I had hoped to have my “Celebrity Code of Ethics” complete for this post, but it isn’t, so I’ll just allude to some of its likely provisions.
I like Ashley Judd, I really do. I’m not sure why she never became the reigning female light drama star of her generation; she’s every bit as good as Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts, and that voice! Now she’s routinely relegated to repetitious action movies and will be playing Jennifer Lawrence’s mother any day now—oh well, that’s show biz. Judd is also more articulate and intellectually curious than the average celebrity, so it was with great pain and disappointment that I learned that she had recently said this, in an interview with Larry King, about the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton:
“I think she might be the most overqualified candidate we’ve had since – you know, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.”
Now, I don’t expect celebrities to be historians or experts on anything other than their profession and areas of specialty. However, one tenet of celebrity ethics is the same as that of doctors: “First, do no harm.” That means, for someone like Judd, a celebrity has an ethical duty to recognize that a disturbing number of people think that because she is rich and famous, she is necessarily informed, responsible and wise, as well as a role model, and therefore, unlike the usual drunk on a barstool, when that celebrity says something outrageously ignorant, stupid and misleading, hundreds of thousands of people believe it and align their own beliefs accordingly. That’s harmful, and doing it is unethical.
Of course Judd has a right to her opinions, no matter how ridiculous. She also has an obligation to understand that what she says is widely disseminated, unlike the many rash and foolish things the rest of us may say that are only heard by one or two people who, if the have a brain and care about us, rapidly respond, “What are you talking about, you idiot?” and proceed to put us in our places, with dunce cap. Judd comes from a family of celebrities, after all: she understands, after decades of having her (and her mother’s, and her sister’s) every action and word dissected, that she is living in a fishbowl, and does not have the margin for error that most people do.
She also knows, unless I am wrong in assessing her IQ to be well over a hundred, that she doesn’t know nearly enough about the experience of past Presidents or candidates for the office, or Washington and Jefferson, or the Presidency itself, to make such a sweeping observation. “I think”? Why do you think that, Ashley? The only possible reason you could think what you said to King is if you are completely ignorant about the entire topic:
1. Nobody is, has been, or could ever be “overqualified” to be President of the United States. The idea is laughable, and a minimal perusal of U.S. history makes this glaringly obvious. It’s the most difficult job imaginable, and nothing qualifies anyone for all of its challenges. Intelligence, education, past accomplishments, adversity, pedigree, success in other fields, leadership experience—none of them assure success, and Presidents with one, many or all of these have seen their administrations crash and burn. The best qualification for President is character, and the contents of that character, and whether a specific leader’s is sufficiently strong, deep, and capable of growth to meet all of the requirements of the office, many of which cannot be predicted in advance, will only be determined when the test comes.
2. George Washington was not “overqualified” to be President, especially since he assumed the office not knowing what the office was or how it should be handled. Washington was a military leader of intermittent success (and some disastrous failures); he was a planter, and he was surveyor (now there’s a Presidential qualification!). He never held elective office or led a city, colony or nation. He was not a lawmaker, nor was he formally educated. His primary qualifications? Integrity, courage, good judgment, trustworthiness and remarkable natural leadership ability…none of which Hillary Clinton has prominently demonstrated in her public or private life. Someone should also explain that George was never a “candidate,” either. He was offered the job, and didn’t have to run for office.
3. Thomas Jefferson was not “overqualified” to be President; arguably, he wasn’t even qualified. His one opportunity to prove himself as an executive rather than a theorist, as wartime governor of Virginia, was a failure, as he mismanaged the militia and allowed Richmond to be captured. He was certainly a superb legislator, but the Presidency is not part of the Legislative Branch. When he was Secretary of State (the first), he was so disruptive, engaging in self-serving political warfare, that President Washington nearly fired him, and reportedly lost all respect for him. As for character, Jefferson was undisciplined, petty, selfish, a hypocrite, and a coward. His primary “qualification” to be elected President was being credited with authoring the Declaration of Independence, which isn’t really a qualification the lead anything except a symposium. Jefferson didn’t regard his terms as President as justifying mention in his epitaph, and he was correct.
4. Judd mentions two of the four Presidents on Mount Rushmore, and omits the two Republicans. Hmmm. One of them, Abraham Lincoln, had almost no experience relevant to the Presidency, but he had the requisite character. The other, Theodore Roosevelt, was as much of a scholar and theorist as Jefferson, was a natural leader, and had what might be called an excess of character. He was elected to the New York Assembly at 24 and served two terms; ran a ranch; was police Commissioner of New York City, served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, then Governor of New York, then Vice President of the United States. Somewhere in there he organized the Rough Riders and fought in the Spanish American War and wrote seven books, all by the time he was 42. (Hillary is 67: Teddy got all that in, almost two full terms as President, several more books and the discovery of an uncharted South American river before he died at 60.) Yet Teddy wasn’t “overqualified,” either. He was just unusually well-qualified, and infinitely more so than Hillary Clinton.
Maybe Ashley’s never heard of him.
