Sarandon drops Sanders’ other shoe

“Let’s be grateful to Susan Sarandon for exposing just how vapid and callous the left-wing #NeverHillary argument is. Speaking to Chris Hayes on MSNBC on Monday night, Sarandon, a Bernie Sanders surrogate, said she was unsure if she could bring herself to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election. Hayes was shocked, but Sarandon posited that a Trump presidency might be preferable to a Clinton one, because it would hasten the revolution. “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode,” she said.”

Susan Sarandon is perfect spokeswoman for #neverhillary.
Michelle Goldberg
March 29, 2016

With a mouthpiece like this, those of us who do not quite #feelthebern should be forgiven for believing that Senator Sanders (and/or no small number of his followers) is operating with an agenda that goes much further than changes to the system. The goal is revolution, not evolution: the destruction and replacement of the system, not its repair and upgrade.

Just as Trump was morally obliged to distance himself from his racist supporters (an obligation he failed,) Sanders must either distance himself from Sarandon’s remarks, or be considered complicit in them.

3 thoughts on “Sarandon drops Sanders’ other shoe

  1. With respect, that’s a ridiculous standard. Only in America do the comments of actors — actors! — somehow require candidates to respond.

    In my view, comments of supporters who control entirely political groups (e.g. Drumpf’s organized racists) certainly require repudiation. If the leader of the Teacher’s Union — who have endorsed Clinton — were to make comments like these, certainly the candidate would need to respond or be thought complicit.

    But the rantings of professional entertainers?! Not even in the same universe, let alone the same class of thing. Except, of course, in America…

    • Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? This is America. As much as you and I are nauseated by the prospect of thespians wielding influence upon the political process, it is a discouraging fact that their notoriety provides them access to a bully pulpit that is too often beyond the reach of more deserving voices. Like it or not, their voices carry and they have influence. In fairness, the influence wielded by Sarandon, George Clooney, Clint Eastwood, and musicians like Bono extend far more broadly than lunatic hate mongers like David Duke and Al Sharpton.

      And objectively, that is what is important here: not the provenance or profession of the individual, but the influence they wield on the masses of people who admire them. Ms. Sarandon wields influence. She is wielding it on behalf of Mr. Sanders. For him to enjoy the benefits of her support while countenancing her statements on national television is either implicit assent or hypocrisy.

      And please remember that this is a nation that made Gopher a congressman, made Al Franken and Fred Thomson senators, made Jesse “the Body” Ventura a governor, and made The Gipper a governor and then president. The only difference between an actor and a politician, it seems, is the ends to which they aim their artifice. Ms. Sarandon is an activist, a politician in service of a cause rather than in service of an office, and she should be treated as such.

      • Your fair reply is all the fairer for including Dutch in your list of — what shall we call them? Politainers? Enterticians?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s