The Sylvan actor politician debate considered the following motion:
This house believes that actors make the best politicians.
The debate took place on Monday 2nd December. Mike Douse proposed the motion and Sahana Sethuraman opposed it.
The proposition arguing that actors make the best politicians
The proposer opened with the famous Ronald Reagan quote: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” as well as from John F Kennedy’s translated “I am a jelly doughnut.” President Zelenskyy of Ukraine projects gravitas and sincerity, even though he played the voice of Paddington Bear in Ukraine. Donald Trump acted in films and The Apprentice. Arnold Schwarzenegger played the Terminator. Jerry Springer and Clint Eastwood became politicians, and Jesse Ventura served as governor of Minnesota. In the UK, Laurence Fox ran for mayor of London. Other actors have campaigned for different causes, such as Liz Carr on disability rights. Other countries such as India and the Philippines have celebrities in government. Many actors want to enter politics.
Both acting and politics involve fooling people. The best of actors connect with the audience via adept speaking. Both actors and politicians need to use the media and PR, while reading the writing on the wall clearly. They must improvise and radiate confidence and project required qualities, while convincing the audience of their honesty. The actor is incredibly close to the platonic form of the politician, while the best politicians have characteristics of true actors. In times of perplexity, people look for an actor. We face a new dawn of fantasy and perception, particularly in this season of pantomime!
The opposition against the actor politician debate motion
The opposer opened by pointing out the temptation of equating communication with political leadership. Yet actors have an inherently different role, to entertain and connect emotionally. On the other hand, the politician must lead and solve problems. Would you trust an actor pilot to fly a plane? Politicians need economics, law, public administration, trade policy, budget management and other expertise. Actors don’t have the preparation for this, can without expertise could harm citizens. The rise of public relationships rather than the public good has driven populism, yet the public may lose faith. Reagan and Zelenskyy have celebrated communications skills, while both had extensive teams of advisers helping them with content. Reagan had been a governor, and Zelenskyy has been shaped by the war. Numerous celebrity politicians have failed. Schwarzenegger admitted to struggling as governor.
Untrained leaders could lead to catastrophic policy failures. All substance would disappear from politics, and it may lead to increased corruption. Superficial charm and scripted rhetoric would not leave for true grass-roots leaders to emerge. In India actors turn politicians frequently – yet what would they do when the price of veg triples? Actors do not have sufficient capabilities to govern. Leadership is not delivering lines, it’s making decisions.
Floor speeches from the audience of the actor politician debate
Keir Starmer’s acting is wooden but realistic, he speaks like a Dalek! Even the cabinet don’t realise. Boris Johnson overacts. We live in a flawed democracy, the least worst system. Without prejudice, the common man is only a particle in the system – humans are flawed in choosing leaders. Johnson got away with madness and cronyism while Corbyn was decent and stood up for the weakest. Politicians need to communicate and express emotions to win elections and deliver policy, yet acting presents a danger. Good debaters can argue either way – consummate liars? Good politicians can convince us, but we need good governance and policies too.
Footballers go to acting school for fouls. The best US presidents were not actors. Successful politicians cannot simply put their point across well, they need a principled basis for decisions. Minnesota is a laughing stock politically and Jessie Ventura fit that mould, even though he wasn’t a bad governor. Some of the best politicians have had the skill set of an actor. Regardless, some of the best politicians were fictional ones – Jim Hacker from Yes, Prime Minister, Jed Bartlett from West Wing and Meryl Streep as Thatcher!
The opposer’s rebuttal in the actor politician debate
Politicians must act for the welfare of the population and not applause or popularity. The UK holds its leaders accountable to voters, yet in some countries personalities gain power to control people. Politicians need to have meaning, and famous people lead to bad governance – we need expertise, critical thinking, good decisions and expert advice, not story telling. Passing this motion would undermine the principles of democracy. Even in my school, the students elect leaders not based on popularity but the best one to represent us. Politicians need to deliver results and sustain votes. It should not be that you need to be famous to make change happen.
The proposer’s closing speech
We have had the biggest age gap of any debate (70 years between the proposer and opposer). How can we define the best? Debating is practice in telling lies. Joe Biden pardoned his son in a bumbling way – a good actor could have made it a triumph. Most successful politicians have to be an actor and need the acting skill set, and several of the best presidents had it. Lincoln chose his last night at a theatre. This motion centres on what is, not what should be. We have heard what should be from the opposer – yes, in an ideal world politicians should not be actors. In reality, politicians need popularity and charisma.
Result: the actor politician debate motion did not carry
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that actors do not make the best politicians.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.
For more information about how our meetings run, see meeting info.