Feeling Very Conflicted While Watching the Golden Globes (*Stream of Conscience Alert*)

This is going to be the type of article that is a bit all over the place. It will zig just after a zag and seemingly contradict itself throughout. It is one of those articles that the author clearly (and in this case, admittedly) doesn’t entirely know where he is going when he sits down to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).

Watching last night’s Golden Globes was one of the more thought-provoking experiences I have had in a while.

Let me get my biases out in the open to start. I lean to the left when it comes to politics, and lean quite heavily in that direction. I grew up in the state of Vermont, went to college at the University of Vermont, and have worked in both the education and journalism fields during my adult life — you don’t survive that gauntlet without leaning left.

On Election Night 2016, I was both shocked and depressed that our country elected a man who I felt was both unqualified for the position of president and a leading cause of rupture rather than unity, to lead our country. However, after the initial shock wore off (or mostly wore off, I still find myself thinking the phrase, “President Donald Trump” sounds a little weird), I decided to “pop my bubble” so to speak. Living in your bubble was a buzzword (buzzphrase?) immediately following the election, when it became clear that the coastal cities of the United States were completely out of touch with a (near) majority of the country. That a man such as Donald Trump could be elected president seemed shocking to some, but it was perfectly reasonable to many, many others.

So I began my deep dive into the discourse of the right. I started following Republican leaders on Twitter, and downloading podcasts outside my little NPR and Slate bubble. Some of this discourse was not entirely new to me, as I spent two years in rural Northwest Minnesota, where I would frequently engage in political discussions with friends and acquaintances who had vastly different beliefs than my own. But that hadn’t gotten through to me, at least to the extent that the Trump victory didn’t still leave me in shock.

In the past couple of months, I have continued to increase my political empathy. I am still pro-choice, and I will always support higher taxes on the rich than any card-carrying Republican, but I can see some of the struggles with Obamacare and can understand the frustrations of many on the right who see the left as looking to turn each and every turn of phrase from a Republican into a “microaggression.” I can understand when those on the right roll their eyes after having been called “racist” for so long that when an actual bigot comes along (like a few of Trump’s cabinet appointees), it is like the boy who cried wolf. (While still acknowledging that we are far, far away from the post-racial type of nation that many on the right would like to believe.)

It is with this (hopefully) more balanced view that I watched last night’s Golden Globes — and boy was I conflicted. (Six paragraphs to get to the Globes, I told you this article would be a bit all over the place.) On the one hand, my liberal nature wanted to chuckle at Jimmy Fallon’s shots at Trump and the election. I wanted to cheer Meryl Streep for her using her speech to urge us all to stand against a man who many of us fear as a president.

But then I thought a little bit harder about that sentence I just wrote. “To urge us all,” and thought about who “us” really means in that sentence. It’s certainly not the 63 million people who voted for Trump.

With my newly-formed Twitter experience (pundits on both the left and right), the reaction to last night’s Golden Globes couldn’t have been more black and white. The left praising the stars of Hollywood, while the right stated, this is why they don’t watch award shows anymore (while clearly still watching them to tweet that they don’t watch them…).

And so that’s why I’m torn. Part of me feels that actors and actresses should: A) be able to speak their minds about beliefs they believe to be important; and B) use a stage as big as the Golden Globes to do so. But at the same time, when we are so divided as a country, it seems like the timing is poor, or at least the delivery is poor. And really divided may not be the right word for our country — clueless? Clueless as to how the other side thinks; clueless as to how to appropriately engage across the aisle.

For example, as great as Meryl Streep’s speech may have been, did it do a single thing other than get your most liberal friends to post the Huffington Post article about her speech on Facebook. It probably pissed off your friends on the right more than anything else. It didn’t find a narrative that could appeal to both sides, but rather entrenched each side further.

And so that’s why I’m torn, again. Yes, those in positions to be scene by millions should be free to speak on issues they believe to be important, but can’t we ask these people, some of the most talented people we have on the face on planet, to find a way to speak to both sides. Can’t we ask these actresses and actors who we cherish and put on a pedestal to be able to find words that find a home on both sides of the aisle. It may sound like an impossible task in the current political climate, but monumental tasks are what come with the bright lights of fame. With great power comes great responsibility.

So next time we gather as a nation to watch the stars of Hollywood join together to give each other awards (it’s only seven weeks until the Oscars), let’s ask a bit more of our leading women and men. Let’s ask them to find a way to speak to not just the 69 million who voted for Hilary, but the entire country, from sea to shining sea and, importantly, everywhere in between.