Of course I’m not talking about myself here, Tyler is candidate-neutral. I’m talking about other people. Can they just say "I like his character on TV, I think I’ll vote for him"?
Surely there exists some game in which this strategy makes sense (I always chuckle when I write this line). Let’s say many other people vote the same way and thus expect this same character from him. Isn’t he then locked into playing this character to some extent? Of course this means you should favor only truly popular and typecast actors, since an obscure actor, or any actor with many different roles, won’t be much locked in.
And if he can play the character on TV, maybe he can play the character in the Oval Office as well. The actual content of policy would still be driven by his ability to pick and heed good advisors, which presumably is not negatively correlated with acting ability or with the nature of this single character. In fact maybe his agent told him to take the role and he listened.
Ankush has negative remarks on Thompson.
Is it any more irrational than voting for someone just because the candidate is black or a woman?
Your strategy was tried and failed in the Phillipines; as an actor, Joseph Estrada was typecast as a straight-talking tough guy who always did the right thing. His tenure as president was marked by corruption, racketeering, and associations with organized crime.
Joseph Estrada was a long-time Mayor, two-term Senator and Vice-President before he became President. His failings were that of a traditional politician’s. As an actor, he was ok.
Does Arnold govern like a cyborg from the future?
He’s a great communicator, as demonstrated by his acting on TV. That quality was a great asset to Reagan.
Irrational to vote for him just because of that, but if he ever got in the running I think he could charm voters.
I read Tyler’s comments and wonder if he really even KNOWS anything about Fred Thompson: Federal prosecutor, accomplished attorney, brought down a corrupt governor, Watergate Committee counsel, U.S. Senator, Senate Judiciary, Finance, Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Governmental Affairs Committees. Fred Thompson is not just an actor.
I think its true of a lot of actors that they successfully portray convincing likable characters because they have likable personalities and are mostly just ‘acting’ like themselves. Not that that necessarily diminishes what they do. I suspect it might actually be harder to play ‘yourself’ than ‘someone else,’ at least in high tension scenarios (think how people can tell when we’re lying because we don’t seem to be acting like ourselves).
(/aside)
While I do enjoy Fred Thompson’s character on Law and Order, I personally would not vote for him for that reason. Governor of California isn’t President of the USA, but still Arnold is far more absurd as the executive of a major political entity than Thompson, that *should* at least satisfy everyone from the novelty angle. Now as to voting because you like someone’s apparent character (haven’t we been hearing ‘character counts’ ever since Clinton’s shenanigans?), I can certainly see that happening to an extent. We can scream and shout all day about the policies of the current administration being wrong or right, but one thing I think most people would agree on is the administrations serious incompetence problem. Obviously, someone far more articulate and presentable than GWB could be preside over just as incompetent an administration, but he does indeed appear incompetent on the surface, and a lot of people may end up evaluating candidates in terms of how they act, and less so for their policy this time around. I offer this more of an on the margins influence then a driving force but I really could see FDT’s ‘character’ on Law and Order affecting his perception as a presidential candidate in a lot of people’s minds (and for the better at that).
And one more aside while we’re mentioning Arnold, I don’t know that anyone reading this blog would remember this, but I’m pretty sure Conan O’Brien had to stop using clips of some of Arnold’s worst films to mock him when he was first running for governor because of some campaign finance law that considered any face time as advertising for the candidate. I don’t know whether this was a California or Federal law. Lots of people have mentioned the syndication of Law and Order as a source of free advertising for FDT, but I wonder if close to the election episodes with him in it would be illegal to show? Not so bad for NBC because he obviously still wouldn’t be making new episodes, but TNT would be wrecked. However, if this is the case, it might wake a lot people up to our absurd campaign finance laws (and would made all the more interesting if it comes up during the primary and the relevant legislation originated from McCain.)
I could not have made up a better illustration of the intellectual degeneracy of the American right: you’re seriously discussing whether it makes sense to pick a President based on whether you like the character they play on a TV show? I suppose I should thank my lucky stars that Homer Simpson is constitutionally ineligible to hold that office.
Does Arnold govern like a cyborg from the future?
Or like a barbarian from the mythical past?
Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Comments on this entry are closed.