Scoring political points on Hannah Montana

Matthew Yglesias at Slate recently criticized Miley Cyrus' sympathy with the OWS.  (The Slate article has a  Miley Cyrus vid, too! Watch it at your peril.  It's pop garbage.).  The trouble Yglesias sees is that Cyrus is a beneficiary of the wealth disparities and trade policies of the last decade. 

Cyrus is the 1 percent. What's more, she's a clear beneficiary of some broad structural changes in the world economy that tend to exacerbate inequality and all relate to the economics of superstardom.

Sure, and?  She was born into that, and she became a star under conditions where she really wasn't even remotely cognizant of the sufferings of others.  The fact that she's identifying with the OWS at this stage is really testament to her intelligence.  Sure, her music stinks. And she's been made into an unpalatable product.  But it sounds like as she's grown older, she's actually developed some mature views.  Or at least developed non-adolescent political leanings.  That's an achievement.  And does the fact that she benefits from income disparity mean that she doesn't get to criticize it?  Well, really, unless some of the one-percenters understand the situation, it's not going to change.  Her views and her expression of them are good news.

And in other Tu Quoque news: in the comments on this piece, the commenter Roger Lambert drops the best double-dip:

Al Gore supports global warming legislation, but he still flies around on private jets and lives in huge houses. 
I think we can forgive young Miley whatever hypocrisy she may commit.

5 thoughts on “Scoring political points on Hannah Montana”

  1. "One percent paying for 50 percent, not good enough?  Not good enough?" well, doesn't that depend on how much taxable income the 1 percent has or ought to have?  Silliness.  It's not the difference in those numbers alone which establishes some kind of injustice, as he suggests. 

    Somehow this video shows up in the comments box.  Nice work.

  2. "But it sounds like as she's grown older, she's actually developed some mature views.  Or at least developed non-adolescent political leanings.  That's an achievement."
    What would be an example of an immature view or adolescent political leaning? I don't think those categories  actually exist outside of middle school, or probably most high schools.. Would it be more accurate to say "she has developed views and political leanings," and just leave it at that?
    It almost seems like you are making a jab at the beliefs of those who oppose her stance, implying that those who oppose the OWS movement are immature and adolescent, which would be an ad-hominem itself, would it not? Would you defend her if she had come out in opposition to OWS?
    Although I agree that it is a fallacy to criticize her because of her socio-economic standing, that same principle would apply if she came out in opposition to OWS. 

  3. Logic Hobby, I think you're over-interpreting the post; the point was that Yglesias thought her disqualified from having any view on the 1/99 in virtue of her extreme wealth.  That's a very silly view, as the post meant to point out.  The other implications are yours.

  4. I  thought Yglesias' point was that you have to root for the team that you are on and have that inform your political point of view, not your moral and ethical concerns.

Comments are closed.