[Oprah isn't usually a relevant topic here at RK. But Oprah has thrust herself into politics in recent years. Now she promises to actively help Barack Obama. And it's been a very circuitous road toward finally helping a Democrat.]
Previously, Oprah claimed she stayed out of partisan politics. But she didn't. She just didn't endorse a candidate. There were implicit messages, however. A few years ago, I took Oprah to task here for:
1. Leading the nation in a national chest-beating and rant over Bill Clinton's affair, and thus delivering millions of viewers into the Ken Starr camp.
2. Making nice to George W. Bush before the 2000 election. She hosted Gore too, but Bush planted a big kisseepoo on her cheek and escaped serious questioning about his abysmal record in Texas. His tax cuts had produced a gaping hole in the budget, which he had to run home and try to fix that summer. Texas pollution was the worst in the nation. And his so-called "Texas Miracle" with the public schools was no miracle at all.
3. After 9-11, and upon many inflammatory articles and a book (Germs) by Judith Miller, hosting the now discredited NY Times reporter and her hysterical disinformation on the germ warfare threat. This set the groundwork for Americans to buy into the WMD charges of BUSHCO, support a war and give up our freedoms.
4. Adoringly guesting Condoleeza Rice. She too escaped serious questions, or skepticism, despite her frequent misleads of Americans on the war.
5. And a mere few days before the California recall, hosting her friend Maria Schriever and hubby A-R-N-O-L-D in a love-fest to the couple, and helping them steal a governorship.
Where politics is concerned, I argued in the Common Dreams article, despite her vast charities and many successes, watching Oprah could be "hazardous" to women's political health.
And given the appearance of a political dalliance rightward, and her possibly inadvertent success at election time, it's refreshing to learn that she now says she will help Barack Obama if he runs. Well, he's running, or rather exploring running, and I am waiting for Oprah's "balancing" act. It's Democrats' turn this time. And I'll live with my hyprocisy. Given how badly the GOP has served us these past six years, it's only fair.
Oprah's charities are extensive. And I admire her efforts more than I have time to address here. Her Katrina project is inspired. Her online gift registry for Katrina victims is creative. I admire her dual foci on both domestic and international poverty. Her Angel Network takes no overhead, so 100% of donations go to charity.
But there are times when she can exasperate. I am considerably less admiring of the materialism she fosters by creating the desire for high-end gadgets, expensive clothing, high-end decor, and makeovers. I'll come back to that in a moment. For we social scientists there's the fact that she misinforms about the role of self-esteem.
While research in social psychology offers stern rebuke "self-esteem theory" (i.e., there isn't significant evidence that trying to heighten it results in good outcomes), Oprah self-esteems onward, preaching self-love at every opportunity. But more self-love isn't what most people need. Research shows that we actually are, on average, high on self esteem (SE), and that even those with less are relatively high on SE. The profuse use of self esteem with kids can actually lead to depression. Many see through and don't trust such pandering, however well-intentioned. Still, the majority see ourselves as more talented, smarter, nicer, harder working than objective observation warrants. Most of us tend to exaggerate our "pros" and diminish our "cons." It's Garrison Keeler's Lake Wobegone in real life.
At the same time she preaches self-esteem, Oprah disses those who haven't had the same luck as she. It's true that her effort and talent have much to do with her success, but they are not the whole story. She conveniently and glibly acts as though even what most would call luck was due to her own actions. Everything happens for a reason, she thinks. Implicitly, she was destined to be a billionaire by virtue of -- her. Enter the iPOD episode.
Following Oprah's grand celebration upon the opening of her new leadership academy for girls in South Africa, she anticipated potential questions about why she built a school there and not in the US. Said Oprah:
I just became so frustrated with visiting inner city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you want to learn just isn't there...If you ask kids what they want or need, they will say an iPOD or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.Oh! She said more in a Newsweek interview and wrote more in her own magazine: As quick as you can say Bill Cosby, out of the critics' block came Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson here. However, I agree with Robinson, whose other columns I really like too. Said Robinson:
I was stunned last week to read a quote from her that was so...so totally un-Oprah.
In the stroke of an interview, Oprah seemed to diss American kids. Oprah is free to give wherever and to whomever she wishes. It's the generalizations about US kids I question.
Most people, kids or adults, either already have an iPOD or MP3 player, or want one. So what! I have one myself. And Oprah's given away MP3 players and other more expensive gadgets on her own show.
Just this past Tuesday, Oprah scored high on hypocrisy again when she had her own IPOD show, a what's-on- your-IPOD event featuring music (Mary J. Blige, Corrine Bailey Ray, James Blunt, and Carly Simon) and revealing which songs were most downloaded on iTunes. Does she not see the irony?
The very next day, I open my newspaper with a another great Eugene Robinson column. Read it here.
Robinson wrote about the kids from Washington DCs Cardozo High School. The English class there clearly cares about more than MP3 players. When the famed author E.L. Doctoro visited their school(Aside: Wow!), they were not only attentive, but also asked mature and thoughtful questions. Surely these kids deserve respect, rather than dissing. Robinson says Oprah should visit more schools (me too).
All of this makes me wonder what Oprah was thinking when she spoke those ridiculous words. By now you are probably asking why I watch Oprah. I don't know. I can't help myself. It is aired in my area at 5PM, while I exercise and/or cook dinner. It's just too convenient. Sometimes it's easy to love Oprah. Other times, I am just baffled. And, ironically, it's usually the show's light, heartfelt stuff that eases the transition from the hard news of the day into evening. And then there's this:
Change is on the airwaves. Recently, Al Gore brought a shortened version of his global warming presentation to the Oprah show. And should Barack Obama actually declare a real, rather than exploratory, committee, I admit I'll be happy for her support - and that Obama's in the race. He'll add tremendous energy, the strength of his ideals, perceptiveness, and tremendous credibility on the pressing issues of our time. Obama was smart enough to oppose the war and to see through the many Bush deceptions and follies. One gets the sense that this is a once-in-a-lifetime leader. In short, he presents a real choice, over the rest of the announced pack. As the Obama folks are saying, Abe Lincoln only served for two two years in Congress before he ran for president. And I look forward to Oprah getting out and campaigning for him, where she'll meet all the wonderful kids who may love their iPODS, but also care a whole lot about the world in which they live. When Oprah enters politics for real, I think much of her audience will welcome it. And, my own hypocrisy notwithstanding, I can't wait. Meanwhile, I think I'll buy an electronic version of Obama's book and download it to my iPOD.