Yesterday, Al Franken joined the most exclusive club in America. No, not the Senate, nor even the 60-member-strong and theoretically filibuster-proof Democratic majority caucus within the Senate, but the even smaller club celebrities who have won major public office. (The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has a pretty good roundup of celebrity politicians here.)
In 1990, political scientist David Canon published a book entitled Actors, Athletes and Astronauts, in which he examined--and, with the benefit now of almost two decades of hindsight, apparently presaged--the era of the celebrity politician. Actually, the book is more broadly about political amateurs, defined as those who win high office despite a lack of appointed or elected experience prior to their election. Canon talks about how most political amateurs in the general sense end up becoming lamb-to-the-slaughter losers in no-win races, but how, thanks to their special celebrity status actors, athletes and astronauts are more competitive and can thus more easily break out from the pack of amateurs and win.
Although Franken was always very involved in politics as an activist and donor, he surely qualifies as an amateur under this definition. And his comedic style certainly qualifies as amateurish; I mean, c'mon, the man once did a bit wearing bunny ears and a diaper!** Franken has appeared in some feature films, including the leading role in his Saturday Night Live-created character Stuart Smalley; but he's mostly a television actor and comedian. (My favorite Franken role was as the other half of a baggage-handling duo, along his early-career but long since forgotten comedic partner Tom Davis, in Trading Places.)
What I have long found ironic is that Republicans tend to bemoan the influence of Hollywood in politics when, in fact, they have had more than their share of actors-turned-politicians, including former Iowa Congressman Fred Grandy (pictured above, middle, in case you had forgotten about the Love Boat's "Gopher"), former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and, most notably, President Ronald Reagan, who you may recognize as the other politician pictured above.
Frankly, I'm wary of celebrity-politicians, whatever their occupational background or ideological leanings. Reagan's aura covered up for a lack of substance and, late in his presidential tenure, even a declining coherence. Grandy worked hard, but was otherwise not particularly distinguished House member. John Glenn was a solid senator from Ohio and JC Watts was a key fixture in the Republican House and on the national scene, though it's hard to disentangle how much of Watts' wattage stemmed from the fact that he was both a celebrity former football player and almost equally rare elected species, namely a black Republican. Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning has--how to put this?--slowed down a bit late in his career. And Thompson never could make up his careerist mind, jumping from the political world to acting to senator, and then back to acting and then back again into politics for his ill-fated 2008 presidential bid; supposedly Thompson is lazy, but maybe he's just torn between the two versions of celebrity. Meanwhile, I really don't think it serves the people of California to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor, nor would Warren Beatty or Rob Reiner be much better successors to the Terminator. For my money, the best example of the celebrity-turned-politician is the late Jack Kemp. Whatever you think of his ideas, he studied the issues closely and took governing seriously.
I realize that in the era of reality TV, where non-professionals can become television celebrities, maybe celebrities who are political amateurs are just as entitled as anyone to serve in elected office. But I'd much rather have a person who worked her way up through the state legislature and the House run and win a Senate seat, than Al Franken. Oh, and the use of the feminine pronoun in that last sentence was not random: You'll note that when we talk about celebrity politicians we are almost invariably talking about men.
**CORRECTION: At the time of the posting, I simply did not know that this photo was a doctored fake created by the Ohio Republican Party. Given many of the outrageous characters Franken has played over the years, it's not unreasonable to conclude he had. (We're not talking Thurgood Marshall here, folks.) In any event, apologies to readers and to Sen. Franken.
7.01.2009
Welcome to the Club, Al
by Tom Schaller @ 10:06 AM...see also al franken, ronald reagan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

56 comments
The Franken in diaper pic was a photoshop by the Ohio Republican Party, not an actual SNL skit, that they sent out with a press release featuring a completely fabricated quote.
You left out George Murphy and Helen Gahagan (apologies to Tom Lehrer).
You can't praise Kemp and ignore Bill Bradley. Both of those guys left their high profile sports careers and really worked at being good public servants. Most people today probably don't know just who good of a basketball player Bradley was or how Kemp played QB for the Bills, but do remember them as public figures.
