in ,

Ben Stiller’s Empty Endorsement: Glorifying Mediocre Biden-Harris Administration

Hollywood celebrity Ben Stiller has recently jumped on the bandwagon of championing Vice President Kamala Harris, implying that she signifies ‘change’ for the Democratic Party. The struggle to find positivity in this endorsement is glaring, considering the questionable performance of the current administration. Stiller seems swept up in the ‘energy and excitement’ around this movement to a point that he is overlooking the true implications of this ‘change’.

In a video interview, Stiller iterated his support, giving an impression that things are moving forward due to Harris’ candidacy. This seems more of a wishful thinking, given the litany of issues the Biden-Harris administration has failed to properly address. It raises questions about the basis of this sense of change and excitement he’s referring to.

Support Trump NOW with this FREE FLAG!

The Hollywood circle including George Clooney among others has been vocal about endorsing Harris as the next Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, succeeding President Biden. There appears to be a disconnect between reality and perception when it comes to the Hollywood elite’s views on politics, particularly in the case of Harris, keeping in view the administration’s track record.

When pressed about Harris’ ability to sustain the momentum post-Democratic National Convention (DNC), Stiller was oddly optimistic. His belief that the election would be ‘close’ and that ‘everyone’s motivated to work and make it happen’ seems baffling, given the widespread criticism Harris and the administration have been facing.

Stiller also suggested that Harris and Tim Walz are ‘incredible’ candidates, a statement that has prompted quizzical eyebrows from many, considering the criticisms leveled at both. The video of the interview shared by interviewer Ballasy has since sparked online debates, with questions on Stiller’s objectivity in his endorsements.

The rationale behind Stiller’s endorsement of Harris is allegedly the desire for ‘change’. However, such statements come across as trivial, considering the reality of the ongoing administration. Critics have pointed out the flaw in his logic, calling out the absence of Harris’ push for any substantial change during her tenure thus far.

Canadian professor Gad Saad argued that Stiller voting for Harris due to a desire for a change from the current administration is irrational. The claim of ‘a parasitized mind that is facing a terminal illness of the capacity for human reason’ might come across as harsh, yet seems relevant given the scenario.

A scathing critique came from Donald Trump Jr., who lambasted the idea of any substantial change under the Biden-Harris administration. As he rightly pointed out, why there hasn’t been any significant change pushed by Harris in the past 4 years of her tenure is baffling.

Hollywood’s role in bolstering Harris’ political journey from Biden’s running mate to a potential Democratic Party’s nominee is evident. However, it underlines a dangerous blurring of lines between celebrity endorsements and the actual capabilities of political leaders.

George Clooney had asked Biden to step down from the 2024 campaign through a public op-ed in The New York Times. He later voiced his support for Harris after Biden’s withdrawal. However, the Hollywood elite’s endorsement seems divorced from the critical examination of leadership qualities.

Clooney’s exclamation about Biden exemplifying ‘true leadership’ and his belief that Biden is ‘saving democracy once again’ comes off as far from reality. It renders the actress’ claim of backing Harris’ alleged historic quest as questionable as well.

Ironically, Stiller didn’t respond immediately to a comment request from Fox News Digital. The silence does make one wonder if Stiller’s hope for ‘change’ under Harris is stemming from a gut feeling instead of being rooted in practical, effective policy changes.

While endorsements can be influential, they need to be critically examined against actual political achievements. Championing a candidate simply based on a vague feeling of ‘change’ can have far-reaching implications, given Harris’ past record.

It’s important to recognize the ambiguities surrounding celebrity political endorsements. It’s troubling to think what might happen under a leadership that Hollywood, like Stiller and Clooney, are pushing for without tangible evidence of substantial change.

In conclusion, Stiller’s endorsement of Harris not only echoes the inability of Hollywood to examine political actions critically but also highlights the disparity between their perception of ‘change’ and the reality under the Biden-Harris administration.