MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Meryl Streep Congratulates Herself (Again) for Criticizing Donald Trump

The Hollywood star's self-dramatizing self-righteousness plays right into the president's hands.

Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/NewscomAnthony Behar/Sipa USA/NewscomIn a speech on Saturday night, Meryl Streep once again congratulated herself on her courage in criticizing Donald Trump. "It's embarrassing and terrifying to put the target on your forehead," she said, "and it sets you up for all sorts of troll attacks and armies of brownshirt bots and worse, and the only way you can do it is if you feel you have to. You have to. You have no choice, but you have to speak up and stand up and act up."

The occasion was a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gala at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan, where Streep received a National Ally for Equality Award. In this context, it is hard to give Streep points for bravery. If she had stood before an audience of LGBTQ activists and their progressive supporters to defend Trump, that would have demonstrated courage. Confirming the unanimous opinion of her listeners and portraying Trump's critics (including Streep herself) as bold dissidents seems more like a profile in conformity.

Likewise, it did not take much gumption for Streep to criticize Trump, then the president-elect, at last month's Golden Globe Awards, where the acclaimed actress told her audience of Hollywood stars and movie critics that "you and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now." By Streep's account, the burden of defending culture and decency against Trump and his philistine horde has fallen upon her and her rich and famous friends, and they must not shrink from the challenge.

Streep did pay a price for (accurately) portraying Trump as a crude bully: The president elect, who in 2015 described her as an "excellent" actress and "a fine person," decided she was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood," thereby illustrating her point that the blowhard billionaire prefers ad hominem attacks to logical argument. Streep alluded to that Twitter slam in her speech at the HRC gala, describing herself as "the most overrated, overdecorated and, currently, overberated actress, who likes football, of my generation."

The football reference was a joke about another joke. In her Golden Globes speech, Streep had warned that "Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners, and if we kick them all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts." The remark struck many people as a condescending swipe at Trump's benighted supporters. Streep acknowledged the backlash during her HRC speech, saying, "I was making a joke, and Mike Nichols told me, 'If you have to explain the joke, Meryl, you're doomed.'" Yes, of course it was a joke, but it was a joke at the expense of the uncultured rubes Streep and her friends seem to imagine when they think of Trump voters.

"It isn't helpful to make it us versus them," Streep acknowledged on Saturday. But by continuing to portray herself and her privileged social circle as the valiant resistance against everything Trump represents, she only reinforced a Manichean view in which wealthy celebrities (except for Trump) risk everything to defend civilization against the encroaching darkness.

"If we live through this precarious moment," Streep said, "if his catastrophic instinct to retaliate doesn't lead us to nuclear winter, we will have much to thank our current leader for. He will have woken us up to how fragile freedom is. His whisperers will have alerted us to potential flaws in the balance of power in government. To how we have relied on the goodwill and selflessness of most previous occupants of the Oval Office."

Streep's claim that Trump is uniquely selfish or malevolent is not only dubious but irrelevant. The point of checks and balances is that they protect us against liberty-threatening power grabs, regardless of the motives behind them. As Louis Brandeis observed, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." If the Trump presidency reawakens progressives to the importance of limiting executive power, that would indeed be a positive development. It would be even better if they remembered that lesson the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

In the meantime, Trump's critics, if they want to persuade anyone, should keep their complaints factual and focused. There is plenty of evidence to support Streep's description of Trump as a bully with "an instinct to humiliate." There is less reason to think that Trump—a socially liberal New Yorker who says he's "fine" with gay marriage, whose convention speech featured a promise to "do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology," and whose daughter and son-in-law, both influential advisers, are supporters of LGBTQ rights—is bent on bringing back "the bad old days of ignorance and harassment, oppression and hiding who we are," as Streep implied in her HRC speech.

This eyebrow-raising hyperbole is accompanied by an equally off-putting self-righteousness, which slides easily into self-dramatization. Documentarian Ken Burns, who introduced Streep, preemptively minimized the risk she faces by talking about how awful the president is. "They're too scared of her to do anything," he said, "especially when she reminds us constantly when the emperors of the world have no clothes. They're too embarrassed to do anything but hide in their castles and tweet." But to hear Streep tell it, risking an insulting tweet from the president is an act of heroic defiance. "The whip of the executive," she said, "can through a Twitter feed lash and intimidate, punish and humiliate, delegitimize the press and imagined enemies with spasmodic irregularity and easily provoked predictability."