I also have to take issue with the idea that someone who "worked their way up" is necessarily any better than a celebrity. There are plenty of bad Congresspeople and governors who previously served in state level offices. Michelle Bachman, Matt Kirk, James Inhofe, Rod Blagojevich and Rep. Jefferson of Louisiana all come to mind. You'd like to think the more experience someone had the more their views would be tested and their skills refined, but that in turn depends on the nature of the electorate.
I think the tone of judgement obvious in this posting is not worthy of 538. Where is the statistical comparison to other groups that enter politics? Where is the recognition of the level at which celebrities enter the political pecking order?
I would have been much more impressed by an analysis of FACTS and not the broad generalities stated here. This post would have been perfectly acceptable on a political op-ed blog, and had I read it there, I would have appreciated it. But this is 538, the pinnacle of statistical political analysis that a layman can (sometimes) understand, and this whole article has no place here.
Semper Fi,
Terry
PS, at the risk of detracting from my quite serious statement above, Where are the props for Cooter????
"And his comedic style certainly qualifies as amateurish; I mean, c'mon, the man once did a bit wearing bunny ears and a diaper!"
Shame on you Tom, and shame on you Nate for allowing this hack to use your otherwise excellent blog to propogate an already discredited GOP lie. Remember Franken's book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them" ? You've now become one of them.
A sad day for 538. I know that blogs are exempt from the professional journalistic ethics, but Nate, you owe Franken a formal apology, here.
It's hard to call Franken's humor "amateurish" after reading his hilarious and incredibly detailed disemboweling of Reaganomics in "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Oh, wait--sure the title was a bit crude, and I won't argue with calling his humor crude at times, but amateurish it is not.
You're completely ignoring Al Franken's books, which include a lot of political insight and real research, and which led to his radio show. Calling him an "actor" ignores the last 20 years of his career.
@Bob,
Back the fuck up, dude. It's my show, and I say how to run it. Just shut the fuck up.
Speaking of celebrities becoming politicians. I watched a movie last night that had two future governors of US states in it. Any guesses what it might have been?
Franken was a political satirist for a long time before running for Senate. The man has studied politics and media carefully. We can argue over whether that qualifies one for Senate, but I wouldn't call it equivalent to playing baseball or appearing in the Love Boat.
Many times a person who's "worked her way up through the state legislature and the House" is a party insider with connections. Just last week my own city convention endorsed a woman for School Board, over several other good candidates, because she had the backing of the mayor and family connections, despite the fact that she sends her own child to private school. I'll take a "celebrity" who's articulate, thoughtful and demonstrated serious intent over a poor choice who's "paid her dues" any day.
@Nate Silver
Woo, fake accounts! Awesome!
I really wish they would ban the poser form the rooms, as his posts are really profane and make viewing at work a worry. On topic, though, i would say someone should really ask why we decide to pick on celebrities in this country. Here are immensely talented people, who even in this post are singled out for scorn. We have what amounts to a citizen run, citizen elected government, until we start banning celebrities from citizenship, I think the handwringing regarding them running for office is silly.
former Iowa Congressman Fred Grandy (pictured above..)
I believe the picture is missing.
Also like others have pointed out the Franken-diaper picture is a fake. here's another version of the fake picture featuring Vitters:
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/Vitter_ad_4.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8Kpbmn03Sxc/SZDt67LT_HI/AAAAAAAAAag/jZLLcsq1FUQ/s400/vitter_diapers.jpg
It doesn't seem as though the author of the post has much of an understanding of Franken's career, which he unfairly slights. Franken's humor may or may not be to one's taste, but the man has succeeded at a lot of different things. He was one of the major writers for many years for the most successful show if its type, and acted on the show as well. Besides his career in comedy, he wrote a screenplay that was a serious and fairly well received treatment of alcoholism ("When a Man Loves a Woman"). Maybe he's not Steve Martin, but he's certainly been a success.
His political humor books have been quite successful and in my opinion quite funny (my favorite is the overlooked "Why Not Me?"). He's a Harvard grad and a policy wonk who hangs out with think tank types; he is certainly no lightweight compared to many or even most senators.
