Posted on 07/19/2002 9:37:47 AM PDT by rwfok
BREATHES there a celebrity with clout so high who can resist the urge to spout off about the latest social injustice, menace to mankind or whatever political cause is capturing the media's fancy?
Apparently, Tiger Woods can.
Woods, while focused on winning the British Open, was peppered with questions about the practice of some established golfing clubs to restrict membership to men. The world's best golfer essentially said it was none of his business how these clubs set their rules.
Which is the right answer. Because it isn't any of his business.
That wouldn't stop the celebrities of today who are closet politicians, kingmakers or editorial writers. Par for the course for them is freely expressing opinions that generally bend toward the left or politically correct side of an issue.
Thus we've seen Alec Baldwin dancing between movie roles and playing the part of a political hit man. We've seen movie stars threaten to leave the country if Al Gore didn't win the presidency. (Why are they still here?)
Storyteller Garrison Keillor has used public radio, partially funded by taxpayers, to push his leftist positions. Stars such as Julia Roberts testify before Congress and use talk show appearances to show how enlightened and politically aware they are. Who cares?
Our response to this nauseating display is this: Stand for office. Give up the big bucks. Enter the trenches of politics. Slug it out in the halls of government rather than merely exploit society's celebrity worship.
Instead, most of them are content to trade on their fame, engaging in drive-by political forays. It's not hard for them to get publicity for a cause. It's not risky, and it doesn't cost them a cent.
Ronald Reagan and Jesse Ventura cashed in on their famous names. But they did it by running for office, risking a humiliating defeat. So did Fred Thompson, a minor celebrity who won a seat in the U.S. Senate. Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a future run for governor in California. (If he loses he can always say, "I'll be back!")
Woods, though, isn't comfortable in the role of world- changer. He wants to play golf. He devotes his time between tournaments to promote causes that aren't political. Yet those who want to abolish men-only golf courses think Woods should tee up their cause and hit that ball as far as his fame can take it.
It's not that Tiger likes the status quo at institutions such as Augusta National in Georgia, site of the Masters Tournament. He just doesn't think he should be leading the charge to change it. His critics, while saying nothing about women-only schools and universities, are disappointed that Woods let an opportunity pass to demand change while the issue has some traction.
By the way, it's absurd to compare the men-only club rule with policies that once excluded blacks or Jews. Should women and men compete in the same golf tournaments? Is it "sexist" to insist that women can't compete against men in tournaments with the biggest payoffs?
Perhaps. But as Woods might say, that's just the way it is.
What Woods said -- or didn't say -- is a breath of fresh air in the era of the celebrity cult. He signaled his reluctance to take a strong position on a controversial matter. Maybe he'll stop being asked.
At last: Someone from the ranks of the rich and famous who can avoid the temptation to play the politician without actually exposing himself to defeat at the polls.
I wonder what NOW would have said had he applied to Wellesley rather than Stanford?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.