City Brights: Dean Rader
Why Are Sports Professionals More Conservative Than Hollywood Professionals?
By Dean Rader on July 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM
In 2004, a group of 24 Olympians and Professional Athletes signed an open letter endorsing George W. Bush for President. Conversely, when Democrat Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, actors threw their support and influence behind him like no candidate in history. This growing division between the politics of athletes and actors remains one of the most beguiling in American culture. Why is Curt Schilling so right wing and George Clooney so left wing? Why are most athletes and coaches so conservative, and why are most actors and directors so progressive?
It would seem that professional actors and athletes would have a lot in common politically, but that seems not to be the case. Of course, there are exceptions. Steve Nash, Bill Bradley, and Phil Jackson all consider themselves progressives. Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, Cheryl Ladd, and that one actor . . . Ron Reagan are all Republicans. So, the distinction is not perfect, but these exceptions only prove the rule.
I raised this question to some of my students last semester, and I received two main responses–neither of which I buy.
One reason for the differences, claimed my students, had to do with education. They noted that, increasingly, many top athletes never go on to college, and those that do, often get a poor education, and all studies show that the less education someone has the more conservative they are likely to be. It is true that in some high schools and colleges, academic performance takes a back seat to athletic performance. But I would counter that few actors have finished college, and many have dropped out of high school. So, I don't think education explains the contradictory world view.
The second was about practice and discipline. They thought intense practices, drills, and the restrictions of training make athletes less open and more focused. As it happens, my students have an advocate in this regard. Jules Tygiel, a history professor at San Francisco State thinks the conservatism in sports "may have to do with the nature of athletic discipline. Unlike entertainment," notes Tygiel, "in which there seems to be a great deal of luck and serendipity in who succeeds–I'm talking about perceptions here, not reality–athletics is a more pure meritocracy. This leads to conservative assumptions."
I'm partially convinced by Tygiel's last assertion about perceived meritocracy, but I am more skeptical of the claims of discipline. I would simply point to the amount of discipline and training that many actors endure to learn how to act. Both top-tier athletes and actors spend years honing their talents, working with the best teachers and coaches in their fields. However, sports is more reliant on stats-based performance than acting is, and I wonder if that has an effect on the internal values of each.
While I do think some of values of the genre lend themselves to liberalism and conservativism, I'm inclined to think the political leanings of athletes and actors are determined way before they enter their fields. In other words, high-level sports is more likely to attract people who think conservatively, whereas acting and directing is more likely to attract those who are more liberal.
Once in their preferred arenas, though, the values of each profession simply reinforce prior held beliefs, and simple beliefs can galvanize into activism.
For example, at the college and professional level, sports relies on hierarchy (and to a certain extent, patriarchy). Power and submission are part and parcel of pretty much all team sports. Like other hierarchical institutions such as the military and the church, sports foregrounds victory, domination, and triumph.
To be successful in sports, there can be no gray areas. Complexity, contradiction, and uncertainty are the death of athletes. Thus, like in the military and the church, the world gets broken down into neat binarisms–good/bad, winners/losers, white/black, right/wrong. Those who see the world in this way, tend to affiliate with conservative principles.
On the other hand, makers of movies need to embrace indeterminacy, nuance, and complexity. Contradiction and unpredictability are the hallmarks of the human condition. The more different characters an actor portrays, and the more diverse stories a director shoots, the more likely they are to embrace openness and possibility.
Also, where sports highlights physical performance, acting and directing tend to highlight emotional performance. Emotional landscapes are harder to fit in to easy binarisms. In the world of human behavior, everything is negotiable. Progressives love this; conservatives fear it.
It's no surprise, then, that the porous value system of Hollywood is at odds with the tightly controlled value system of high profile athletics. There is just not much room for difference in sports. Interestingly, Tygiel claims the overly Christian environment of sports contributes to its conservatism, which I agree with. But again, I wonder if the Christian environment of sports leads to conservatism or if the environment of sports finds resonance in Christianity.
Lastly, I think sports is attractive to those who believe in and operate within the system. Those attracted to film are often oddballs, outcasts, performers. Folks from this demographic tend to have less reverence for tradition. They like revolution. They like making new things. They don't love the system; they like overturning and remaking it. These are liberal tendencies.
I don't really know if any of this matters, but it is intriguing. To me, it illustrates one of the great weirdnesses of the United States. I'd love to hear what others think about this issue and if you think it has any spillover effect into larger aspects of American culture.
So, let me know. Why are these two major areas of American entertainment guided by such different barometers?
drader
What Would Change Your Mind? Part Deux
What Would Change Your Mind?
Racism, Obama, and the Discourse of Disdain
Best Poetry of 2011
Zapruder/Rader: In Conversation