After a summer in Italy, George Clooney is back in America. I was actually wondering about him a few weeks ago, thinking it was weird that there were only a few pap shots of George and Amal over the summer. If I had to put money on it, I would say one or both of them got a little “work” done and decided to have a low-key summer while one or both of them healed. In any case, Clooney’s back and he agreed to do an interview on… Fox News. Clooney’s long been a critic of Fox News (for good reason) but this election has made some strange bedfellows. Clooney had a relatively nonpartisan reason for doing the interview: he’s highlighting his work in Sudan. But of course he got some questions about the campaign:
George Clooney is weighing in on the current political climate in the United States, and arguing that what the country needs right now is unity.
“I feel as if we need to get away from the divisiveness that we’re stuck in right now and the fear that we’re playing off of,” the Money Monster actor tells Chris Wallace on this Sunday’s episode of FOX News Sunday. When asked about finding himself aligned with certain Republicans who are critical of Donald Trump, Clooney went further:
“You know that’s a good question. I think it’s frustrating. You know, I grew up as a Democrat in Kentucky in the 70’s, so, you know, I grew up in a place — I was a minority, you know, in that world. I didn’t move to Hollywood and become a Democrat. But it wasn’t as contentious and there wasn’t the idea that once, one party got power that nothing was going to happen from the other side, that they were going to just stop things cold. I worry about that. I think that’s dangerous. It’s a very funny thing, odd for me to be on the same side of an issue as Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer and George Will and people like that. And usually we’re not on the same side.”
Here’s a controversial opinion: I don’t think divisiveness is a bad thing. One side believes in one thing, the other side believes in another thing. People should have at least two informed options, and be able to decide between those divisions. One side calls Mexicans “rapists,” the other side doesn’t. One side mocks a gold-star family, the other side doesn’t. One side mocks people with disabilities, the other side doesn’t. One side believes in reproductive freedom, the other side doesn’t. One side believes Pres. Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim, the other side doesn’t. Those are divisions and it’s good to see them and have them out in the open so we can we discuss them and people can make a choice as to who they want to elect. Complaining about “divisiveness” during a presidential election campaign is like pissing into the wind.
But Clooney’s not all wrong… I too have been disturbed when I find myself in agreement with something said by George Will or Bill Kristol. It IS odd.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I think there’s an ocean of difference between divisiveness and supporting a fascist like Trump or Farage. That’s not being divisive or holding a different opinion about key themes in politics or how to run a country, fascists feed on social chaos which is what we are seeing in so many countries at the moment.
I agree that it is ok to have different opinions and be passionate behind them, but it needs to be genuine. I think that some politicians are just trying to win a long term game but they don’t really care about the people who are going to be dealing with the fallout of their win. Kind of like Game of Thrones, but with boring pantsuits and more people of color.
I prefer being passionate with a well thought our strategy than being in South Park land: a bubble covered land full of snark, apathy, and a dangerous level of entitlement/privilege. A land where people notice things are wrong but do nothing to change it because then it would mean they would have to do something besides being snarking bystanders.
One laughs like a hyena when a man is killed and sodomized with a rifle, “we came, we saw,he died” cue crazy laugh. One promises wars, “my first act as president will be putting Iran in its place with All we got” One promises war on Russian hackers with reason being “they probably hacked into our party” why when we hack,its OK? BTW, ha kers are a community And not a country. One wants to make peace with all countries that will follow protocols while the other has already spoken of war if president.
I think this is easy for him to say because he’s a wealthy white man. I do recognize he does humanitarian work and obviously has a big heart and good intentions.
But I’ve heard this before, always from white people. Just yesterday I was in a discussion on Facebook in which a white woman was telling a black woman to “not get offended over such little things”…she was talking about blackface. I was so mad. A black person doesn’t have the luxury of not being offended by blackface, and by Trump’s candidacy as well.
Minorities can’t sit back and sing kumbaya. Divisiveness is necessary when we see that we are surrounded by racism.
