Hollywood takes a lot of abuse for their obviously one sided view of politics. While there are exceptions, most of what Hollywood celebrities support shows a liberal bias. This is not an anti-Hollywood statement, it is obvious to anyone that cares to notice.
To understand this bias, consider what is required to be successful as an actor. An actor is able to delve into the character of their part, and become so involved with that character that they can convince us, and themselves, that they are that imaginary person. This skill is so strong they frequently fall in love with the co-star that plays the character's lover.
Skillful actors see positive results instantly from commitment to a role. If they believe something, so does their audience, and the plot will develop as planned.
These Actors see a problem, they want a solution, so they act to bring immediate relief to the problem. This process is part of what they are; it should not be a surprise.
Life unfortunately is not scripted. The majority of the time a quick fix is best only in the short term, in the long run it may be disastrous. Hollywood celebrities are not trained or constituted for long range planning, - they believe and act on a belief and good things should happen.
If their beliefs are followed, frequently good things do happen, but only in the short term.
John M. Keynes, was an economist that focused on the short term (and caused much of our current financial danger). Keynes expressed the desire to ignore consequences beyond the immediate. He said something to the effect "In the long run we are all dead."
Think of a quick fix as putting pain killer and a band aid on an open wound on a foot. - It looks ok and feels better, quick.
The long term option involves unpleasant things like cleaning the wound and putting in stitches, ouch.
The longer term treatment may prevent infection, and possible loss of the foot, - it is therefore better to ignore the "feel good" short term action. Far to often rotting political dogma is made to appear wholesome by using celebrity seasoning.
Let's look at a political application, - poverty.
Even though the money the government takes from us for food stamps has only a small percentage passed through to the poor after bureaucratic expenses, it still feels good to support food stamps. We are helping the poor, short term.
There is a big difference between poor and broke.
Poor is an attitude and a life style.
Broke is a temporary condition that in a free economy can be rectified by action.
If you give money to a poor person, they will take it and ask for more next week. Bureaucrats want to keep people poor so the impoverished are kept dependent. The incumbents can control votes by giving the poor more of your money next week.
The broke just need opportunity. Not from the government, but from free markets. It may take a while, this is a long term solution, but they will end up as successful as they wish.
Give a broke person a regular handout, and you can create a poor person.
Have you ever wondered why there are as many that receive government help in America today as back in the thirties? This after all the supposed wars on poverty?
It is simple, those that went broke in the thirties were made poor by short term, short sighted government policies. America lived without massive government short term fixes for the broke from 1776 to 1932. From the classless America of our forefathers we have created a nation filled with a dependent poor class; - but at least America is still not yet moribund like Europe.
Hollywood wants to help. The type of help they offer is unfortunately the sort that gives to the broke, making them poor. It is short term and emotionally satisfying; - it is also destructive.
If you want to read a better writer on this subject than myself, - Click Here.