When he decided that it was time to actually get into the game instead of writing and talking about it, he buckled down and got himself elected, albeit barely, and I think it's fair to say that his celebrity past was as much a hindrance as a help. Meanwhile, through everything he's been married to the same woman whom he always gives gracious credit to, and fathered two well adjusted kids.
He's a good guy with a pretty amazing career arc, and I think he'll be a good senator.
Lest we forget, we've elected famous generals (America's first celebrities, perhaps) to the presidency, many of whom were political novices. Some were not-so-good (Taylor and Grant), while some were quite good (Eisenhower). I'm not sure previous profession has much bearing on future success in politics.
Right, Tevla, many generals. And they remain among "outside" prospects for national office today.
Not a big fan of celebrity candidates, however. At least Al Franken has some intellectual power, even if his career has been mainly as a comedian!
Speaking of the feminine pronoun, are there any female writers here at 538.com?
@shawnb: Yes there are quite a few, but by and large the commenters aren't gendered except for some of the pricks who troll here.
@Juris - don't get your underpants in a wad. It was a valid question, not a troll.
I agree that we want a politician who "studied the issues closely and took governing seriously". What I'm unclear about is why you assume that Al Franken will not do so.
True Franken garnered most of his fame from a career in comedy, but he also hosted a political talk radio show. And it was not a Limbaugh-esque hack show either, but a fairly serious show that delved into tough issues with careful consideration. In addition, his more recent books on politics and the media are, in my opinion, measured and well reasoned analyses of their subjects.
I have no idea how effective a senator Franken will be, but it seems out of line to summarily dismiss him as just a comedian.
This is some pretty shoddy blogging. Nate, where'd you get this guy?
I think lumping it's unfair to lump Franken in with this group, simply because he has spent the past 15 years or so paying his dues in the political arena. While mildly successful, his comedy career never took off to superstar level. Instead, he became famous as a political satirist, taking on Rush Limbaugh during the '96 election. Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot was what got me into politics in high school, and though pointed and sarcastic, was filled with reasoned arguments against the GOP. Franken has spent the last decade working as political commentator, author, radio host, etc. He's been in the arena and working hard. It's not like he just decided to run for an executive position out of the blue, like some California governors I could think of.
This is the second time in a row that I've read an article here at 538.com and had to go back to the top to determine who just wasted my time...and the result both times is Tom Schaller. 2 for 2 is 100%.
This comment now has more statistics in it than the entire post it's attached to. Not only is this post lacking statistics (the whole point of the website) and riddled with lies like the Franken "bunny" pic, but it conveniently ignores some of the successful celebrity-politicians like Bill Bradley and Sonny Bono.
I think it's time to reevaluate Mr. Schaller's continuation as a participant here.
"And his comedic style certainly qualifies as amateurish; I mean, c'mon, the man once did a bit wearing bunny ears and a diaper! "
This where I stopped reading this post. You shouldn't be writing articles when you can't check your facts.
@shawnb: I realize it was a valid question. And I gave a valid answer. Don't take things personally.
Doesn't serve California to have Arnold as governor? As a liberal I think you are way off on this one. Us Libs need to recognize that Arnold is one of us, or atleast closer to one of us than a republican.
His problem is that this state is ungovernable, just as it was for Davis, and then the dire economic situation is dumped ontop of our pre-existing issues.
If you think we would be better off with a democrat, I think you'd be fooling yourself.
I am truly disappointed Nate in implied editorial approval of this. I have come to depend on 538 for carefully reasoned analysis based on facts. This post seems to be based on either personal animus or something else. I honestly am searching myself to find the reasoning. I personally feel being a celebrity prior to a political career has no valid bearing on my view of Senator-elect Franken. And before you attack or ban me please remember many of us commenting here are among your most fervent supporters. I seriously doubt anyone is trying to tell you what to do.
Bill Bradley being a notable exception to the lacking substance sort of celebrity politician.
I think Franken has done a decent job as a candidate in learning the issues and his state. I don't get the feeling he is on some ego trip, as some celeb pols tend to seem.