5. Hillary’s professional resume isn’t impressive for a potential President; it’s thin. She was a corporate lawyer; she was First Lady, which is of dubious relevance except that she helped conspire to cover up for Bill’s perjury, which I wouldn’t call a qualification; she was a carpetbagging U.S. Senator of minimal accomplishments for one and a half terms, and Secretary of State, also with mixed results, for four years, and has made a lot of money charging exorbitant fees to give speeches. By what strange light anyone could call this being “overqualified” is a mystery.
6. Certainly there have been Presidents with fewer tangible qualifications than Hillary would have. Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grant; Harding, certainly; Truman, arguably Ford, definitely Obama; I’m a few of the unsuccessful candidates—Horace Greeley comes to mind— had less impressive curriculum vitae as well. We could argue about some of the others, and historians might quibble. Not being the least qualified, however, doesn’t make Hillary over qualified.
In short, Judd’s statement is celebrity malpractice. She knows, though she may not know why (cognitive dissonance) that her celebrity status causes her admirers to give enhanced credibility to her statements and opinions, and that they are unlikely to check her assertions with the historical record. She has an obligation to have her facts aligned with reality before she makes public misrepresentations, and it is irresponsible and dangerous to make the public dumber than it already is.
Ethics Alarms 
This just shows how bad Larry King is as an interviewer. He never asked her to justify her sound bite.
Quick note: Hillary is 67, not 57.
I swear it was a typo, not bad math!
And Teddy was 42, not 46, by the time he became President. THAT was bad math.
ummm, not to nag but Teddy died at age 60.
Right.
Three ages, and I screwed all three of them up. You gotta admire that. I guarantee Larry King wouldn’t have noticed.
Hillary is actually 127. Drinking the blood of infants gives her that youthful glow.
I’ll drink to that! Now… who among us with any claim to brainpower cares on whit what Ashley Judd or any other celebrity boob has to say about politics in general? God willing, those who choose to live their lives through the poorly reflected image of some Hollywood ditz will also be listless enough to refrain from registering to vote.
I hate the Hill-Billy duo too much to give an objective comment, but I’ll plug an informative book, if that’s ok: The Shadow Party; How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.
I wouldn’t consider this Celebrity malpractice (ignorance Yes). My qualifier is Jenny McCarthy and the anti-Vaccine/Autism travesty. That IS celebrity malpractice of the highest order.
Any Opinion (ignorant or otherwise) given by Ashley Judd will not Help Hillary Clinton in a measurable way.
Jenny McCarthy is a celebrity? How come I never heard of her, until she started making stupid, ignorant, poorly informed, non-knowledgeable, asinine, easily refutable, crazy, false and idiotic comments about vaccination and autism?
Just a difference in degree and harm. The malpractice is identical: publicizing false facts.
I think #4 is a stretch…
Sure she’ll be a shill for the Democrat party, but I think we can be generous here. I think she picked those 2 to list because those 2 are the quickest EARLY Presidents anyone likely pulls out the air when naming the Founders who became President. And, when one wants to speak of an “ideal”, one reaches back into heroic times and selects from the Founders. (odd of course for a Leftist to do this, but I see what she’s going for).
I don’t think her selection had anything to do with Mount Rushmore and therefore nothing to do with snubbing Republicans. Her “snub” of Republicans most certainly doesn’t mean she picked Democrats. Because despite the propaganda and mythical genealogies created by Leftist historians to tie modern parties with the early parties, Jefferson was not a Democrat – and no need to mention that Washington wasn’t one either.
I saw it that way too. I’ll go even further and state that she probably didn’t even know what the political affiliations of Washington and Jefferson were. Like Jack, though, I do wish they’d shut the hell up. It seems kind of like going into a room full of retarded kids and telling them that eating paste will make them flying superheroes.
Yes, that’s why I don’t think it had to do with Mt Rushmore or snubbing Republicans. I think her uneducation on this which led her to randomly pull Washington and Jefferson out of thin air would automatically preclude any deeper Rushmore-republican-snub strategy on her part…
I am repeatedly astonished at anyone’s astonishment at anything any celebrity says. Admiration for their skills or talents, fine. Role models for their professions, sure. Impressionable children (of any age) following their fashions, wanting to munch the same cereal? Okay, as long as it’s not their fashion in misbehavior. But what their star — movie, quarterback, piano prodigy or fully tenured college professor — has to say about major issues past, current or future outside their sphere of knowledge is worse than worthless; it is dangerous. The idea that a celebrity’s words carry weight with large numbers of people merely BECAUSE she is popular or a ‘household name’ is a frightening sign of the times.
Being an un-cerebral celebrity is not Judd’s fault; it’s Larry King’s. He’s the one who demanded she make a public pronouncement of her uninformed opinion. It is immaterial whether she requested to be asked that question or not (she probably did, or certainly agreed to it; she’s “for” Hillary). Any question from an interviewer of King’s skill at HIS celebrity level is a demand, and had better be very cleverly and respectfully deflected … or answered.
“Celebrity malpractice” sounds to me like a redundancy.
This was supposed to be a reply to you.
Missed this earlier, sorry.
1. Celebrities having the public believe and adopt their uninformed opinions is not new at all. Think Lindbergh. Think Patton. Think Father Coughlin. Think the Pope…any Pope.
2. Larry didn’t tell her to opine on Hillary’ extraordinary “qualifications.”
3. As I wrote: she knows better, or should. Not all celebrities say factually wrong things. If they want to hold a dumb opinion, like Morgan Freeman saying that Obama gets criticized because he’s black, he looks like a fool, but its still just an opinion. I think that’s an abuse of fame too, but not as great.
1) journalists shouldnt *rely* on someone’s opinion outside their realm of expertise, I agree. But they aren’t stopped from enriching an interview with a wide plethora of topics.
2) if anyone is asked a question outside of their expertise or knowledge base, they are obligated to disclose such…
Texagg04: Not sure what you’re getting at here. If “this” is a response to my post, please clarify.
Response to this:
“Being an un-cerebral celebrity is not Judd’s fault; it’s Larry King’s. He’s the one who demanded she make a public pronouncement of her uninformed opinion.”
Ah. But I don’t see Larry King as a journalist; more of an entertainer, a master manipulator. He digs to get ratings, not valuable information. [Full disclosure: This opinion was formed years ago, by the way; for all I know, by some miracle, he turned into a journalist after I quit watching.] As for Ashley, she certainly did show she was out of her depth; I just don’t think she did it on purpose. And if King was being true to type, that’s exactly the kind of response he was looking for.
Valid points. Often times entertainers use the methods of the journalist to do their entertaining, but that still doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate them as a journalist. They just suck at it.
Oh, I responded to your hoax art comment from a week or so ago. Curious about your opinions on it and not sure if you got a notification or not.
Just as Ashley Judd’s opinion of Hillary Clinton is over-inflated, so is your assessment of of Ashley Judd’s acting skill and intellect.
On this, the occasion of the 87th annual Academy Awards, I’d like to point out that even though she is often introduced as an award-winning actress (probably from her own bio which she wrote) … she has never even been nominated for an Oscar, let alone won one, and hasn’t even attended the Oscars in 14 years. Her awards: Chicago Film Critics and Independent Spirit (1994), Texas Lone Star (1998), Blockbuster in 2000 (an award so irrelevant it is not even being offered anymore). That’s the sum total of her awards. I realize you didn’t actually call her an award-winning actress but I’m just saying… I got a perfect attendance record in third grade – hey, I’m an award winning student.
If she were as good as Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts, she’d maybe have been *nominated* for something major by now. My diagnosis? She lacks what they have in spades – the ability to light up a screen.
As for her intellect, her own mother said on national television that Ashley is not as smart as she acts. And anybody trying that hard to make people think she’s smart must have a secret inferiority complex.
As a theater professional, I can tell you based on experience and knowledge and common sense, as well as a lifetime of judging actors in auditions, on stage, in class and on screen, that nominations and awards mean absolutely nothing regarding an actor’s talent or ability. You can have any opinion you like about an actor’s talent, but if you really rate acting excellence by counting nominations, you’re simply ignorant,and your opinion on this matter is worthless. I guarantee you that you could assemble a team of the 100 most honored actors in the world, and I could assemble 100 actors, many of whom you probably never heard of, that are equally talented, and most professional actors would agree with me on that.
Ashley would be on that list…so would Donald Sutherland…Alan Rickman…Meg Ryan…Ewan McGregor…Martin Sheen…Jeanne Moreau…Bruce Willis…John Goodman…Dennis Quaid…Jeff Daniels…Kirsten Dunst…Martin Sheen…Val Kilmer…Malcolm McDowell…Richard Gere…
Dead actors? There’s Peter Lorre (who was brilliant); Joseph Cotten; Raoul Julia; the great Myrna Loy; John Barrymore, the legend; Edward G. Robinson; Glenn Ford; Charles Chaplin; Eli Wallach; Alan Ladd; Danny Kaye…get the picture? Biases, genres, choice of vehicles, directors, box office success and luck all warp awards and nominations, and every professional or knowledgeable audience member knows it.
In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about, a pre-requisite for an opinion here. Do some research next time.
Awesome, every one! Your mention of Raoul Julia reminded me of Pugsley Addams.. One of my sisters had a fiancee that everyone called Pugsley. He was such a sweet, kind, wonderful person, and we were so happy that he would be a part of the family. One day, back in 1979 or 1980, we had a tornado touch down here in Connecticut; a freakish occurrence by anyone’s estimation. He was working on the roof of a building as a foreman. When he saw the tornado almost on top of them, he got all of his workers into the floor of their truck, and he jumped on top of them to protect them. A piece of lumber came through the windshield, severing his head. This was the kind of guy he was, and why we all loved him so much.
Ewan McGregor, Donald Sutherland. How did Malcolm McDowell or at least Kubrick not win something for A Clockwork Orange?
Sutherland and Daniels floor me: both superb, versatile, and prolific.
This was at Bradley International airport, and he was the only casualty.