More than one side in this spat may be guilty of easily provoked predictability. Trump, who built a presidential campaign on his scorn for political correctness, needs hyperventilating critics like Streep, just as they need him.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Is it just my imagination, or is Meryl looking more like Hillary by the day? Is she intentionally trying to look like Hillary? She needs to join the Chairman Mao Pantsuit club and gain 100 pounds.

  • DiegoF||

    No one could hope to live up to her level of hype, but she really is very good. If there has to be a Hillary biopic in the near future, I'd want her to play her (probably not an unpopular opinion). But I think pretty much everyone knows that today's politicians will not get biopics that aren't utter shite until we have at least 50 years of distance and perspective under our belts. (Hollywood knows, and will not finance a theatrical release, though TV might.)

  • thrakkorzog||

    I doubt even 50 years is enough time for Hollywood to get around to doing an honest assessment of their heroes. It has been almost 50 years since the Hollywood blacklists, and we're still getting agitprop like Trumbo.

    I doubt the factors that cause Hollywood celebs to think they're the smartest people in the room are going to change any time soon.

  • DiegoF||

    It's been 57 years since Comrade Trumbo broke the Blacklist! (With one of my favorite films, Exodus, mind you.) A very fascinating and horrifying time in our history--the government reacted to the very real Communist spy threat with very real civil liberties violations. I think it's a very rich source of potential for dramatic material, and I hope there are as many works about it as possible! What was wrong with this particular one? I've never seen it.

  • DJF||

    I thought the Hollywood Blacklist was a private effort?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    the government reacted to the very real Communist spy threat with very real civil liberties violations

    What civil liberties violations would that be?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Loyalty oaths, jail terms, what more do you want? Oh, maybe in your world view every socialist and communist is committing treason, but that would not be a world of liberty, so fuck off slaver.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Slavers going after slavers is a beautiful thing to behold.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Slavers going after slavers is a beautiful thing to behold."

    Yeah man, watching Hitler and Stalin annihilate each other would have been way cool! Too bad America thought that it HAD to stick it's dick int here in WW II, in between those 2... I guess we were just a third set of slavers, actually... Just 3 different flavors of socialism, with America only slightly less bad than the other 2...

  • John Titor||

    Oh, maybe in your world view every socialist and communist is committing treason,

    Is this the world where we have post-USSR declassified KGB records and the Venona project showing a massive amount of treasonous behaviour by communists and socialists?

  • John Titor||

    That's not to say the methods used were the most effective or moral, but I don't think it's necessarily unfair to recognize the fact that yes, communists were regularly being used by the KGB in the United States, and that did warrant some kind of action.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I didn't ask whether the methods were effective, moral, or libertarian, or whether the concerns about communists were justified.

    I asked the simple question of what civil liberties (i.e., specific civil liberties under US law) were actually violated. As far as I can tell, Congress has the power to compel Americans to testify and to impose jail sentences if they refuse. They probably shouldn't have, but when they exercise it, it's not a violation of actual US civil liberties.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Treasonous by whose definition? By the same logic that says Dems are traitors when GOP holds power and vice versa?

    Treason against the Constitution has to involve actually trying to overthrow the Constitution, not just changing whose Top.Men are running things. Changing the Constitution by amendments, or changing laws, or changing Top.Men, is not treason.

    If you think communism itself was treason because of its collectivism at the point of a gun, then you must think that applies to every coercive government action, because it's only a difference in degree, not in kind.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Loyalty oaths, jail terms, what more do you want?

    AFAIK, the oaths and jail terms were related to Congressional testimony. In what way are those a violation of civil liberties?

    but that would not be a world of liberty

    Well, this may come as a surprise to you, but 1950's America was not a country run on libertarian principles. So, the question remains: what actual civil liberties were violated?

    so fuck off slaver

    Ah, yes, go ahead, insult libertarians for asking a simple question, namely in what ways HUAC violated actual, existing US civil liberties. The question wasn't rhetorical, I'd genuinely like a legally reasonable answer.

    Obviously, not only are you too ignorant to answer the question I asked, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between "how did this violate civil liberties" and "how did this violate libertarian principles". So, to save yourself further embarrassment, I suggest you just STFU in the future.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Seems like two sides talking past each other 'cause each is using different definitions of "civil liberties".