I would agree that Bill Bradley deserves equal credit with Jack Kemp.
But in the end I think most celeb pols are there to be used by there party, and its not always there fault. I sometimes think the GOP uses celebs in much the same way it uses minorities. Find the odd talented one then push them forward. Don;t really care what they say, who they are and what they look like in a photo call is whats uimportant.
[And I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party doesn't care about photo calls, just that the GOP seems to me to use certain types of people more cynically than the Democratic Party does.]
With Chastity Bono's recent announcement, the chances of a female celebrity politician are rapidly diminishing.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Chastity Bono."
I agree with Bob from Illinois. Posts with this tone don't belong at 538. The false remark about Senator Franken in a diaper should be corrected.
Watch Assume the Position with Robert Wuhl on HBO sometime. He said "star-fucking" is as American as apple pie. We've always had a history of electing the celebrities of the day to political office. In the 1700 and 1800s, the "celebrities" of the day were the war hero generals, which is partly why Washington, Jackson, and Grant won office.
@Gearoid: I know this one! Predator! I remember watching it a few years back and having the same reaction.
Does that mean that Carl Weathers is next on the celeb-turned-politician list??
"when we talk about celebrity politicians we are almost invariably talking about men"
That's just until Paris Hilton announces her candidacy. (shudder)
And let's not forget Jesse Ventura!
As an avid reader of 538 I too notice the lack of real staitistics to back up the mass of opinion in this post. I wonder if I'm reading some op-ed and not the astute observations for which 538 is famous.
As a Minnesotan who voted for Jesse Ventura once and would do so again, Mr. Schaller seems to be missing many conclusions and observations in his specious post. One is that Al Franken and Paul Wellstone were friends, and I'm sure on some level Al did all of this to vindicate Mr. Wellstone's legacy. Another conclusion is that Minnesotans are a special breed in who we consider qualified for public office, and considering how Minnesota consistently rates highly on surveys of the best governed states, we must be doing something right.
Course, then there's the conclusion that's obvious to most Minnesotans and all those who voted for Mr. Franken: Norm Coleman is a NY carpetbagger and we never liked him!
"I watched a movie last night that had two future governors of US states in it. Any guesses what it might have been?"
In Running Man, Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger fight to the death... and Ventura wins! (Although he is actually fighting a computer simulacrum.)
It is worth mentioning that Al Fraknen was ultimately awarded the election in part by NFL Hall of Fame Minnesota Supreme Court justice Alan Page.
@Gearoid:
The movie also had Landham in it who ran for governor of Kentucky although he ultimately lost.
There is a big difference between a celebrity like Tom Cruise, or Paris Hilton, or Brad Pitt who could make a political transition merely on their celebrity and someone who is a celebrity in the political arena.
Some of these people may not make good elected officials, and they obviously represent different viewpoints, but I think Al Frankin, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Rush Limbaugh all think and talk in the political world. Even someone like Ann Coulter or Michael Moore arguably have some policy chops such that a political run shouldn't be dismissed out of hand merely as a celebrity.
This post was really well below the standard level of quality I have come to expect from 538.
It fails badly for the reasons others have already listed, which can be summed up in one word: superficiality.
For those of you interested in seeing lists of politicians who were known in other fields, here is a good place:
http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html#PE
Given Franken's campaign performance, anyone who thinks he WAS NOT a political amateur has just not been playing attention. No about of satire, previous study, smarts, can substitute for experience and practice in DOING things, like ugh, campaigning (the famous 10,000 hour rule certainly applies here).
As to Franken's comedy, it's the same as any other comedian's in that there are many more misses than hits. I would characterize it as much more crude than amateurish though, as he's certainly a comedy professional, by all meanings of the term.
Some of the politicians on this list are more famous for their political contributions than they are in their previous roles. Maybe its not so bad that Minnesotans have now elected a pro wrestler and a SNL comedian to the state's two most powerful political positions.
