Arnold Schwarzenegger has been elected governor of California. Many pundits say this is a victory for democracy. But what kind of democracy is here victorious? We have to be honest about the reasons for this outcome. Mr. Schwarzenegger won election because of his celebrity, not because of his good qualities - his intelligence and work ethic. The virtues of the self-made Austrian immigrant were essential to the success of the body-builder, businessman and entertainer, but they do not account for his stunning electoral triumph. Schwarzenegger won because of a pathological celebrity-worship born from our all-consuming addiction to entertainment.
Last year I wrote a column with the title, "Why We Are Not Safe: An examination of the fictions that govern us." In that column I offered the following statement: "the emergence of the actor into politics has produced a crisis." Of course, I was not referring to the professional actor. I was referring to the pretender and the simulator - the inauthentic man - and our growing reliance on him. It is this man, above all others, who works to preserve our illusions, even dangerous illusions.
It is ironic that the actor, the entertainer, the celebrity is now elected to solve a problem born of shallowness and a short public attention span. The state's problems are due to the fact that the prevailing demagogues tried to deliver the moon as promised. So the state faces bankruptcy. We have seen Mr. Schwarzenegger play the hero in many films. Now he must be a real hero. He might succeed in his effort, but celebrities are not to be relied upon as saviors. Schwarzenegger's friend, entertainer Tom Arnold, said on Wednesday that he dreams of being the governor of Iowa. So what will stop our entertainers from becoming our governors except that they already govern us - in a deeper sense - and some of them know better than to exchange careers?
In England they have knighted rock stars. Actors who play doctors on television give talks at medical conferences. Ours is a culture of entertainment where the entertainers have become the nobles. In the Republic of Pleasant Fictions the empty suit prevails by the outward show he puts on. The statesman never looks as good as the cinematic hero, who now upstages him. Already our presidents are judged by the same standards used to judge actors. A politician's personality is critiqued, his presentation is dwelled upon without regard for the underlying sagacity; and poll numbers have become the political equivalent of box office ticket sales.
What we see today is the final effect of a television-centered culture. Celebrity on the tube can be converted into public trust, political capital and political position. The public admires its entertainers. Entertainment is now the central shrine of our common life. Actors and actresses have become the gods and goddesses of a new religion. Those who never fail to entertain are given to extend their domain into the dull world of political reality, which is thereby enlivened and transformed before our eyes. The voters turn out and democracy is declared the winner.
There is danger in this, and we have seen this before. The last great Roman historian was Ammianus Marcellinus, an army officer of Greek origin. In his history of the late Roman Empire he wrote of a nation that was addicted to entertainment. In a section titled "The faults of the senate and people of Rome" he said there were riots due to shortages of wine "which the population is accustomed to consume greedily." We are told of "tedious and unwholesome" dinners, an all-pervading obsession with sports and gambling. "Men of learning and sobriety are shunned as bringers of bad luck who have nothing to contribute," wrote Marcellinus. "In this state of things the few houses which once had the reputation of being centers of serious culture are now given over to trivial pursuits...." Music was a major preoccupation and resembled something of what we see today. "Men put themselves to school to the singer instead of the philosopher, to the theatrical producer rather than the teacher of oratory. The libraries are like tombs, permanently shut; men manufacture water organs and lutes the size of carriages and flutes and heavy properties for theatrical performances." Diversion and entertainment not only afflicted the upper classes. "Of the lowest and poorest class," wrote Marcellinus, "some spend the night in bars, others shelter under the awnings of the theaters.... They hold quarrelsome gambling sessions ... and wear themselves out from dawn to dusk, wet or fine, in detailed discussion of the merits and demerits of [race] horses and their drivers."
Today America is on the same path as fourth century Rome. Consider the disturbing changes that have taken place in television news. To maintain a large following, to secure advertising revenue, the country's news organizations now include a greater and greater share of stories involving celebrities. As life is increasingly centered on entertainment, the lives of popular actors and musicians are deemed more and more newsworthy. This has led to a hollowing out of vital news as the citizenry is reduced to the status of "audience."
We've had actors in politics since the 1960s, and we've had an actor as president. So the election of an actor is nothing new. But the pathology behind this trend is intensifying. The people are not overawed by great ideas, by steady statesmanship, by sound principles of government. They are overawed by star power.
In previous times, statesmanship has looked down on the actor as someone whose dignity is so damaged by his profession that he is barred from politics by custom. When the young Alexander proved an able musician his father, King Philip of Macedon, berated him for an occupation unworthy of a king. Statesmanship has always preferred the weighty to the light, even to the point of cultivating what the ancient Romans called gravitas. It is that serious and dignified demeanor appropriate to the nobleman and incompatible with play-acting.
I wish Mr. Schwarzenegger the best. But I fear the voters chose him for the wrong reasons. If that is the case, then our democratic institutions are not on firm ground. The Republic is at risk. What triumphed is not democracy but celebrity.