I don’t think he was telling people not to be offended … more not to say offensive stuff?
Here in Oz our politicians are currently arguing over whether we should have a plebiscite on gay marriage. (It’s currently not legal in Australia, but there’s no real need to hold a plebiscite, the politicians could just change the law.) The majority of LGBT folk fear that a plebiscite will be too divisive – public debate over the topic will radicalise the haters and make homophobic attacks more likely. Even if it doesn’t provoke outright violence, the debate will expose them to negative and hurtful commentary.
The whole point of having a republic (elected representatives) rather than a direct democracy (where the citizens vote on the issues) is that we’re “supposed” to be voting for people better than the average Joe. They’re supposed to take the high road, to do the “right” thing for society on a whole rather than just act for personal benefit, to be rational and educated. If you have hateful, divisive or fear-mongering politicians, you might as well scrap the republic and let the citizens vote directly.
Right on.
I think divisiveness when discussing politics as business and to a certain degree, in theory–I.e., conservative fiscal policy vs Keynesian (liberal) economic policy is wonderful, amazing, thought provoking, leads to great discussion and introspection on both sides. What I hate about the current climate is the negativity, personal attacks and hostility. I can disagree with someone but that doesn’t mean we must be mortal enemies, nor does that mean that either of us should launch into hurtful personal attacks because we have different ideas on taxation.
I am a fan of HRC and have been for a long time, but unfortunately I feel like Trump’s negativity and personal attacks, tabloid sound bite speech, “I’m rubber you’re glue” etc., are rubbing off a little on her. I know it’s inevitable to a degree, but it’s disheartening. That is, in my opinion, the divisiveness that is NOT productive.
That being said OF COURSE IM VOTING FOR HRC. No matter what she says or does at this point lol.
I think it is GOOD to have clearly differentiated political campaigns. You want to be voting on the whole house you want to live in, not just on whether it has blinds or curtains. Real choice is healthy in a democracy.
I think it is BAD to have a population with a great many people basing their identity formation around which political campaign they are supporting. When your identity is wrapped around a politician, you stop thinking critically and you also stop trying to reach out and persuade the other side. This isn’t a good thing, whether that be Leave or Remain in the UK, or Trump or Clinton in the US.
Society is complex and each and every person is more than a Leaver or a Remainer, or a Trumpette or a Clintonite (or a Bernie Bro or or or and all the other ors).
I mean, I think Trump is bad, bad and thrice bad. But the discourse shouldn’t devolve into a daily two-minutes hate against him; it should be a positive vision presented by the other campaign.
+1. Peace does not come from agreement but from understanding.
Such an optimistic view of humanity–I love it. The argument could be made that the divisiveness Clooney is talking about is this allegiance to a group being an easy part of identity that allows choices without thought. My kid’s middle school principal asked them to be careful in talking about politics (because there might be a closet Trump supporter among the super liberal San Francisco kids, and middle school is already brutal enough). She was affirming that as you said each person is more than their allegiance to a group.
The constant sniping in politics has been tiresome for decades. But it’s naive to expect no one to criticize him (and just go positive) when so much of what he says is untrue.
I think human beings tend towards tribalism – could be politics, could be sports teams, could be nationality, etc etc. It’s all ok in moderation because identity formation is an important thing and, after all, we all want to stand for something, don’t we?
But it does get taken too far. And if it gets to the point where your ears are closed to others, then that’s a bad thing. You know?
I suppose you could see it as idealistic, and it is. But it’s pragmatic, too!
On the other hand, I think Patricia has a point above when she says that it is very easy to articulate all these things when you are a person with little to lose. If you are a person with little to lose, it behoves you to listen particularly hard to those with a lot to lose or who have already lost a lot. They are the people driven to extremes.
THIS. The Cult of Personality and conflicting (and frequently all too over-simplified) senses of identity vested in one figure/or imaged construct is of far greater concern than properly founded political thoughts and ideas which lead to (also properly founded) debate and some division.