    One side using a general, libertarian-philosophy based definition.

    The other using a strict legalistic definition.

    So one side asks for examples, the other gives them, but the first side doesn't see those as examples because they're using differing definitions. So both sides get angry and lash out at the other.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    One side using a general, libertarian-philosophy based definition.

    Really? In hat way are "loyalty oaths" and "jail terms" per se incompatible with any libertarian definition of civil liberties?

    Scarecrow was virtue signaling and babbling incoherently.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's been pointed out that Oscar winning films tend to be about the artistic process. Hollywood loves movies about hollywood because self congratulation is right up their alley. Look for "La La Land" to win best picture and best directory this year.

    Hey, Meryl, there's a reason people didn't get your joke. It's because it wasn't a joke, it was condescension from someone who thinks things are hard while taking a swipe at blue-collar workers. Your industry is a money-making industry that is actually not all that creative. That's why Total Recall got a remake, and Independence Day got a sequel, and The Magnificent 7 got a remake, and there's 8 fucking Fast and Furious movies. That's your industry, lady, so don't pretend like it's some higher calling.

  • Ted S.||

    Ricardo Cortez was the ultimate Sam Spade.

  • Voros McCracken||

    Hell, the original Magnificent 7 was a remake.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Kurosawa did it best.

  • ||

    And how many Ocean's 11 again? I lost count.

    That's REAL ART man.

  • Shatterface||

    It's a shame Streep's political convictions didn't prevent her from starring in the Thatcher hagiography The Iron Lady.

  • GILMORE™||

    is Meryl looking more like Hillary by the day?

    I smell made-for-tv-movie on the way

  • Domestic Dissident||

    That's probably what Elizabeth Nolan Brown willl look like in about 30 years or so. Maybe Lizzie can get a pink pantsuit to match her pink pussy hat.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Stay classy, Mikey.

  • ||

    "It's embarrassing and terrifying to put the target on your forehead," she said, "and it sets you up for all sorts of troll attacks and armies of brownshirt bots and worse"

    Troll attacks! Oh noes!

    Armies of brownshirt bots? Is she scared of the leftist rioters? Does she even know what any of this bullshit means?

    Really, people who spend most of their life pretending, should just continue doing so and then keep their mouth shut in order to only be thought of as a fool.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Really, people who spend most of their life pretending, should just continue doing so and then keep their mouth shut in order to only be thought of as a fool.

    That life of pretending made her millions, so she is doing something right.

  • ||

    And that something right included not talking about things, like politics, that she is completely ignorant of. She has no real idea just how out of touch with every day people she really is and she's doing herself no favors. There really is no upside here.

  • ||

    Anyway, what happened to the Crusty we all know and love? You're not supposed to be defending the shrill harpy, you're just supposed to say 'would', or 'still would'. You're ruining the chat room!

  • C. Anacreon||

    About 25 years ago, I dated a woman who looked a lot like the Meryl Streep of 25 years ago. So many of my friends would say, "you're a lucky guy, she looks a lot like Meryl Streep."

    It was actually the thing about her I liked the least, as I never found Meryl Streep all that attractive. I liked this girl because she was funny as hell. When that started not being enough, as can happen in relationships, her looking like Meryl Streep was certainly not a reason for me to try to keep things going, and we parted ways.

  • Lord_at_War||

    Would!

    All Ms Streep is required to do is use her unparalleled acting talents to convince me that my dick is the biggest she has ever seen...

  • The Grinch||

    She's pretending to be a person with something intelligent to say, she just doesn't realize she's acting (poorly).

  • ||

    I suggest that she stick to the scripts.

  • mr simple||

    She is. When has there been a slightly political movie that was well recieved that wasn't self-congratulatory and over the top leftist fantasy? I'm sure her "speeches" are well received by 95% of Hollywood.

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    Well then she needs a better director.

  • C. Anacreon||

    she just doesn't realize she's acting (poorly)

    And now she's acting happy,
    Inside her handsome home,
    Me, I'm flying in my taxi,
    Taking tips, and getting stoned.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    That is the last time I post links in a soon-to-be dead thread.

  • ||

    No one cares about Nazi tennis anyway.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    But it's funny!

  • Lee picked the wrong week....||

    You're the worst.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Reason needs a life indicator for each article that shows which threads are currently alive.

  • lap83||

    But when ARE threads alive? When they're conceived? When the female writer says it is? I'm sure we can just debate it and come to agreement that way

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    LOL...don't you dare start an abortion thread here. Besides, these threads is worn.

  • Lord_at_War||

    What is this?

    I will choose to corpse-fuck any thread I want on my own terms!

    Are you not libertarian?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Was there really a need to include a swipe at Trump in this article? The woman is insufferable. If she'd gotten up at the Golden Globes and bloviated about me the way she did about Trump, I would have called her a lot worse than "overrated."

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Where was the "swipe?"

  • Jerryskids||

    They deliberately take a swipe at Trump every time they fail to capitalize the personal pronoun used to refer to Him and His policies and anything He says.

  • DiegoF||

    There was a small one, in which Sullum's illustration of Trump's "crude bullying" of a professional actress (one of the industry's most powerful and lauded) consisted in calling her overrated. (Personally I don't particularly think it would be either less or more appropriate for the guy who's supposed to be running the U.S. Executive to respond to a Golden Globes speech with "logical arguments" as opposed to "ad hominem" ones.)

    The point--that everyone from obscure neo-Nazis to catty gay British performance artists to our nation's most powerful politician has been benefiting from a left that is either idiotic and sincere or savvy self-promoting symbionts themselves--could have been made a bit more elegantly.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Calling what Trump does crude bullying may have been a swipe, but it's at least true, unlike their characterization of him as a massive homophobe.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Yes. Yes there was.

  • Jerryskids||

    "If we live through this precarious moment," Streep said, "if his catastrophic instinct to retaliate doesn't lead us to nuclear winter, we will have much to thank our current leader for. He will have woken us up to how fragile freedom is. His whisperers will have alerted us to potential flaws in the balance of power in government. To how we have relied on the goodwill and selflessness of most previous occupants of the Oval Office."

    Is she saying "imagine the power you're advocating in the hands of your worst enemy" or "we need to redouble our efforts to make sure only good progressives ever again get elected"? When she speaks of "the flaw in the balance of power in government" does she mean "the rubes who are just too stupid to know what's for their own good are still allowed to vote anyway"?

  • DiegoF||

    Do you think even she knows? Jesus Christ, why parse her that closely? This ain't exactly Akhil Amar we're picking apart here.

    She is not really a Prime Minister. That was just a movie.

  • Ted S.||

    No; like Florence Foster Jenkins, she's gone insane from the syphilis.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The "nuclear winter" line was probably the dumbest thing she said, since her preferred candidate wanted war with Russia, and said so during a debate.

  • DenverJ||

    Do you have any evidence that Trump " would do the same against LGBT if he thought he could get away with it"?
    No, of course not, because there is none. Fucking libtards. Just because Trump got elected on the Republican ticket doesn't mean he's Pat Robertson. Hell, if the Democrats hadn't been taken over by the far left crazies, Trump would be a Democrat.
    Now, shut up and go away, the adults are talking.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Trump is trying to incite new wars and witch hunts - against illegals or muslims or blacks doesn't really matter.

    Enforcing the law against illegals isn't a "witch hunt". Neither is keeping uneducated, unskilled third world Muslims out of the country.

    He would do the same against LGBT if he thought he could get away with it.

    Bullshit.

    Streep is right (and brave) to protest it.

    Streep is an aging airhead who is looking for relevance now that heterosexual males are less and less interested in her boobs and butt.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The risk of nuclear war increased dramatically under Obmama. Not sure he could have done much about it. What has increased under Trump is the probability that if we or our allies are attacked with nuclear weapons, we might actually shoot back.

    Also, please calm down about nuclear war. Only two cities have ever beenbombed with nuclear weapons, and both of them were inhabited and running fine within the decade. You can do more permanent damage to a city by electing it a Liberal Mayor and Council.

  • Sevo||

    Suggest ignoring this piece of shit.

  • The Grinch||

    He's not interested in discussion, only in bad faith arguments for attention's sake. Don't bother.

  • ||

    Shreek's either off his meds, or he's on a binge. RIght now, he thinks he's logged in as AddictionMyth.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "You can do more permanent damage to a city by electing it a Liberal Mayor and Council."

    Good plot to a movie might be Russia actually hacking the elections. Just local ones. And appointing crazed, moralistic, over-regulating types into the local governments of key American infrastructure cities.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The risk of nuclear war increased drastically under Trump.

    No evidence of that. In fact making nice with Putin decreases the risk of nuclear war.

    Clinton had a serious warboner, and so did Obama.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    The risk of war is lower with Trump than Hillary. Hillary is a neocon, Trump hasn't gone full loon appointing neocons, actually some of the opposite.

  • straffinrun||

    This article isn't fresh at all. You might even say it's crusty.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Are you saying those two things are antonyms? How does that explain Crusty always being accused of being fresh with the ladies?

  • straffinrun||

    To how we have relied on the goodwill and selflessness of most previous occupants of the Oval Office."

    What's this "we" shit? Oh, right. I wasn't there, so she's probably right to use "we".

  • Sevo||

    "The occasion was a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gala at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan, where Streep received a National Ally for Equality Award."

    Hey, lefty "Participation Trophies"; she hit the ball off the T!

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Look dirty bag, it takes guts to face off against human rights abusers at a place as dangerous as the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan !

  • C. Anacreon||

    Do you know what the craziest thing is about the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan?

    They don't have a Waldorf salad on their menu. Yeah, the salad named after the hotel.

  • IceTrey||

    Since when did actors become the cultured elite? The drug culture elite maybe.

  • ipsum||

    She might as well be wearing a TRUMP in 2020 T-Shirt.

  • ||

    ^this^

    These people really have no idea just how out of touch with working class America, they really are. They keep this up and the entire middle of the country is going to be red for the next 2 decades.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I tend to just ignore anything that comes out of a perfomer's mouth other than a performance. I love Meryl Streep. I have friends who say the same stuff, but they acknowledge it's just their feelings about Trump when they talk like that, and if you call them out on belittling people who voted for Trump when they don't actually know anyone who has, they have the good sense to admit that it was only a rant among friends, who hopefully should understand. (And I do.) Streep's problem is that her rant among friends is on a much bigger platform where it is heard by strangers, yet isn't at all crafted for an audience.

  • straffinrun||

    None of it is real. Plastic celebrities signaling righteousness despite not having a clue about anything outside of acting. Plastic politicians projecting crafted images to fake journalists sitting at glass tables with CG backgrounds to a population eager to hear what will make them feel something in their dying souls. And I'm one of them. It's a shitshow all around.

  • DiegoF||

    "It's embarrassing and terrifying to put the target on your forehead," she said, "and it sets you up for all sorts of troll attacks and armies of brownshirt bots and worse"

    Why would you send a bot after a specific user like Meryl Streep? Wouldn't it be easier to just harass her manually, if that's your bag? Set me straight, tech-savvy commenters!

  • ||

    The Great Orange Trumpallo is loose! Someone gonna get schlonged!

    I don't think that there is anyone who can honestly say that Trump is not great for entertainment value.

  • Sevo||

    I saved this link to Piers Morgan's response to her; it's appropriate:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ation.html

  • ||

    What has happened to Piers? Last I remember him, he was mouthy prancing progtard whining about Murikans having guns.

  • Kivlor||

    I don't think he's changed. He's just friends with Trump and so he's been defending his buddy. It has certainly been an entertaining to see the different rhetoric, aimed at what I would have previously thought to be his fellow travellers though.

    Part of it is that he appears to actually believe in democracy and gracious losing. Look at his Brexit response--he was dead opposed to Brexit but seems to think the defeated Remain camp needs to shut up and let it play out.

  • ||

    Well, at least some actors occasionally say something that makes sense. Take this for example, even though it's a line from a movie:

    How do you write women so well?

    I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.

    /why there are no female libertarians

  • straffinrun||

    I think people who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    That was a great line even though I don't believe it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Yes, of course it was a joke, but it was a joke at the expense of the uncultured rubes Streep and her friends seem to imagine when they think of Trump voters.

    "It isn't helpful to make it us versus them," Streep acknowledged on Saturday. But by continuing to portray herself and her privileged social circle as the valiant resistance against everything Trump represents, she only reinforced a Manichean view in which wealthy celebrities (except for Trump) risk everything to defend civilization against the encroaching darkness."

    If being an elitist is wrong, they don't want to be right.

    Being an elitist isn't a mistake that progressives can avoid if only they change their attitudes. Stripped of its elitism, progressiveness has no meaning.

    Being progressive is about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the common good. This cannot exist without elitists to tell us what the common good is and elitists to force the rest of us to make sacrifices.

    Progressive without elitism is dead.

  • josh||

    i had it explained to me that "liberal" is a punch line, or rather a label that people use when they want to pretend to be enlightened. but "progressive" is actual enlightenment. all well meaning people and accomplished leaders are/were all committed progressives. society needs progressivism like the french needed the normandy invasion.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's ironic, because liberal is a far superior word in terms of evoking meaning: it suggests a principle, freedom.

    Progressive, however, is meaningless; it just means going forward, but says nothing (or just assumes) what direction is forward. And of course, every ideology think it is going forward. The word 'progressive ' is meaningless in itself.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Elitism isn't wrong. If I'm sick, the opinion of a trained doctor with years of experience and some random rube who watches The Doctors every day are not equally valuable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Elitism is always wrong when it pretends that elitists know the personal qualitative preferences of individuals better than they know their own personal preferences.

    We all have a PhD in our own qualitative preferences, and there is no progressive goal that doesn't have a qualitative aspect. In that way, they're wrong about everything.

    P.S. Incidentally, one of the reasons markets always outperform the competition is because markets allow individuals to represent their own qualitative preferences like no other system can.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    That's not elitism. Elitism is when the same doctor simply starts treating you without explaining to you what he is doing or asking you whether that's the treatment you want, because he believes that you are too stupid to make that decision for yourself.

  • MarkLastname||

    The problem is most purported elitists are more like shamans than doctors.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd say the problem is that elitists imagine they can make qualitative judgements for other people better than other people can for themselves.

    For instance, I have a qualitative preference for freedom. Even IF IF IF banning guns honestly, scientifically, and truthfully meant less violent crime, I'd still prefer freedom anyway.

    Elitism has no rational response to that. They simply imagine that their own qualitative preferences are superior to those of other people. That assumption has no basis in reality.

    And that's just one issue. Are there any issues without an important qualitative component? I don't think so.

  • MarkLastname||

    You should read John Henry III (great name)'s 'In Defense of Elitism.' Basically it attacks what he perceives to be as the leftist notion of equality as equality of outcome and a pathological desire to kneecap smart, productive people for the sake of 'equality.' Call it John Galtesque elitism maybe.

    Henry was (he died unfortunately rather young) a sort of progressive mugged by reality.

    The point being that there is both a leftist, technocratic definition of elitism and also a classical liberal, individualistic definition.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's William Henry III who wrote it, my mistake.

    Regardless, definitely a good name for an elitist.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    You don't understand what elitism is, clearly. If I get a diagnosis from a doctor, I'm free to get a second opinion. If those opinions differ, I'm free to make the decision about which diagnosis or treatment I think is most proper. I'm still deferring to a medical professional because I'm not one, but I'm going to ask them to back their claims up with evidence and convince me that they're right.

    Elitism is the doctor diagnosing me and then not telling me what it is, just doing what's best for me without letting me seek other options. Elitism is assuming that I'm a hopeless rube if I just want to get a second opinion. Elitism is him deciding I can't make any informed medical decisions for myself.

    Elitism is also assuming you're better than someone because you like avant-garde films and I just like a good cohesive narrative. Sure, I can recognize that maybe there's something special about the editing or the cinematography, but if your story is abstract, I'm checking out before the second act and yes, I'll go watch football or basketball or soccer instead. The fact that I might prefer those doesn't make Meryl Streep any better or more cultured than me.

  • DenverJ||

    Yet, you still seem to be able to post using another handle, so, yeah, terrifying that one of your socks was banned from commenting on a private website. Why, it's like you're Anne Frank or something!
    You and Meryl should get together and tell each other stories of your heroism.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    "for no reason."

    You should step back and examine your assumptions.

  • GSL in E||

    I can't be the only person who thinks Streep is overrated as an actress. Not that she hasn't done great work in the past, but I feel like she's followed the Nicholson/Pacino path of playing herself (rather than a unique character) in every film she's in lately.

