When celebrities take on Trump

MERYL STREEP took some shots at Donald Trump during her acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes last weekend.

She used her platform to take a stand for immigrants and working-class families by reminding her Hollywood audience that many of the actors whose work they celebrate come from these groups that will be under increasing attack during the coming Trump presidency. Streep also made a heartfelt reference to highlight Trump's appalling mockery of disabled journalist Serge Kovaleski.

While I disagree with some aspects of Streep's speech, I was surprised and frankly disappointed to read a harsh dismissal of her remarks at Jacobin.

I have enjoyed reading Jones' many contributions to Jacobin--In particular, I loved her recent tribute to Carrie Fisher, which provided poetic justice to another outspoken Hollywood figure. But when it comes to Meryl Streep, I have a very different take.

Jones has evidently never been a fan of Streep personally or her acting, and I'm not about to pick a fight over anyone's taste in acting. But in this case, Jones attacked Streep not only for her speech, but also her blonde hair, "snooty accent" and choice of past film roles, which have included Margaret Thatcher.

I admittedly haven't seen Streep's portrayal of Thatcher, in part because I still associate Streep most with her 1983 role as union activist Karen Silkwood. I'm not quite ready to watch one of my heroines transformed into one of my villains by way of the silver screen.

Streep has played both working-class heroines and reactionary leaders, but we can judge her by her words and actions when not in character, not by the politics of the real-life people she's played. Certainly attacking women for their appearance--even upper-class or right-wing women--should have no place in left-wing debate.

BY PORTRAYING Streep's speech as whining about a declaration of war on "Hollywood's liberal elite"--a charge also popular among right-wingers--Jones misses the point that Streep was making.

Streep first addressed the crowd by saying "all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now," and mentioning several people in the crowd by name, including Viola Davis, the daughter of working-class civil rights activists, and Dev Patel, a British national representing his new film, Lion, in which he plays a young immigrant.

In the context of her full statement, she was clearly pointing out that many of Hollywood's most famous figures have working-class and immigrant origins, and that this can serve as a basis for expressing solidarity with the millions of people who face the brunt of oppression and exploitation today.

The power of Streep's words resonated far beyond the glitzy Globes crowd--many working- and middle-class viewers were excited to hear a denunciation of Trump's bigotry on a major television outlet.

Streep may have been hailed by the "Hollywood elite"--the withering looks of Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn during her comments notwithstanding--but she is also admired by countless women far outside her tax bracket. Streep's status as Hollywood royalty is not, as Jones sees it, a reason to dismiss her comments--rather, they are a welcome gesture toward bringing the fight against Trump to a wider audience.

Streep's weakest moment was when she pitted "the arts" against other entertainment outlets like "football and mixed martial arts," as if people must choose to support only film or sports. This was where Streep's liberalism certainly fell flat and diminished her reasoned stand against Trump.

IT WOULD be a mistake for socialists to assume that all actors and other celebrities automatically become politically bought off when they achieve high levels of success because they've made studio bosses millions.

Many women actors continue to fight for equal pay. Most recently, Emmy Rossum generated headlines when she went public with her demand for a pay increase to match her Shameless co-star William H. Macy.

Actors Susan Sarandon and Shailene Woodley used their social media accounts to express support for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline and traveled to North Dakota to participate in #NoDAPL protests, helping to generate further solidarity efforts across the country.

Similarly, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick enjoys a multimillion-dollar NFL contract, but by taking a knee during the national anthem at each game, Kaepernick has been using his celebrity to speak out against racism and police brutality and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Many conservative commenters have argued that Kaepernick should shut up and do his job since he's already a wealthy athlete. Jones' dismissal of Streep based purely on her elite status is similarly misguided.

This example of an actor using a platform to make a political statement illustrates how it's possible for opposition to injustice and inequality to filter into Hollywood's upper echelons.

We have the choice to either dismiss the concerns of actors and famous athletes who use their celebrity to speak out against oppression or improvements in their own working conditions, or we can rightly support these efforts as one part of growing a stronger left that doesn't stomp on people who seek to join us.

Socialists seek to build as much antiracist and pro-immigrant solidarity as possible with anyone who seeks to join the fight against oppression under the Trump administration. This includes individuals and organizations from the liberal left with whom we argue to win closer to socialist politics.

This means working alongside former Clinton supporters and others who want to stand up to Trump and convincing them why they need to help build an alternative to the dead end that is the Democratic Party.

If we reject every imperfect effort to join in the fight against Trump, as Jones does of Streep, the left will surely stumble.