People from outside the United States may be shocked to learn that Hollywood is a "wedge issue" that divides the left and right in this country.  Historically, so the story goes, the entertainment business has been a strong supporter of liberal policies and positions.  The right has disdainfully looked upon well-branded Hollywood elites as abusing their positions of notoriety to speak on subjects in which they have no real expertise.

 So when adulations from right wing bloggers began pouring in for Jon Voight’s op/ed attack on Barack Obama began pouring in (see: http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/the-brass-balls-award-john-voight-political-vindication, I was pretty surprised and confused.  I thought the argument was that Hollywood had no expertise on issues that deal with policy making such as the economy, foreign policy, social mores, etc.  If that's the case, why make exceptions for those that agree with you. 

I don't believe Voight’s concerns (in his op/ed titled My Concerns for America - Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people.) have a lot of merit.  Let's look at the statements one by one.

He starts with:

"We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up. 

 Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset."

I think the argument that Mr. Obama has a militant mindset would be better served by pointing to specific actions that suggest Mr. Obama has militant leanings versus loose associations he has.  We cannot say that Mr. McCain is opposed to equal rights for women despite close associations with religious conservatives who favor the formal subordination of women (read Southern Baptist Convention).  We can't say that Mr. McCain is in favor of teaching intelligent design as science or believing the Catholic Church is the "Great Whore" or that the Jewish people are OK up until the end of days like many of those same associates.  If the argument was you are the company you keep, both sides would be fairly tarred.  But Voight's arguments are an old and unoriginal story line that leaps from an observation (he knows radicals), to an assumption (he must think like them), to a conclusion (he is one)...and with regard to traditional family values, he's not one to really speak about this issue in parenting terms/framework given his own personal difficulties which undermine his credibility here.   

He then goes on with:

"The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away."

I thought the right believed in the competition of ideas.  Isn't presenting compelling arguments what it's all about.  If the youth of America are buying what you are selling, then aren't you speaking something compelling to them.  This argument seems to reveal more jealousy than anything else.  The notion is that the youth aren't really able to make up their minds because they are in an impressionable state and so they can be easily swayed by cult-like seductions. But cannot a call to war itself be a cult-like seduction.  These are the same young people that are going into the volunteer military.  I don't think it's because they are immature or impressionable.  I think it's because they are making informed decisions about what they want to do and how they want to express their values.  To suggest that some segment of that population is less enlightened based on how they are choosing to express their values represents a double-standard.

To further dissect Voight's argument...So, now Obama is a Marxist?  How?  He and his type are responsible for the death of millions?...when he was a few years old.  This seems to be further guilt by association.  Voight's essentially saying "I know these people, and this is the type of scum they are."  An equally broad brush could be used during the same time period to say that Mr. McCain's current religious right associates were likely the same types of people that used fire houses on civil rights leaders, were upstanding community members who organized the beatings of freedom riders, etc.  Both are hyperbolic statements that have tenuous threads of logic at best.    Now, if Voight really wanted to suggest that Obama was a Marxist, all he'd really need to do is look at the highest marginal tax rate Obama is suggesting for corporations and individuals.  It will be at some of the highest levels in the world...now, that's an argument.  But, that's not the direction Voight takes in his op/ed piece.

Voight then goes on with:

"Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake. "  

All I have to say here is that he proves my point around "young people."  He embraces those that agree with him and casts the ones that do not as immature, impressionable, and implicitly unintelligent.  Then he goes on to do some of the very hero worship that he accuses those impressionable young people of doing.  General Patraeus is put forward as an iconic warrior/hero.  He may very well be, but it's interesting to put forward such a construct when you're arguing against hero worship. So, you might argue that the General has actually done something to deserve his status.  Fine, but Obama has too.  He's a black guy with the middle name Hussein and with a last name that rhymes with Osama that actually got a shot at the White House.  Sorry, that IS an accomplishment.  I mean if the McCain folks were trying to craft their ideal opposition candidate, they would have had a boner two years ago if you described this scenario.   

Voight goes on: 

"If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend."

In terms of understanding our enemies, wasn't it Mr. McCain that stuggled with the terms Shia and Sunni and wasn't it Mr. McCain that suggested Iraq bordered Pakistan.  Isn’t McCain now playing catch up with regard to the focus on South Asia in the war on terror?  Even if those were just slips of the tongue and calculated ommissions, I believe the fact that the rest of the world seems at least intrigued by Obama suggests that the globe feels there may be some merit to his approach...and selling your approach is critical to having a successful foreign policy.  Besides, I don't think Mr. Voight is a foreign policy expert so to suggest he knows what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened is a bit presumptuous. 

And along with an evil Hollywood, Voight throws out the other popular right wedge issue and that is that the media is liberal.  Maybe.  But, it's a bit of a tantrum.  Get past it.  The US population has seemed to have seen past all of the press spin for the past several decades when electing more Republican presidents than Democratic ones.  

In the last brain fart of the op/ed piece, Voight says:

"Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero."

Now, I don't know where Clark really ever lied here in any substantial way.  He said he didn't feel being a prisoner was a resume line item for being president.  That may be a misguided opinion for some, but it's not a lie.  And, he doesn't seem to have been relieved of his command for any dereliction of duty.  In fact, Clark did in Eastern Europe what has not been possible in Mesopotamia.  So, again, not sure where Voight's logic goes here.

Now despite Hollywood being painted blue, there are many stand out conservatives emanating from Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general from Jon Voight, Dennis Miller, the late Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. to Bo Derek and Bruce Willis.  There are plenty of A-list stars who are not ostracized by the Hollywood establishment for being conservatives.  None of the above listed appear to have been run out of town on a rail for holding their political views.

But the narrative is what it is.  Hollywood is a Democratic stronghold as much as the oil business is likely a Republican stronghold.  That's likely not too disputable. But what is likely true based on Voight's commentary is that conservatives are right in the Hollywood stars probably don't know enough to comment on economic, social, and foreign policy issues with much insight and intelligence.  Those who do are a rare commodity and Voight is not in that group.