Drew Carey Says Libertarians Can ‘Get Away’ in Hollywood, but Conservatives Pretty Much ‘Doomed’

Newsbusters ^ | 03/20/10 | Anthony Kang

[198ml]

According to actor and comedian Drew Carey, Hollywood is not the intolerant blackballing liberal utopia many deem it to be. In fact, Hollywood is very accepting of the right-wing crowd - except for that fringe, radical segment known as conservatives.

"In Hollywood, you can pretty much get away with being a libertarian," Carey told John Stossel on the Fox Business Network. "But if you're a conservative you're kind of doomed."

Carey was a featured guest on "Stossel" March 18, dissecting the economic calamities surrounding his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio (anointed Forbes' new "Most Miserable City"), and to provide the perspective of a fledgling businessman.

"Now you're a libertarian right?" Stossel asked. "Has that slowed your career?"

[John-Irish]

Vegas. “Where you spend all night in the casino just trying to get ahead/and you spend all day at The Holiday Inn just trying to get out of bed’’.

[Skepolitic]

you should defend my right to speak my opinion on the subject

I certainly agree that you have an unalienable right to an opinion and to express it at any time or by any means at your disposal. Only a statist like, say, John McCain or Van Jones would disagree.

But you are not entitled to your own facts. Progressives used the exact argument you advance to obtain passage of Amendment XVIII in 1919. Alcohol-related crime increased with its prohibition.

Lots of people have advanced arguments about regulating fatty foods, transfats, and soft drinks due to adverse health effects. You can pretty safely bet that national dietary regulation will appear in the next few years. (But I am sure you wouldn't because some people have gambling problems.) The rationale is the same as yours: some people can't help themselves, so they need a nanny government.

WRT religion, there are a lot of people in high places who think that all, or at least some, religions are destructive to social order and individual mental health. There are innumerable examples in history. Nero banned Christianity, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther, later Popes launched the Inquisitions, Calvin burned Michael Servitus at the stake, Salem had their witch trials, and the 20th century was far, far worse for people of faith. In each case, the political elites believed that they were acting positively to achieve some noble objective such as maintaining social order, preserving the salvation of individual souls, or preserving the Faith and the Church. In the incomparably evil cases of the 20th century, idealists who aspired to create a new socialist man or an ubermensche severely persecuted adherents of particular faiths. The Hitlers and Lenins of the world strongly believed Judaism and Christianity to be subversive of their ideas on social order and ridiculous, superstitious impediments to individual potential. To them the argument against allowing the continued existence of these faiths was just as persuasive as your argument against marijuana.

Psst ... I really don't care if you're a religious-right conservative, either. We probably agree on a lot of the important stuff. BTW, it was the Progressive Party that advocated Prohibition. I am way farther from the progressives than you, my friend.

[GL of Sector 2814]

I will grant you that at the margin legalization of drugs will result in more people using drugs. On the other hand, it would eliminate the wasteful "war on drugs" with all its attendant costs. That's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept. If someone is such a loser that they want to ruin their life using recreational drugs, that's their business and not mine, and they're likely to do so regardless of the law in any case.

I don't care what you do as long as I don't pay for it.

[GL of Sector 2814]

...and because visitors would spend on whores money they might otherwise have gambled away.

Sounds like a better expenditure of disposable income to me...

[GL of Sector 2814]

There is no such thing as “safe” use of meth, which is a synthetic chemical of recent origin.

I don't think it's my (or the government's) place to tell someone which recreational drugs they should use, regardless of their vintage.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Got to get rid of the welfare state first

Fine with me! Not that it's going to happen, mind you.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Sane libertarians left the movement when Ayn Rand arived with her hippy commune crowd.

Of all the ways I can think of to describe Objectivists, "hippy" and "commune crowd" aren't at the top of the list.

[GL of Sector 2814]

A quote from Robert A. Heinlein, quite relevant for this thread:

"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

[Enough_Deceit]

“John Vought is such a great actor..I will go to see any move he is in..”

Except that one he did the love scene with Jane Fonda. I think it was called “Coming Home.” I bet he wants to puke if he ever thinks about that love scene he did with her.

[BenKenobi]

“don’t care what you do as long as I don’t pay for it.”

You do pay for it, that’s the thing. All this liberal society garbage is a drag on the rest of us. I think we have a duty as good neighbours to act as a check on this trash because we certainly don’t benefit.

[GL of Sector 2814]

You do pay for it, that’s the thing. All this liberal society garbage is a drag on the rest of us. I think we have a duty as good neighbours to act as a check on this trash because we certainly don’t benefit.

Please see my Heinlein quote is post #88. Quite relevant to what you just said!

[FrankR]

"I am way farther from the progressives than you, my friend. "

You are not entitled to YOUR own "facts" either, my friend.

Trying to make your case by implying that I lean progressive is a losing battle. The only thing you know about me is that I am NOT for illegal drugs and prostitution; but that seems to you that I'm probably tinkling in your backyard, so you're understandably upset...no one wants their lifestyles challenged.

Most of the arguments about fatty foods and soft drinks have been about getting more taxes out of people, just like the cigarette debacle.

Your post seemed articulate enough that you should not even consider equating food and soft drinks to illegal drugs. I've seen what drugs can do to families and individuals; they wreck lives and break up families. Never seen a 7-up send anyone to jail, or a Twinkie cause an overdose.

As far as your views on religion go...you've been watching Glenn Beck too much.

But, I know the me-me-me generation usually only worries about themselves, they don't care if drugs are legalized so long as it doesn't touch them or affect their own supply. Sounds like you're one of those selfish people who wants to live on "Fantasy Island" with all his toys and not be bothered by anyone.

So I'm closing the debate by surrendering to you and your right to smoke pot and wallow in your self-interests; quoting the history of the church will not stop some 12-year-old from overdosing on some illegal drugs or cause a 30-year-old with brain damage from drugs to waste away in an alley somewhere.

Your "F***'em, let'm die" attitude will sustain you through many episodes of shallow reality shows and rounds of golf...so, have a good life, and I hope your kids avoid the reality you are deeming they have a right to wallow in. Lots of times the me-me-ers don't have kids because they might have to stop being kids themselves...and utopia would disappear in a puff of marijuana smoke.

[Little Ray]

I suppose, as long as you support or “tolerate” perversion and debauchery, you are still acceptable in Hollyweird...