At the Golden Globes this past week Meryl Streep received a lifetime achievement award. She used the platform afforded her at the event to give a well scripted, expertly delivered and passionately received speech denouncing President Trump.
I think she was right to speak out. President Elect Trump is a lightning rod for public opinion. He is beyond uncouth, his words and attitudes are often unbefitting the highest civic office of the United States. Many fear that his election heralds an era of exclusion, nationalism and increased division. If you are against Trump and what he stands for then Meryl Streep eloquently articulated your concerns.
Those who have influence and opportunity have the right, and in my opinion the moral obligation to speak up and use their platform to advocate for their beliefs. This is enshrined in the US Constitution. Freedom of expression is essential for a pluralistic, diverse and thriving democracy. Even when we don’t agree, or perhaps abhor the opinion and statements of others we should be very careful about limiting their right to express those opinions or beliefs – that’s one of the reasons I’m very concerned by a continued expansion of the definition of hate speech.
There are two areas where I think Streep is wrong. First is the question of hypocrisy. The second is message.
Streep supported the press in her speech but under Obama more whistleblowers have been prosecuted than under any other administration and more freedom of information requests have been denied or slow walked, where was her outcry. She supported foreign nationals and immigration but under Obama thousands of bombs have been dropped all over foreign countries, particularly Islamic nations in the middle east. Not a peep from Streep. She derided his treatment of women, but famously gave Director Roman Polanski who fled the US to avoid charges of raping an underage girl a standing ovation when he was awarded an Oscar.
None of this means the content of her speech was wrong, just like content of Hilary’s emails are less true because they were revealed by hacked emails. We can all be guilty of excusing the foibles or our ‘guy’ while jumping on everything the other team’s guy does. But I think that if you are a mega star and you want to use your public profile to make political statement – you need to demonstrate consistency of values. I don’t think she has done that. Perhaps, though, this is the beginning of her political commentary and we will see her speak out against things that are wrong, even if those wrongs are committed be her favourite party or politician.
If it was just a matter of hypocrisy I probably would have let the event pass. But I think the most disappointing aspect of her speech was that in criticising the President elect (and I agree with many of her criticisms) she chose an alienating tone.
She reinforced the message that he is the President of deplorables, who enjoy watching football after work and cheer their favourite fighter in the MMA. Who know nothing of the Arts and the refined world she and all right minded people dwell in. She emphasised them and us and celebrated the divide.
I think it is possible to criticize and hold Trump to account while building bridges between those who voted for him and those who didn’t. But the prerequisite for this is to admit that something (more than hacked emails and fake news) went wrong with the liberal message. That those who turned to Trump have more in common, in terms of needs, wants and dreams with those who voted for Hilary and common ground can and should be found. To the extent that she failed to sound any tone of reconciliation with Trump voters I thin she was wrong and missed a great opportunity.
The Reasonable Conservative 