Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
04.11.2008 9:03 pm

When celebrities speak out: Heston edition

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Funny thing about celebrities who speak their minds: We only think it’s a bad idea when we disagree with them.

Since 9/11, it’s been increasingly common for pundits to sneer at actors and musicians who express their political opinions. The title of a recent book says it all: “Shut Up and Sing.” Yet, commentators don’t seem to mind that John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed their political beliefs. And neither do I.

Like any other citizen, celebrities retain the right to vote, blog, write letters to the editor and push their way toward the soap box to help shape the world according to their beliefs. Furthermore, celebrities become celebrities through some combination of luck, looks, intelligence, talent and travel that gives them unique perspectives. If they want to share those perspectives, I say the more the merrier, as long as the debate is respectful. In what Jefferson called the free marketplace of ideas, the soundest ideas should prevail.

Charlton Heston was a liberal Democrat for much of his adult life, then he switched party affiliations to Republican during the Vietnam War. Yet he was consistent in his belief in constitutional liberties. In the ’60s, he marched beside Martin Luther King Jr. In the ’90s, he was the president of the National Rifle Association and unashamedly expressed what he called “white pride” in the achievements of the Founding Fathers.

In the pendulum swings of political correctness, Heston was both rewarded and denounced for his beliefs. Personally, I hate guns–my brother was killed by one–and I believe the Second Amendment applies to “a well-regulated militia” and not just any ol’ hothead. But if everyone with whom we disagreed had the integrity of Charlton Heston, this world would have a better chance of moving forward.

3 comments

Comments are closed.

You’ve certainly been consistent in your defense of him. I don’t agree with some of the stances he took later in his life but it’s still a free country and he seemed to be a decent man. He definitely acted in a wide spectrum of roles. I’m only sorry he never got the opportunity to make “Soylent Teal”.

— Roy T.
8:44 am April 14th, 2008

He had integrity. I must correct you however. Your brother was killed by a person wielding a gun, not by the gun itself. Constitutionally, you are incorrect in your interpretation of it’s language. But I digress. Heston could be said more to have been left behind by a party that lurched leftwards towards socialism and control of the individual by the state. He stayed in the same place.

— Mike Cornwall
10:44 am April 14th, 2008

Mike–Maybe you don’t realize this, but it’s unbecoming to make a political point by “correcting” how a grieving person describes a tragedy. My brother was killed by a bullet from a gun that was fired by a person in a country where potentially murderous people are permitted to have them. Is that more acceptable? In a different country with different laws, that person wouldn’t have had the option to make that rash decision.

And I am not “incorrect” in my interpretation of the second amendment. The militia clause says what its says; you and I just disagree about what it means, and there is plenty of disagreement among judges and scholars.

But I’ll grant you this–you’ve confirmed that it’s possible to wound a person without using a gun.

— Joe Williams
3:16 am April 15th, 2008