Les (candidats) démocrates se battent pour le soutien ($) de Hollywood

La campagne présidentielle de 2008 aux USA sera exceptionnellement longue et exceptionnellement coûteuse, prévoient les spécialistes. On estime que la facture atteindra, évidemment pour la première fois, le milliard de dollars. Tout le monde est, par conséquent, à la chasse aux dollars.

Pour les démocrates, Hollywood est un très important soutien. Depuis quelques semaines, Obama et Clinton (Hillary) se déchirent pour tenter d’emporter ce soutien. Ils sont tous deux classés ‘libéraux’ (progressistes, — mais il s’agit d’une image) et Hollywood soutient les libéraux de cette trempe par intérêt structurel, intérêt corporatiste et intérêt d’image autant, sinon beaucoup plus que par conviction idéologique (même si la conviction idéologique existe). On comprend la remarque sur l’“intérêt structurel” lorsqu’on lit dans le texte de WSWS.org d’aujourd’hui cité plus longuement ci-dessous, une autre remarque concernant l’opposition de Hollywood à la droite chrétienne intégriste si puissante aujourd’hui aux USA : «The dominance of the Christian Right, for example, would not be helpful to those often attempting to market violence and sexual suggestiveness, nor would it accord with the temperaments and lifestyles of writers, directors, actors and musicians by and large.»

Cela signifie que Hollywood, lorsqu’il est considéré dans le contexte politique US, trouve sa vraie dimension dans la logique de l’argent et de l’intérêt professionnel. Quels que soient les talents et prouesses du cinéma américain, si souvent dorloté comme un art par les critiques cinématographiques français, il s’agit d’abord d’une “industrie” (“the movie industry”) parfaitement intégrée au système général.

Voici cet extrait du texte déjà signalé, qui expose quelques réalités significatives du cinéma considéré du point de vue de son poids politique, — c’est-à-dire, son poids financier et son poids de groupe de pression pour obtenir des avantages, et nullement un prétendu poids idéologique selon l’image romantique qu’on entretient.

«The stakes are high for the Democratic candidates. According to Eric Alterman in the September 2004 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, “During the 2000 election cycle, zip-code areas on average yielded slightly more than $35,000 in political contributions, while residents of Beverly Hills, 90210, ponied up slightly more than $6.2 million. In the same year Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, and Brentwood were each good for $1.7 million to $3.3 million.

»“In 2002 entertainment ranked first among all industries funding Democratic Party committees, and roughly 80 percent of the industry’s party contributions went to Democratic candidates and committees; just 20 percent went to the Republican Party. From 1989 up to the start of the current election cycle Hollywood had given the party nearly $100 million for federal elections alone — close to the $114 million Republicans received from their friends in the oil and gas industries. Together with organized labor and the trial bar, Hollywood is now one of the three pillars of the Democrats’ financial structure.”

»Figures released by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) suggest that the television, film and music industry contributed some $56 million to the two major parties during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, two-thirds of which (some $37 million) went to the Democrats. The entertainment industry ranked 11th in donations in 2004 and 2006 among the 80 industries analyzed by the CRP, down from 7th in 2002.

»The Hollywood elite is not a monolith. Film studio and entertainment industry executives, leaders of the handful of enormous conglomerates that largely determine what Americans and much of the world see on cinema and television screens and listen to on CD and radio, belong to the same financial-corporate oligarchy that has a stranglehold over every aspect of American life. These are multi-millionaires and billionaires who have a very large say in determining who should hold political office and protect their interests.

»The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the film industry has specific issues which it pursues with the politicians it helps bankroll, including “trade, copyright protection and free speech concerns.” The CRP continues, “While many of the big-name stars give mainly for ideological reasons, the corporate executives who run the industry take a more pragmatic view in dispensing their campaign dollars. Foreign trade—including trade with controversial countries such as China—is crucial to the industry’s long-term success, as entertainment has become one of the nation’s biggest exports.

» “A perennial concern of the industry is copyright protection, particularly as it concerns the practice of sharing music and video files via the Internet. The Motion Picture Association of America, whose members are fed up with the illegal distribution of movies via the Internet, has been a key player in the push to toughen anti-piracy laws.”

»The film industry executives lean toward the Democrats for cultural and political reasons. The success of their business in this day and age depends on a certain “permissiveness” in the social atmosphere. The dominance of the Christian Right, for example, would not be helpful to those often attempting to market violence and sexual suggestiveness, nor would it accord with the temperaments and lifestyles of writers, directors, actors and musicians by and large.

»The issues of foreign trade and anti-piracy are not small ones. The Democratic Party, which includes the trade union bureaucracy as one of its constituent elements, tends to be more sympathetic to protectionist and economic nationalist policies.

»In early February, a delegation from the film industry, including Clint Eastwood and Will Smith, appeared in Washington to lobby the new Democratic-controlled Congress, according to the New York Times, on behalf of “its agenda of fighting piracy, obtaining new tax advantages and reining in movie and television production from going abroad.”»

Mis en ligne le 24 février 2007 à 11H30