"None of us is as smart as all of us."

ﾠﾠTrue or false? I'll look at that in a minute. First, Frank asked me where I got the idea that the upper-levels of Hollywood were less liberal than lower down. That's not an exquisite rephrasing, so please pardon me--I'm not trying to play games, it's just first thing in the morning.

I claim no scientific data. From the time of my first involvement in Hollywood more than forty years ago that the office workers in this town were about the same as office workers in any other job I'd had--if maybe a hair giddier about working in "the industry." But on issues like Civil Rights, marijuana, the Vietnam war, etc.--not much difference. As I got to know executives at higher levels at CBS, Universal, and so forth, it seemed to me that the artists and the management were two different groups when it came to their politics, with the actors, writers and directors shading much more to the "Left" and the higher-ups seeming to become more Right on a number of issues. Now, those executives seemed to me to be slightly less "Right" than executives with comparable power in other industries...but this is all impression. Listening to political conversations, having those conversations, looking at bumper stickers and political buttons, etc.

ﾠMy former agent, was a Conservative Republican (and an extraordinarily good guy) and sometimes bemoaned the dominance of Liberal POV in Hollywood, especially after 9/11, when he was afraid that many of his liberal friends "just didn't get it" about the danger of radical Islam. we had conversations in which he spoke of his perspective, and it was fairly similar to my own.

ﾠALL of this is subjective, but wherever I've gone in America, artists lean Left. And those entrenched in large organizations seem to lean Right more than average. Actors and writers tend to value their union--most of them, even successful ones, are middle-class IF THEY'RE LUCKY, and are very familiar with studios screwing artists over if they can--that for all but a few, the power of collective bargaining means the difference between getting totally screwed by the studios, and having a decent living. That definitely skews them to the Left. During those same strike deliberations, the execs are defending a very different perspective, and that would SEEM to put them on the road to leaning Right.

ﾠThese impressions have never really changed over the decades, but again, I could be wrong.

#

"None of us is as smart as all of us." Well, yes. Bobby Fischer would be a better choice to play chess than a hundred members of the local chess club. So I see that point. However, it has to be balanced with the opposite perspective: smart people are usually just exactly smart enough to screw themselves up, especially if they have so much faith in their intelligence that they think it can solve all their problems, or give them a more profoundly accurate vision of reality. Need I mention how Bobby Fischer ended up in life? Chess is an artificial game--it is not reality. When it comes to navigating the waters of our actual reality, I would look at what the very smartest people say...and then look at what the consensus of the "average" says...and then, usually, do what both sets agree upon.

If there is a radical thought coming from some genius somewhere, I would want to test it small-scale in the real world first. I'd also like to take a look at the "genius" and try to get some sense of whether that genius is actually calibrated for the real world, and not just an elaborate hallucination that he is able to dance around and, on the basis of brilliance, convince others that they should try it. I'm not a real "A priori" kind of guy when it comes right down to it.

ﾠSo I think that there are people who legitimately believe it is better for everyone if those at the top get the largest breaks. And others who just want to hold onto as much of the goodies as possibles, but couch that greed in the language of "trickle-down." I don't know what the percentage is one way or the other, but I think that greed and dishonesty are pretty evenly distributed between groups. And if you give them an inch, they'll take seven hundred billion dollars. But then, there is also a force that would like to give all power to the government. Some feel that they will BE that government, and want the power. Others that they want a "Nanny State." But I've met very very few people who really want to be taken care of completely--at least between the ages of say 20 and 60. So the problem to me is, how do you cancel out the worst at both ends? Money is the greatest corrupting force in the world, I think, because it is power that is more liquid than any other kind. Education, political office, intelligence, military rank...none of these things can be passed to your children as easily as money. None can be used as secret bribes as easily. None increase even when hiding in the dark of a bank vault.

ﾠSo I look at the temptation to grab a fistful of money as more immediate and poisonous than the urge to ascend to public office and be Kingfish. So I think we need a bit more political power pulling at private industry than we need the idea of unregulated free market. You just aren't taking human greed into sufficient account.

ﾠGreed and fear...we want to develop a system that takes both of them into account--as well as honesty, courage, sacrifice, and wisdom.