  • DJF||

    Anytime I have seen Meryl Streep on the screen I have said, "Hey there is Meryl Streep". So if she was trying to pretend she was someone else it did not work for me

  • MarkLastname||

    I've seen a few movies where only afterward did I realize a character was played by Gary Oldman.

    Oldman is one of the bes actors alive today. It can't be said enough. I can't believe Streep has an Oscar and he doesn't. Pathetic.

  • steedamike||

    I think this is sort classical vs. method acting. I believe a classical actor typically appears to play them self more, but I'm really not sure.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She totally rocks crappy fake accents.

  • DJF||

    So has Meryl Streep critized her buddy Roman Polanski for his admitted drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Yep, if we are - rightly - going to protest and resist misogynistic attitudes would out right rape of a minor be something you might mention?

    Maybe even call attention to those that throw gays off buildings and perform clitorodectomies on little girls as bad things?

  • Sevo||

    See the Piers Morgan link above; she gave him a standing O a year or two ago. Trump supposedly talking trash is 'way worse than child rape!

  • mtrueman||

    Thanks for the update on Streep. I look forward to learning more about other celebrities, and not just their opinions on Trump, either.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    ROFLMAO.

  • josh||

    "and it sets you up for all sorts of troll attacks and armies of brownshirt bots and worse"

    she forgot legitimate criticism. there's also that.

    in her defense, i'm wearing a brown shirt, but that's just because it highlights my eyes and i don't have anything else clean at the moment.

  • DJF||

    I have tried to wear Jackboots but they make my feet sweat.

  • MarkLastname||

    I'm wearing one too, mainly so I can save money on toilet paper...

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Block Yomomma is taking the unprecedented step of setting up a shadow government from an underground command post bunker two miles from the White House where he will help George Soros command their 30,000 member strong Brownshirt army.

  • GILMORE™||

    I think your talent is wasted on print. you should really be working in Comic-Books. You come up with such great "super-villain" names

  • Slammer||

    Looks like Sophie's made her choice, and she'll have to live with it.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    "...we have relied on the goodwill and selflessness of most previous occupants of the Oval Office."

    Jesus Christ, people actually believe that?

    I thought a minimal level of narcissism and self interest far exceeding that of your average person has been regarded by anyone with more than two brain cells clanging together as an established prerequisite for anybody who even entertains the idea of running for POTUS.

    Why is it so many progressives believe that self-interest suddenly becomes a non-factor when one is aspiring to be or placed in a position of power over others by government fiat?

  • HTuttle||

    Meryl Streep is set to star in Polanski's new movie How to Drug and Rape An Underaged Girl and Get Away With It.
    Meryl: I am so HONORED to Star in such an instructional movie! I could stand here clapping ALL DAY!

  • BigW||

    I would think this was a joke but modern progressives are so contemptible, it might not be.

  • C. Anacreon||

    If they made that movie, Polanski would be portrayed as an innocent victim who was exploited by a predatory 13-year-old girl, whose parents were Republicans.

  • snortlilac@icloud.com||

    Didn't they make that movie already? If my memory serves me correctly, I remember watching it several times the last few years. But what do I know? I'm wearing a brown shirt, but that's only because all of my belongings have been in storage since I was forced to sell my apartment three years ago.

  • ||

    "decided she was "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood," thereby illustrating her point that the blowhard billionaire prefers ad hominem attacks to logical argument. "

    How do you retort with a logical argument against stupidity? If she came from a position of principles then I'd get it and would reject Trump outright. Except, Streep engaged in an emotional partisan screed with no basis in argument. It's just her spreading her twat and pissing into the wind.

    Seriously, how do you respond to such emotional nonsense? I face people like this every once in a while and the idea of bringing them to '0 degrees' is daunting they're intellectual alignment is so off.

    I bet you plenty of people agree with Trump - including those who while they may not agree with the assertion actually like him telling Hollywood to fuck off. Yeah he's thin-skinned but maybe he's doing it on purpose I don't know. But Obama was pretty sensitive himself too. So...

    Forget Meryl Streep and her ilk. They're really irrelevant and intellectually stunted. They offer squat to the intellectual conversation.

    So forgive me if I don't give a single rat's ass shit Trump offended her and her colleagues.

  • Clegg||

    It's throw-away articles like that put Reason on by B-list.