Newsy takes a look at Franken's comedian role in politics.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/franken_funnyman_or_senator
Sorry, but I have to somewhat agree with Bob from Illinois here - this post was a stinker. Al is my senator now - I voted for him and spent the last 8 months waiting while a bunch of republican vultures deprived our state of a potentially great senator. Al deserves a hell of a lot more credit than poeple give him.
He's not Paul Wellstone, and his methods of lampooning conservatives are lame, but I expect he'll be a much better Senator than Coleman ever was. I found Coleman to be a waffling, opportunistic sleezeball devoid of actual values even before he turned the recount into an excuse to disenfranchise the state.
I don't expect Franken to be my favorite senator of all time, and I would rather have had a Democrat with more experience, but I'd rather have an amateur Democrat who wants to help the state and country over a Republican who opposes everything I believe in and care about.
If Franken was a weak candidate, if Barkley's large following led to a tie, it just proves that we need instant runoff in MN.
I'm not sure what became of my previous comment but one more thing.
Nate is discrediting 538 by allowing this "guest" author to come on and spread libelous accusations. The photograph was fake, and putting such a bald political lie on what used to be a source of insightful statistical predictions makes me wonder why I still come here.
I agree with Barking Nonsequitur above. I voted for Franken, and while he wasn't my first choice, he deserves more respect than this.
+1 Amanda in particular (re: Tom ignoring Franken's being a bestselling political satirist), as well as Berkeley Bear in Illinois, ISS Man 71, and Bob from Illinois. This was a pretty useless post, especially by 538 standards (and your QC is slipping, Nate, if you don't grok this).
"And his comedic style certainly qualifies as amateurish; I mean, c'mon, the man once did a bit wearing bunny ears and a diaper!" -- this has to be the dumbest sentence ever on this blog. Even if Franken did this (which he didn't, but he's done similar stuff), it's called slapstick, dude, and that's not exactly the same as "amateur".
Sounds like Villager logic to me. What a bunch of BS.
Why hasn't there been a correction about the photoshopped Franken picture? http://mediamatters.org/research/200905040004
I expect better from this blog - which in the past has been known for being meticulous in its reporting.
This was probably the most embarrassingly stupid article I've ever seen on 538. Sad.
If a general qualifies as a celebrity-politician, which is legit, what about a ceo? Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Mitt Romney (I finally thought of someone who won something!)
How about a political spouse? Hilary's (and Benazir Bhutto's husband) the one I can think of right now, but there have been several, and Hilary isn't the only one to make a solid crossover.
Though I agree with everyone that this post ain't great (Reagan's not the lightweight of recent GOP presidents, and that's not a close competition), there's potential for a robust study of all this if we can develop some metrics of success that are unambiguous.
That's just until Paris Hilton announces her candidacy. (shudder)
You mean a ditzy scion of a wealthy American dynasty?
Not only have you described George W. Bush; you have described the entire Kennedy family (case in point: Caroline) and many other generational politicians. THOSE are the ones we should not be electing.
Actors and comedians turned celebrities do well in politics, in my estimation. The founding fathers intended for regular people to serve a couple of terms in Congress as a form of public service. Career politicians were the unfortunate and inevitable result.
@Gearoid
Wasn't it Clerks!?
Jay looks like he might lose his job down there in South Carolina, while Silent Bob is getting credit for his naturally silent state up in Minnesota...
Terry
How do you not mention Bill Bradley. Hall of Fame basketball player and very successful Senator and almost President. I think he would have beat Gore if he won New Hampshire.
Let's do a Silver-esque analysis minus fancy quantitative techniques: From the last 40 years, randomly select one non-celebrity President, two Senators, two House members, and one Governor. Evaluate the performance of that set of randomly selected elected officials to the set discussed in this article, and I'll bet the performance of the randomly selected group of non-celebrities is not significantly different from that of the elected celebrities. My hypothesis, supported by the above but admittedly not proven: Among elected officials in America, celebrity is not a significant determinant or predictor of the quality of their public service.
Why is this article's reference to a doctored photo still uncorrected?
fenomas: "Why is this article's reference to a doctored photo still uncorrected?"
Because obviously nobody here is caring about accuracy in this case???
Post a Comment