Healthy differ, and discussion of such differ, isn’t divisive within and of itself – it is a cornerstone of democracy and the development of our societies and gives scope and guidance to that of our bodies politic.
We should not fear speaking with one voice at times with those with whom we disagree on other fundamentals (I kept some odd political bedfellows during the Scottish Independence Referendum – that fact has damaged my own Party, perhaps irretrievably, BUT the result was the correct one for the best interests of my nation and I would share common purpose with those others again if necessary).
Neither ought we to fear different voices in their articulation of other ideas; we ought only to fear them when we fail to find it within ourselves to effectively articulate in opposition – often requiring of some complex rigour of thought and elocution.
I get ranty when I talk about Relativism and its negative impact on enlightened politics and debating, so I’ll spare you. AND don’t get me started on all to frequent false equivalency of ‘disagreement” being equated to ‘bullying’ you find in too many debates these days.
/Amal appears, from pics from this week, to be on a new nose again (3rd, maybe 4th) so probably a solid supposition for some Summer absence on your part Kaiser.
Cosign all.
Love all this. Thank you to all the brilliant commentors:)
+1
Slight tangent, but Sixer’s post got me thinking about how the US parties elect their candidates, the national party conventions etc. We have nothing like that in Australia, and the pre-nomination conflict within the party astounded me. I gather it was particularly divisive this year (for both the D’s and the R’s) but – generally – how do you guys come together within a party after you see your preferred candidate lose? Does it make things better: you’re used to arguing about a candidate and then coming together to support the majority choice? Or is it part of the problem: the nomination arguing makes party members SUPER invested in their party’s nominee and so they’re already polarised before the D vs R arguments start?
Banksy made an apropos tweet on this today:
http://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/774688595479146496
The article says…”When asked about finding himself aligned with certain Republicans who are critical of Donald Trump, Clooney went further: …”
I think he is right. In this context, he couldnt possibly be more right. Its important to have political differences, thats the whole point of democracy but sometimes that democracy is threatened by a demagogue who has openly said that he will go after critical media if elected. This is a man who urges supporters to beat up protesters and has citizens removed from rallies because of their skin color. This is the one time when sensible unbigoted people need to set their political differences aside and unite. I dont always agree with someone like McCain or Jeb but I can work with them to keep that doofus out of office.
Well,.when.the Republicans.decided decades ago.to court the family values, evangelical, racist.vote, that paved the way.for.the “divisiveness” we see today.
The ability to think critically is what makes you able to agree sometimes with someone from an apposing party. To think that everything one person says is wrong simply because they are not from your party is simplistic and adds to the current climate of divisiveness that we see.
For two parties to have a REAL conversation you need to find the points upon which you agree and then work from there. It is crucial that we start to be able to do this in our country, IMO. Otherwise the who mechanism of our government either goes rogue to get things done, or grinds to a halt completely. And we can still agree to disagree on some things and remain civil. I think the lack of civility in this campaign is what has disgusted me the most.
+100
I get what Clooney is doing here. He’s illuminating conflict within the Republican party. More Democrats need to point out that even die-hard conservative Republicans are appalled by Trump. These conservatives are essentially on the “same side” as liberal Democrats on this issue. It really is unusual and should be brought up a LOT.
That description of “divisiveness” is ridiculous and only worsens the divisiveness that exists. There are more than two sides and the sides aren’t monolithic and none of the sides has a monopoly on good or bad ideas or good or bad actions.
I have a friend who served in the legislature of a U.S.
southern state for 30 years, ending in 2010. She said that for decades legislators and governors used to joke around, visit each other on weekends and attend church together. Former colleagues report to her that now there is no communication across the aisle. Tea party folks will not even say hello or be civil to Dems, and there is no compromise on anything. Also, new, crazy aggressive laws are being passed that never would have been before, like the one allowing for guns to be carried in all city and state parks.
I think Clooney is referencing a previous time like the one my friend talks about. My personal opinion is that the divisiveness comes from white traditionalists being unable to accept human rights progress.