  • BigW||

    Damn, its depressing that since I never ever watch any for Steep's movies, its not really effective for me to boycott her....

  • wareagle||

    Oscars don't jump in your lap; you have to campaign for them and what better way than by virtue signaling.

    On a more serious note, when do we start to collectively shun anyone using a nazi reference on another American?

  • JeremyR||

    Says the woman who was single handed responsible for spreading scurrilous anti-Dingo propaganda

  • MarkLastname||

    'Member when she told emperor Obama that he had no clothes?

  • XM||

    I saw LaLa Land recently and it only reinforced my opinion of Hollywood as a glorified dinner theater house with too much money on their hands.

    "You, a nobody jazz musician who was fired from a restaurant, just accepted a job that pays you a thousands dollars a week PLUS a cut of the ticket sales? How could you give up on your dream of having your own jazz club!"

    The lack of imagination and their unwillingness to even deviate SLIGHTLY from a formula or trope is just nothing less than breathtaking. These people literally think one way their entire lives and surround themselves with people who think just like them. They'll pay lip service to diversity but they'll take millions to "whitewash" minority roles. It's hilarious.

  • The Iconoclast||

    She meets make-believe hatred with pretend courage and congratulates herself for her pretend bravery as if she did anything but pander to people who think the same thing she thinks.

    It's a stupid self-sustaining shit-show that keeps going because "we" keep pressing the lever.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "If we live through this precarious moment," Streep said, "if his catastrophic instinct to retaliate...

    No hysteria there.

    Yep, Meryl you and your friends are probably going to be killed by Trumpenstaffel any day now.

    The only real question is whether America will collectively cry or applaud it.

  • Rockabilly||

    So sad to see Meryl Streep support Hillary Clinton the vicious war monger.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    So, what are you saying? That Streep should either shut up or conduct her speech in a Sullumian approved fashion?

    To the extent that Streep is congratulating herself, there is someone who self-congratulates better than anyone, among the many things that he does better than anyone else.

    The President is a deal maker. If Streep is playing right into his hands, isn't that just part and parcel of the good-deal making process? Sullum and and other Trump supporters don't want the President losing to Streep in the self-congratulation deal, do they?

  • Mike Schmidt||

    She's starting to remind me of Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins during the G.W. years. They were at every award show explaining how Bush was censoring them and not letting them talk....on national television...in front of millions of viewers...

  • Rockabilly||

  • MikeP2||

    She is a pretentious, self-important loon ensconced in a far left echo chamber.

  • simplybe||

    Why do you waste good ink on what a celebrity does or says. In my 70 years I have watched these IDOLS of the American public and at worst they are serial adulters, pedophiles and drug addicts. At best they are some of the worst hippocrites that you can find. They cry about poverty while living in thier multimillion dollar homes. They run around the world in private jets all the while complaining about pollution and fossil fuels. They go to remote countries so they can come home and parade thier new designer babies while orphanages here are overflowing. I will grant that they like myself have a right to thier opinions but when you fall all over yourselves giving life to thier every muttered word you are doing the people of this country a great disservice.

  • Jake Stone||

    Man, Reason has been veering way too far to the leftist recently, but I still really enjoy their smack-downs of smug-as-shit SJWs/Leftists/Celebrities who can't F*CKING LET IT GO THAT TRUMP WON. Delicious.

  • ||

    I liked her in Harvard Beats Yale 31-31 where she played a young coed named Meryl Streep who was all over a lineman's dick. Two thumbs.

  • Darth Soros||

    What a brave lady! Criticizing Trump will no doubt hurt her career in that bastion of Republicanism, Hollywood. Ms. Streep is a regular Joan of Arc. Dare to struggle, dare to win, Meryl!

  • sudon't||

    Whatever you think of Streep's remarks, I think Sullum is overlooking what actually happens to people, especially women, who become the focus of Trump's tweets. Megan Kelly describes, not just an endless stream of threats and filth online, but people showing up on her doorstep, and threatening her in public while with her children. Certain rappers, under other presidents, have described the intense pressure one feels when the President of the United States focuses his ire upon you. With Trump, it's much worse because an army of Trump supporters also turn their attention to you.
    So, while it may be easy to stand up and make remarks in front of people who agree with you, it's no joke to get Trump's bile turned your way.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online