Have Celebrities Hijacked American Diplomacy?
Congressional lawmakers are understandably miffed about the latest Cuban holiday of international superstars Beyonce and Jay-Z, who spent the weekend in Havana celebrating their fifth wedding anniversary accompanied by paparazzi, bodyguards and fans. While the rest of America at least tacitly observes the trade and cultural embargo against Cuba, members of the celebrity elite apparently feel no such need. And it’s not just the Cuban holiday of Beyonce and Jay-Z –- last month, Dennis Rodman was hanging out at the basketball court with nuclear-mad North Korean dictator Kim Jong Eun before jetting off to Rome to catch the latest Vatican proceedings for his reality show. At a time when we know that our political process is deeply tainted by deep-pocketed donors, is it possible that our diplomatic process is being tainted in a similar way?
In a recent TED Talk ("We the People, and the Republic We Must Reclaim"), Lawrence Lessig laid out all the ways that the U.S. political system has been corrupted by the political contributions of the financial elite. It’s a warped system that Lessig refers to as "Lesterland" -- a bizarro world where only the top 0.05% (the "Lesters") of the population get to have a say in who the winning political candidates will be. In the last election cycle, Lessig points out, a grand total of 132 Americans were responsible for 60% of all the Super PAC money sloshing around out there. That's a tiny group of Americans who's determining the future of our nation.
Unfortunately, that same bizarro system that has resulted in "Lesterland" seems to be corrupting our foreign policy as well. Money now matters more than ever before. Wasn't there a time when we prepared our budding foreign statesmen for service by sending them to a place like Harvard's Kennedy School of Government or Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School? Being a statesman was perceived to be a higher calling, something you did for your country. Now, what happens? We send our Celebrity A-listers (and B-listers and C-listers) off to diplomatic hot spots. You suddenly have Dennis Rodman playing a role in how North Korea's nuclear program plays out in Asia.
And that's not all. Think of the way we dole out ambassadorships these days. They’re basically a perk for favors rendered and money tendered, more so than at any time in recent memory. As a result, you have the recent high-profile appointment of Caroline Kennedy as the Ambassador to Japan. Before that, you had the rumors of Anna Wintour being appointed as the next Ambassador to Great Britain. If you've raised a lot of money in a presidential campaign, you can assume that you're suddenly in the running for an ambassador job somewhere in the world.
Not there’s anything wrong with this, as long as celebrities at least make the pretense of supporting the official American position on any diplomatic issue. Over the past 30 years, there has been a long-term evolution toward "celebrity diplomacy," in which rock stars and actors take on the functionality and trappings of representatives from the U.S. State Department. It’s one thing for them to cavort around Africa, adopting children and pressing for solutions to long-standing health and human rights problems. It’s another thing entirely for them to muck up the diplomatic works by explicitly contravening against expressed U.S. interests – whether it's Dennis Rodman in North Korea or Beyonce and Jay-Z in Cuba.
Have celebrities really hijacked the diplomatic process? Certainly, there's no doubt that money matters more than ever. When Hollywood actors, singers and athletes are also moguls with their own brands to promote, it's a question of whether the cultural 1% are traveling abroad for our nation's benefit - or for the benefit of their own pocketbooks. It’s OK for Beyonce and Jay-Z to hang out at the White House after the inauguration, but it’s not OK for Beyonce and Jay-Z to make the quick trip to Havana to showcase Cuban tourism and bolster the Castros. At a time when politically-powerful fundraisers now have a better chance of becoming a foreign ambassador than do our nation's best and brightest, can there really be any doubt that the 1% has changed forever the way America interacts with the rest of the world?
image: Beyonce and Jay-Z / Wikimedia Commons
Malcolm Gladwell teaches "Get over yourself and get to work" for Big Think Edge.
- Learn to recognize failure and know the big difference between panicking and choking.
- At Big Think Edge, Malcolm Gladwell teaches how to check your inner critic and get clear on what failure is.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
The 21st century is experiencing an Asianization of politics, business, and culture.
- Our theories about the world, even about history or the geopolitics of the present, tend to be shaped by Anglo perspectives of the Western industrial democracies, particularly those in the United States and the United Kingdom.
- The West, however, is not united. Canada, for instance, acts in many ways that are not in line with American or British policies, particularly in regard to populism. Even if it were united, though, it would not represent most of the world's population.
- European ideas, such as parliamentary democracy and civil service, spread across the world in the 19th century. In the 20th century, American values such as entrepreneurialism went global. In the 21st century, however, what we're seeing now is an Asianization — an Asian confidence that they can determine their own political systems, their own models, and adapt to their own circumstances.
Research has shown that men today have less testosterone than they used to. What's happening?
- Several studies have confirmed that testosterone counts in men are lower than what they used to be just a few decades ago.
- While most men still have perfectly healthy testosterone levels, its reduction puts men at risk for many negative health outcomes.
- The cause of this drop in testosterone isn't entirely clear, but evidence suggests that it is a multifaceted result of modern, industrialized life.
Can sensitive coral reefs survive another human generation?
- Coral reefs may not be able to survive another human decade because of the environmental stress we have placed on them, says author David Wallace-Wells. He posits that without meaningful changes to policies, the trend of them dying out, even in light of recent advances, will continue.
- The World Wildlife Fund says that 60 percent of all vertebrate mammals have died since just 1970. On top of this, recent studies suggest that insect populations may have fallen by as much as 75 percent over the last few decades.
- If it were not for our oceans, the planet would probably be already several degrees warmer than it is today due to the emissions we've expelled into the atmosphere.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.