Noblesse Oblige

Noblesse Oblige [nō-ˈbles-ə-ˈblēzh] n – the obligation of those of high rank to be honorable and generous.

In a land where the concept of a king and his court never got traction, America has always substituted “fame” for “nobility.” We don’t have princes and duchesses, we have superstars and poptarts. In Europe, royalty like Prince Charles and his offspring are household names, and in some cases all but worshiped (see: “Diana, Princess.”) In this country, our nobility is of the more disposable type, with P.R. mavens and the insatiable appetite of the media serving as the power behind the throne, reveling in their powers as king- and queen-makers extraordinaire.

Back when stars actually had to spend some time in the trenches (doing B-movies within the studio system) before being lauded as ‘stars’ (“Superstars” being a term that was introduced in the 70’s to try and offset the devaluation of the term “star”), there was an unwritten rule that movie stars had to adhere to the precept of noblesse oblige. This came about right around the same time as the Hayes Office – a government-imposed standards office, imposed to prevent movies from eroding our morals. Never heard of the Hayes Office? Back in the Roaring 20’s, movies had become pretty racy. Nudity, swearing, drinking, extra-marital sex, bad guys getting away with murder – you name it, studios tried it, to pander to evermore-jaded audiences. The public outcry from those that decried that pandering led to the Government doing something about. That something was the Hayes Office. Back in the day, every movie had to be reviewed against the Hayes Office exacting standards. (Sidenote: ever wonder why Cecil B. DeMille loved to do Bible epics? It was so he could get away with showing a lot of skin under the flag of “historically accurate.”) Back then, movies didn’t get an “R” rating – they simply weren’t allowed to be shown.

Around the same time, a series of high-profile scandals, debaucheries, suspicous deaths and the like forced Hollywood studios to get tough with their actors and actresses. The studios imposed public standards on their stars, helping them (via studio-provided publicists) to keep their private peccadilloes private, and their public personaes spotless.

When the studio system crumbled, the Hayes Office did too, replaced by the industry “self-policing” (HA!) by the MPAA. The concept of noblesse oblige died a quick and private death. Stars went from maintaining a pristine public face, to going through the Hollywood-version of career hospice: get caught, get a slap on the wrist, get into rehab, confess on a talk show, and write a tell-all book. (Not quite up to the standards of anger, despair, denial, bargaining, and acceptance, but you get what you can in Hollyweird.)

Today, stars, superstars, poptarts, and talking heads dominate the pop media culture. Far from hewing to the standards of noblesse oblige, they revel in destroying it, taking great pride in flaunting a vocabulary that would make a sailor blush. Nowhere is that more apparent than when they are asked to opine on all things political.

Cases in point: Matt Damon, Pamela Anderson, and Gina Gershon.

Damon compared the thought of Governor Sarah Palin becoming Vice President – or eventually President (should McCain die in office) to a “bad Disney Movie.” He likened her experience to some kind of high-concept “Hockey mom becomes President, then uses her plucky charm to go head to head with Vladimir Putin.”

Pamela “Take me seriously, and stop looking at my fake jugs!” Anderson said about Palin, “I hate her! She can s**k it! And you can quote me!” Classy, but exactly what you might expect from a woman who’s contribution to world culture was the release of a home video where she practices fellatio on her then husband.

Gina “What happened to my career?” Gershon parodies Palin in a bit where she rips off her clothing to reveal a beauty pageant sash and patriotic bikini, then brandishes a shotgun. (Interestingly, she tucks it under her arm and fires – with no recoil. Evidently Gershon has overcome physics as well as mastering the art of political discourse.

Yo. Mr. Bourne. Pammy. Gina baby. Let’s get a few things straight. The offices of mayor and governor are executive positions. A mayor is the Chief Executive of a city or town. A governor is the Chief Executive of a state. Sarah Palin has two years experience in each job. That’s two years of executive experience. There are 50 governors in the USA – each with responsibilities over a state budget, a state National Guard, and tens of thousands of employees. There are 100 Senators. Each with the experience over…over…well, that depends on their committees and their voting record. As Governor, Sarah Palin made an executive decision on every matter that came before her. Period. Senator Obama voted “Present” (i.e: neither “Yea” or “Nay”) on an impressive 44% of the votes that came before the Congress during his two years in office. (His voting record was even more ephemeral in the Illinois state legislature.) Voting “Present” is not an option available to an executive. Imagine a President Obama (shudder) that decides to vote “present” on issues like whether or not to bomb Iran’s nuclear program back into the Stone Age. Palin has four years of executive experience that neither Obama nor Biden have. (McCain gets points for executive experience because of his command in the Navy during the Vietnam War.) You can disagree with her policies, but the woman has more real, concrete executive experience than both guys on the Democrat’s side put together.

Why does Palin incur such a violent reaction on the left? Two reasons. First, she stands for everything they hate – motherhood, conservative, faith, self-reliance, and common sense. Second, they are afraid – and rightly so – that Palin has struck a chord, not only energizing the right, but giving disenfranchised voters in the center and the left a new reason to look at McCain.  Make no doubt about it. All the stuff you hear about “nobody votes for the VP” is gonna be just so much hot air this year. Palin’s set this ticket on fire, and the left is painfully aware that she is a game changer that may just mean “game over” for Obama (as well as down the ticket) in November.

I find it interesting that the left thinks it’s a good idea to trot out it’s misbehaving children as their first line of defense against Governor Palin. What they fail to realize is that, the more they derride her, the more they publically make fun of her, and the more they howl and bay at the moon, the more resolute they make the right – and the more doubts they sow in the center and the left, as to the question, “Why not Palin?” Go ahead Matt. Take your best shot Pamela. Show your cleavage, Gina. You’re proving our point. And come January 20, we’ll all wave you a less-than fond farewell, when you pack your bags to move to Canada. Bon Voyage, pinheads.