Meryl Streep’s Speech: Yet Another Example of Hollywood’s Hypocritical Pseudo-Progressivism

By: Priscila Guinovart - @PrisUY - Jan 9, 2017, 12:10 pm
Meryl Streep
Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe speech is yet another example of Hollywood’s hypocritical pseudo-progressivism. (Youtube).

Just as a serious press wouldn’t praise president elect Donald Trump just for being Trump, a serious press wouldn’t describe Meryl Streep’s speech during the Golden Globes award ceremony on Sunday as “powerful” or “riveting.”

Even though I love Meryl Streep as an actress— she captivated me as Jill Davis in Woody Allen’s Manhattan, probably the best romantic comedy of all time— politically, she has fallen for Hollywodd’s pseudo-progressivism, probably the most hypocritical progressivism of all.

In her speech, which has suspiciously become legendary already, topping Twitter’s trends for over 12 hours, Streep points to celebrities in the crowd highlighting their non-American origin. She mentions Canadians, Italians, Nigerians, Israelis, etc. She jokes that none of them were asked for a birth certificate, referring to Trump’s silly insistence on seeing Barack Obama’s birth certificate since he accused the current president of being born in Kenya.


Streep then affirms that if all of the immigrants in the room were deported from the United States, the American people would only watch football and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). These, she lectures the audience, “are not the arts.”

Meryls Streep has become the queen of bias, and bias can only do away with reason. Streep should know, and I suppose she does since she is an extremely intelligent woman, that Donald Trump’s famous “anti-immigrant” policies won’t touch the elite. The celebrities for whom she fears will not be affected in any way.

In fact, no legal immigrant, celebrity or not, will run the risk of deportation under a Trump presidency as long as the president elect keeps his promises. In fact, it’s not even a certainty that all illegal immigrants in the United States will be formally expelled.

The president elect has said on several occasions that he plans to deport illegal immigrants with criminal records. Rather different, isn’t it?

So Streep should be more careful with her words. I wouldn’t want to believe that someone whose work is so respected across the world is deliberately manipulating the truth, adapting the truth at her convenience in order to align it with her political interests even if these are merely ideological.

Streep stated in her speech that, when those in power offend, they also encourage others to offend. If that is the case, it’s also true that when celebrities make biased and prejudiced statements, they make room for fanaticism.

If we all want a critical society which is capable of putting anyone on the spot, we can’t lead its members from one extreme to the other.

It’s extremely easy for Meryl Streep to speak from a podium, surrounded by cameras and enjoying absolute liberty while wearing a dress that probably equals an average American’s monthly salary. After her speech, Streep and the “revolutionary” immigrants she mentioned will return to their respective mansions, where they can satisfy any need with a mere snap of their fingers. These celebrities can be anything they want to be, except the common citizens whom they treat with such contempt.

Donald Trump might act in exactly the same way, but Streep assures us that she is better than he is. I have my doubts in that respect.

There is a large group of immigrants in her own country which doesn’t enjoy the same liberties as Streep. They have no mansions. They wake up at 5 AM in order to be at work on time. They have neither cameras nor microphones nor designer clothing. Most of them probably didn’t watch the Golden Globes.

Streep didn’t mention them. She also didn’t mention the handicapped young man who was kidnapped and tortured for supporting Donald Trump. Perhaps they are not as valuable to her because they don’t represent “the arts” or because they can’t afford snobbery.

As usual, Donald Trump couldn’t control his urge to attack critics and described Streep as “overrated” on Twitter. Defense and aggression are not the same, and in this case the attack was unnecessary.

Even if they don’t realize it, Trump and Streep are the same. They tend to drown in their own arrogance.

Priscila Guinovart Priscila Guinovart

Priscila Guinovart is an Uruguayan teacher and writer. She has written for outlets in Latin America, the U.S., and Europe. While in London, she wrote her book La cabeza de Dios. Follow her: @PrisUY.

Mexico’s Oil Company Defends Higher Gas Prices, Claims Inflation Due to Other Factors

By: Elena Toledo - @NenaToledo - Jan 9, 2017, 11:20 am

EspañolThe increase in gasoline prices in Mexico does not explain the increase in basic living expenses, according to General Director of Pemex José Antonio González Anaya in an interview with Milenio.  Fuel expenses are deductible when it comes to cargo shipment, he said, meaning that the cost of products should not be effected. On the other hand, he did say gasoline is not the only factor in the price of transportation, so there could be other reasons that the price of basic living expenses are going up. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); });   Nevertheless, the rise in gasoline prices — caused by deregulation of gasoline in the country — has been a serious issue alone for many families across Mexico, to the point that protests against it have turned violent over the last weeks. "We called on the population, the political forces, organizations, not to take Pemex facilities," González Anaya said, "because a price problem is going to turn into one of gasoline supply." The finance ministry's decision — which was endorsed by the Chamber of Deputies — regarding the deregulation of gasoline was a responsible one, with the true interest in keeping Mexico's economy stable, Anaya said. Read More: Pepe Mujica’s Disastrous Legacy in Uruguay, or Why Good Intentions Are Overrated Read More: How Economic Freedom Helps Chile Withstand Earthquakes and Tsunamis "It is a difficult measure. As the President of the Republic has said, it is not pleasant, but it is responsible, it is what has to be done — one reason being the price of oil and, hence, gasoline" he said. "If we continue to hold an "artificial price," the measures that would have been taken would have led to more indebtedness or increased taxes on other products," said Pemex's director. He said the alternative would have been debt, and cited the crisis the country went through in the 1980s when there was inflation caused by fixed, artificial prices. Anaya said though Mexico produces crude oil, it does not mean that fuel will be free, since "the only thing that has to happen is that the product is cheaper where the infrastructure is available," he said. Source: Milenio

Weekly E-Newsletter

Get the latest from PanAm Post direct to your inbox!

We will never share your email with anyone.