Articles - November 2016

Contact:



In April 2016, Irish rock star and activist Bono testified before a U.S. Senate sub-committee hearing on the pressing issue of confronting violent extremism. Bono, who had just returned from a tour of Africa and the Middle East with a congressional committee, argued for the use of foreign aid as a weapon against extremism. To the rhythm of clicking cameras in the crowded room, Bono said, "When aid is structured properly, with a focus on fighting poverty and improving governance it could be the best bulwark against the extremism of our age."

Then in May 2016, a dozen top music performers spanning the generations from Katy Perry to Billy Joel went to the U.S. Congress to urge lawmakers to take tougher action against-- music piracy. They were seeking a reform of the U.S. copyright laws directed against unauthorized use of music on such electronic media as Youtube.

And in June, the British actress Helen Mirren was on the Hill to testify before a Senate sub-committee chaired by former Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Tom Cruz, on the restoration to its rightful owners -- with special reference to Holocaust survivors-- of stolen and looted art. In a well-argued statement, the star of The Queen and numerous other movies, said, "Art restitution is so much more than reclaiming a material good. It is a moral imperative."

For decades, movie stars and other celebrities steered clear of the U.S. Congress as the fatal shore on which reputations were wrecked and careers died in the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s. But that was then. Today, there is a constant traffic of celebrities to Capitol Hill to lobby their favorite causes before U.S. Congressional committees or to hold meaningful press conferences. In 2016, which was supposed to be a "lean" year in celebrity sightings on the Hill, more than 20 stars of screen, stage, and sport made trips to Washington for one reason or another, including George Clooney, Sharon Stone, Gwyenth Paltrow, Blythe Danner, Ben Affleck, Eva Longoria, and Elton John.

Star advocacy is an understandable by-product of our fascination with celebrities. According to the website Look to the Stars, more than 2,000 charities, causes, or issues have some form of celebrity support. And their range is striking: Clooney has publicized the conflict in Darfur, South Sudan, raising money, garnering celebrity support, and testifying in Congress, to try to draw attention to widespread atrocities in the region. Angelina Jolie has met with lawmakers to discuss global humanitarian issues. At the same time, Nashville star Hayden Panettiere has been on the Hill to lobby for whale preservation, and Seth Rogan has testified before a panel of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the economic impact of Alzheimer's disease. Mary Tyler Moore has appeared before Congress campaigning for more funding for diabetes research.

Washington-based Refugees International has the actor Matt Dillon on its board, and Sam Waterston, of Law and Order fame, as an emeritus board member. Dillon's childhood friend Ben Affleck has testified more than once on conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a benighted land of deprivation and internal strife. The actor and director of Argo (among other movies) speaks with some authority having made several trips to the Congo and founded the Eastern Congo Initiative (ECI), as "the first U.S. based advocacy and grant-making initiative wholly focused on working with and for the people of eastern Congo."

Experts trace the origins of the current trend of celebrity advocacy on the Hill to Elizabeth Taylor's celebrated appearance to campaign for more funding for AIDs research in the 1980s. This was a startling departure from old Hollywood inhibitions, not just the result of McCarthyism but also the fact that historically Hollywood studios rarely relaxed their rules against star activism (they feared it would make stars controversial). One exception had been the U.S. War Bond drive in World War II when top actors and actresses were actually encouraged by the studios to become involved. The campaign even claimed one victim. Carole Lombard, the brilliant screen comedienne, died in an air crash in 1942 while on a War Bonds tour.

But studio control is the current proliferation of celebrity activism inevitably raises questions about its effectiveness and the motivations of everyone involved, and some of the more thoughtful celebrities agree. "It makes sense to be skeptical about celebrity activism," Ben Affleck admitted recently. "There is always the suspicion that involvement with a cause may be doing more good for the spokesman than he or she is doing for the cause."

Affleck is acknowledging that celebrity advocacy has its critics as well as its supporters. As citizens, celebrities have as much right as anyone else to get on their soapbox. But they are not anyone else, and star power can encourage popular support, including financial support, attract media attention ‐ the latter not always at the level the stars would wish. For example, the Washington Post regularly consigns reports that this or that celebrity has testified before a Congressional committee to its gossip column with a key quote ‐ and
with details of what the celebrity was wearing.

Critics are sometimes skeptical of some stars' intentions, and it's not hard to envision a celebrity eager to project a serious, concerned image, saying to his or her publicist, "Clooney has Sudan, Affleck his Congolese, where are my starving millions?" A report on celebrity advocacy warned against entering into such commitments lightly. "Celebrity humanitarians should do their homework to earn credibility while also respecting their bounded roles as celebrity figures," the report said.

Meanwhile, it never hurts a senator or congressman to be seen in the home paper rubbing shoulders with a Hollywood denizen. When photographers focused on Bono, ignoring Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who accompanied him, the senator grumbled, only half joking, "So that's what it's like to be chopped liver."

Nor is the U.S. Congress the only forum open to celebrities. UNICEF has dozens of "Goodwill Ambassadors" and "Advocates" such as Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow. The Youtube of Emma Watson's speech at the U.N. on gender equality went viral. Stars have attended meetings like DAVOS and the G8 to discuss global issues of humanitarian concern.

The bottom line, of course, is: does celebrity advocacy achieve results? When it comes to domestic issues, celebrities have often had an impact, not to say success. With complex foreign issues the overall effect is harder to measure. The Guardian newspaper recently interviewed foreign aid workers and some prominent, and not so prominent Sudanese on whether George Clooney's
efforts have made a difference in the area and their overall assessment, for what it was worth, was – none whatsoever.

In the Congo, Ben Affleck's ECI has given grants to a number of community-based organizations. ECI has also provided a database link to connect funders to Congolese organizations. But to skeptics of such activism, Affleck – and others like him – is contributing to a culture of African dependence on Western help. Which is why Mother Jones magazine has called celebrity involvement in African countries, well meaning as it might be, "recolonization." As for the current trend of using celebrities to increase Congressional awareness. Some would argue that in a perfect world lawmakers should already be aware of the need for political change without celebrities having to bring it to their attention. But when was it a perfect world?

x1872
FREE Digital Edition
See and read Diplomatic Connections Magazine
View Archived Digital Editions