ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Ed Rogers: Dems' Hollywood obsession was bound to blow up

| Saturday, Nov. 4, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
In this March 2, 2014, file photo, Harvey Weinstein arrives at the Oscars in Los Angeles. Day by day, the accusations pile up, as scores of women come forward to say they were victims of Weinstein. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP, File)
Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
In this March 2, 2014, file photo, Harvey Weinstein arrives at the Oscars in Los Angeles. Day by day, the accusations pile up, as scores of women come forward to say they were victims of Weinstein. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP, File)

The Democratic Party's obsession with Hollywood celebrities was bound to blow up. The party's reliance on the entertainment industry reached a crescendo during the 2016 presidential campaign when, according to The Wrap, at least 167 Hollywood elites endorsed Hillary Clinton. And these were not passive endorsements. For Democrats, celebrities became a meaningful source of money, message delivery and even a tool for crowd-building at Clinton's anemic campaign events.

Anyway, Clinton lost and Donald Trump became president. And then came Harvey Weinstein, who, after having long been celebrated and enabled by the Democratic Party establishment, is now being exiled.

But with dozens of women accusing Weinstein of offenses ranging from sexual harassment to rape, is the Weinstein scandal big enough to cause a break between the Democratic Party and the entertainment industry? The answer is no.

In January, I cited a useful piece written by New York Post writer and editor Maureen Callahan, “Why celebrity endorsements didn't help Hillary at all,” and her words warrant repeating: “That those who have money, fame, privilege and status and have no cause to worry — and fail to do so — can only further divide the country and alienate those who, rightly, feel unseen, unheard and looked down upon.” And after Clinton lost, Callahan wrote, “those celebrities who reacted publicly often did so with a pungent brew of self-pity, condescension and didacticism.”

Today, rather than pause and reflect, many Democrats, led by no less than Clinton, are attempting to deflect from the outcry over Weinstein and the long cover-up of his behavior by citing Trump — as if he is equally guilty. He is not. Clinton, who is obviously conflicted on the subject, as she has a history of targeting women who have accused her husband of sexual assault and of enabling the alleged serial abuser, actually said, “Look, we just elected someone who admitted sexual assault to the presidency.”

When I saw that comment, I was stunned to the point that I thought it might have been a spoof written by The Onion. The hypocrisy on display is stunning.

So, what will the half-life of the Weinstein scandal's impact be? Call me a cynic, but the Democrats will stick with Hollywood and there will be more Harvey Weinsteins. The Democrats need Hollywood and Hollywood is legendary for this behavior. The Democrats tolerate it because they are convinced that the star power — and the money — is worth it.

The Democrats need the type of Hollywood show-ponies that Weinstein could control, in part because beyond criticizing Trump, Democrats really don't have a lot to say. They have become beholden to the special interests of entertainment-industry elites, trial lawyers, environmentalists and an assortment of groups with grievances. The entertainment industry is a core part of the Democrat coalition. Period.

Yet Democrats are quickly moving on from the Weinstein scandal. While some have superficially distanced themselves from the now-disgraced mega-donor, Democrats are largely holding on to his money.

But is any of this a surprise? After all, you reap what you sow. And the Democrats' addiction to Hollywood is permanent. They are in denial. Addicts can't kick their habit unless they are committed to doing so.

Ed Rogers is a political consultant and veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me