • I second the motion to bring back McCarthyism, but only if I can be Robert Welch.

    Can I be him? Can I please huh can I? I always wanted to be a paranoid whackjob icon!!!

  • Steve W: yes, it was a joke. Ulp… I’ve known David Carr for a while now and I’m fairly sure it’s a joke, anyway. Or perhaps more accurately a thought experiment, along the same lines as taking all those complaints about “American Empire” and saying “what would an American Empire really be like? Jim Bennett wrote about this. The aim of both thought experiments being, in my view, to show that the celebrities and intellectuals going on about “McCarthyism” and “American Empire” are motivated mostly by a need to see themselves as heroic victims and to raise the moral status of their own trivial sufferings (i.e. having to hear harsh words) to equal those endured by real victims of real empires or real political persecution.

    Along with that motive for producing these thought experiments, there is an undercurrent of irritiated fear that all this hysterical and melodramatic talk could nudge into existence the very tendency it purports to denounce – if only because the authorities might well calculate that they might as well do what they are sure to be denounced for doing anyway. Well, that’s how I read David Carr’s piece anyway.

  • I neglected to say in my comment a minute ago that Glenn Reynolds had made the same point even more clearly. “Be careful what you wish for: you might get it” is an old proverb that has been going through my mind a lot recently. I think of it every time I see the slogan “Justice For Palestine.”

  • I neglected to say in my comment a minute ago that Glenn Reynolds had made the same point even more clearly. “Be careful what you wish for: you might get it” is an old proverb that has been going through my mind a lot recently. I think of it every time I see the slogan “Justice For Palestine.”

  • And Natalie takes First Prize!

  • The funniest part of all this — to me, anyway — is seeing the Screen Actor’s Guild, one of the most controlling labor unions around, refer to a “right to work.” If there is one organization around that does not believe in a right to work, it is SAG. Just watch how they treat employment-seeking actors during the next strike.