Cynthia Nixon, an actress most recently in the news for refereeing a feud between her “Sex and the City” co-stars, has announced she’s mulling a run for governor of New York.
And people are taking her seriously.
How does this keep happening? How is it that completely unqualified celebrities see the Trump presidency as a bar they can clear rather than a sobering lesson?
Nixon, 51, has absolutely no political experience. Yet so much of Tuesday’s coverage was obsequious, regurgitating Nixon’s spoon-fed self-description as an “activist.” Her spokesperson’s ridiculous, imperious comment that, should Nixon decide to run, “[she] will be sure to make her plans public,” went without criticism.
Isn’t that how the process works? You announce?
If this is reflective of Nixon’s thinking — that her bid for governor will be something she deigns to tell us, to do for us — beware. Fame tends to warp perceptions of reality and egalitarianism, and Nixon has been famous since childhood. Think Oprah and her recent assertion that only one person could tell her to run for president, and that person would be God.
We’re just days out from the epic hypocrisy of the Oscars, which was touted as pro-#MeToo yet awarded a credibly accused rapist. (If you haven’t read the account given against Kobe Bryant, his alleged victim’s 32-page police interview is on The Smoking Gun.)
In short, we’ve all had a good, hard look at the gap that often exists between celebrity image and reality. Yet in politics, incredibly, stars still have sway.
Also curiously unchecked was the leak, meant to be positive, that Nixon has been “studying up” on policy, transportation especially. How reassuring that Miranda could be tasked with fixing the severe and seemingly intractable collapse of the New York City subway system.
Nixon’s two closest advisors were once top aides to Bill de Blasio. Our mayor now adds stoking the delusions of a B-list celebrity — in a pathetic attempt to unseat his mortal enemy Andrew Cuomo — to an already dubious legacy.
“There are a lot of people who would like me to run for a variety of reasons,” Nixon told the “Today” show last August. Doesn’t get more vague than that. It would be nice if someone asked Nixon why she couldn’t start smaller, with some humility, and learn the drudge work of governance from the bottom — maybe assembly or city council.
This has to stop. Since Trump’s election, Democrats have flipped 50 seats. If the party truly wants to ride their “blue wave” into the midterms, they need to abandon celebrities and legacies. Fundraise, sure. Pole-vault into high office with no experience of the real world, of living paycheck to paycheck, of an economy ever tipped toward the one percent? A hard no.
Which brings us to Chelsea Clinton, who has been making the rounds ostensibly to promote her new children’s book, but in reality is testing a run. Appearing on “The View” Tuesday, Clinton began — in style and substance — speaking much like her mother, the poll-tested opinions and the entitled air.
Amid the volley of softballs lobbed her way, Clinton referenced her post-election activity with great self-regard — in fact, she said, that’s why it’s so important “to talk to [my children] about why I work so hard.”
Doing what, exactly — tweeting? Clinton hasn’t had a “job” since stepping down from the self-dealing Clinton Foundation, which Chelsea used as a piggy bank to help fund her wedding and living expenses.
And her children, with whom she’s having such serious conversations, are ages 3 and 20 months.
Clinton also spoke about the Parkland shooting, gun control, President Trump, and whether Ivanka was right to call a question about her father’s alleged sexual misconduct “inappropriate.”
“I think that anyone who works for the White House should be expected to answer any question about the White House — about the president, about the White House’s policy practices — so yes, I do think that was a fair question,” Clinton said.
Recall Clinton stumping for her mother, acting as a campaign surrogate yet refusing to answer reporters’ questions — even one from a 9-year-old “reporter” for Scholastic.
“I’m sorry,” Clinton said. “I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute.”
The child’s question: “Do you think your dad would be a good ‘First Man’ in the White House?”
This was back in 2007. Today’s landscape is radically different, and even Democratic party leaders would say the answer to that 9-year-old’s question is “no.”
Bill Clinton, with his troubled sexual history and accusation of rape, is no longer welcome. Epic two-time loser Hillary will not have party backing in 2020, even if she hasn’t yet accepted that. And heir-apparent Chelsea — a celebrity, nothing more — is the legacy Dems neither want nor deserve.
So she’ll probably run for US Senate.
Share this:
Let’s block ads! (Why?)
