Oprah for president? The political economy of fame: Don Pittis

A woman so famous that she's known to the world by her first name suddenlyseems to be a front-runner to be the next president of the United States.

Thishappened followinga speech widely judged by the media to be "presidential"after she wontheCecil B. deMille Award for"outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment" at the Golden Globes this past weekend.

Since then, whispers of a run by Oprah Winfrey for the White House top job have turned into blaring headlines.

As she strolls through the door flungopen by Donald Trump, all at once it feels to those of us who lived through and handicapped the rise of the current president from reality TV hostto Oval Office, that Oprah is the one to beat.

The tyranny of fame

This has led to fear among political observers that the transition fromcandidates with substance to candidates with stardom has become a trend and is simply more evidence of a steepdecline in the democratic process.

"It's terrible. It's awful, this,what I call the tyranny of fame," explodes Dennis Pilon, author ofWrestling with Democracy: Voting Systems as Politics in the Twentieth Century West.

People like Pilon,a scholar at Toronto'sYork University whose work includes election financing, may be shouting into the wind. For proof you only need look at the reaction of those who don't want Oprah in the White House.

As a sure sign it sees her as a threat, this weekFox Newstooka bead on the former talk show host, linking her to Clinton scandal.

'I'll beat Oprah'

Trump himself has declared "I'll beat Oprah," which, as in the case of his attacks onthe tell-all book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White Housethat soared to best-seller status after his dismissive tweets, seem likely to have the opposite effect.

The notion that Oprah might be a better alternative to Trump does not change Pilon's mind.

"Fame is a profoundly undemocratic phenomenon," says Pilon. He calls itpart of a system of social control that tells ordinary people they are not beautiful enough or talented enough to do any more thanwatch from the sidelines. "It encourages a kind of non-participation."

And while he objects to what it does to the political process, in an era when publicity and the money to buy it are keys to winning, he understands theattraction ofparties that end upsupporting famous candidates.

For one thing, the rich and famous have the personal cashto begin the expensive process.

Perhaps most important, says Pilon, asstars in their own right they garner wall-to-wall coverage frommedia outlets seeking to attract readers and viewers, a persistent complaintby the Hillary Clinton campaignaboutTrump's free exposure.

As Ronald Reagan once quipped, "Politics is just like show business."

That may be true for attracting money, giving campaign speeches and even winning, but according toFire and Fury authorMichael Wolff speaking on CBCRadio'sThe Current yesterday, for a president like Trump, actually running a countryis a different job.

Governing requires skills

"Anything that we would associate in any traditional ways with governing, which has to do with process, whichhas to do with goals,whichhas to dowithmaking choices and decisions, has to do with weighing a lot of information, and a lotof data," says Wolff in the interviewwith host Anna Maria Tremonti, "none of these things are within the president's interests or,frankly, ability."

In an office a few floors above Pilon's, York's dean of liberal arts and professional studies, AnanyaMukherjee-Reed, has looked at the concept of fame and politics from a perspective outsideNorth America's.

Mukherjee-Reedis a political economist who keeps aneye on the politics of South Asia, where making the jump fromfame to public office has becomecommonplace.

Just two weeks ago the Indian mega-starRajinikanthannounced he was forming apolitical party in a bid to succeedJayalalithaa Jayaram,the late chief minister of TamilNadu,who was also a film star before she ran for office.

"It's not value-based. It's not politics based on vision," saysMukherjee-Reed. "It's basically based on charisma."

In a country where top movie stars, even regional stars, earn huge salaries, it's also based on wealth. Indian movie stars have the cashand the fan base to take a run at politics.

Of course, politicians have to come from somewhere. Famous generals have stepped up to serve as their countries' leaders.

The Duke of Wellington became British prime minister after winning his spurs against Napoleon. U.S. presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower parlayed their fame from the Civil War and the SecondWorld War,respectively.

But arguably they had transferable skills in managing complex organizations.

Trump hascompared himself to Reagan, but whether or not you liked his politics, there is no questionReagan worked his way up to the top job, first as head of the Screen Actors Guild, then as two-term governor of California.

But in the Indian example, saysMukherjee-Reed, celebrity-based politicians including those famous for their political familieswho come without political skills or policy experience do not do as well.

"From within the celebrityculture, there's no great shining examples of huge political leadership."

Instead, she says, media starsare often driven by the same thing that motivated them in their first career: Fame.

"It's really the expansion of their celebrity status into a political realm which furthers theircelebrity status," she says.

"Because after a while, if you'renot such a hot movie star anymore, you still have another realm in which you can be present in public life."

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

More analysis from Don Pittis