Trump first pointed out that Streep was a Clinton supporter and then went on to highlight that fact that many of the prominent figures in attendance at the Globes are "liberal movie people." In other words, because they have fundamental political differences with him, their opinions have no value.
Later, our future president went on Twitter to attack Streep even more personally, and label a woman widely recognized as the greatest actress of her generation as "over-rated."
Conway's reaction, was even more explicit:
Well my initial reaction is I’m glad that Meryl Streep has such a passion for the disabled, because I didn’t hear her weigh in and I didn’t hear her even use her platform last night to give a shout out to the mentally challenged boy, who last week was tortured live on Facebook for half an hour by four young African-American adults, who were screaming racial and anti-Trump expletives and forcing him to put his head in toilet water. So I’d like to hear from her today if she wants to come and continue her platform on behalf of the disabled and Donald Trump is absolutely right he has debunked this so many times ... she sounds like 2014. The election is over. She lost and he’s absolutely right about something else too, which is everybody in that audience—with very few exceptions—was of a single myopic mind as to how they wanted the election to go and how they expected the election to go.Not only is this answer a rather inartful bit of race-baiting -- but it is also troubling on a number of fronts. Conway seems to suggest that since Streep did not speak to any and all acts of disrespect for the disabled that her remarks are somehow less credible. She also doubles down on an assertion, wildly popular with some Trump supporters, that because the election is "over" and Streep's side "lost," that she has no business expressing her political views, and certainly not in a public forum.
Had Trump narrowly lost instead of narrowly won (contrary to his claims of a blowout, his victory was assured by roughly 80,000 voters in just three states), it's hard to believe that he and his supporters would have immediately acquiesced to the results and remained silent.
But regardless, as Republican Sen. John Cornyn said today, Streep, like any other American citizen, is entitled to express herself, and not be attacked for it.
The reason Streep's speech was so powerful was the it made plain a reality that some Americans simply don't want to accept -- that Hollywood and liberals are part of this country, too. And the reason the 'imitation' of the disabled reporter still resonates, is that it was such a blatant example of how cruel we are capable of being if we eschew empathy -- a quality that great art often aspires to evoke.You don't have to like Streep or even what she said, but as an American you ought to support her right to say it. And if you think you don't like what she said, it's worth exploring exactly what she said that was particularly galling to you.
She simply elevated the very human and complicated histories of people in that room, and dared to suggest that even though they may enjoy elite status now they may not all have had auspicious beginnings and now have dedicated themselves to our entertainment and enrichment.
Are there people who contribute more to society? Obviously. And of course, there are those who will understandably see any speech at any awards show delivered by any celebrity as inherently self serving and obnoxious.
But the backlash Streep is already receiving in some circles is a sad testament to how warped people's perceptions have become of free speech and how easily even our most talented and intelligent professionals can be vilified, simply for being true to themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment