I too feel an overwhelming sense of fear when the world of celebrity meets the world of politics. A bit like our very own coalition, it is not a suitable fit. It simply ought not to occur. When I think of the two worlds colliding I cannot help but become cynical and pessimistic. I envisage wild parties - think JFK or Berlusconi - and opportunistic PR stunts - think Bob Geldof or Bono. However, in recent weeks my views have softened somewhat. Perhaps I am naïve - wishful thinking even - but on a number of issues of late, celebrities have been hitting the nail so firmly on the head.
But first, let us set the scene and comprehend where our understandable cynicism originated. During the '80s, America welcomed mediocre B-movie actor Ronald Wilson Reagan to the White House. He was the 40th President of the United States and ruled from 1981 to 1989. A 2009 Gallup poll found that Reagan ranked as the 'Most Popular President' of all time, ahead of such widely admired figures as John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. He has regularly been credited for ending the Cold War and, according to Edwin Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, "helped create a safer, freer world". But history proves otherwise.
In reality, Reagan was not a universal success. Mark Weisbrot, co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, states that Reagan's "economic policies were mostly a failure". Dr Peter Dreier, a professor of politics, claims that wealth inequality drastically widened under Reagan - the richest 1% held 40% of America's wealth - and that the number of American citizens living in poverty rose from 26million to 33million during his tenure. So why the widespread adulation? It can only be due to his celebrity status; his charm and allure. Something similar is happening now with Obama. Poor national and international policies are overlooked so long as the president has a nice smile and oozes charisma.
Ever since the Reagan administration, politics and celebrity have formed an uneasy hybrid. Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California in 2003 and has received tremendous support from the electorate - regularly boasting an approval rating of 60% and above. This, despite the fact that he is an ardent Republican and vetoed a bill in 2005 that would have legalised same-sex marriages. In Britain we have George Galloway who, prior to his 2010 election defeat, was an MP for nearly a quarter of a decade. George was often to be seen on political debate shows, regularly causing havoc in order to make headlines. His much discussed relationship with Saddam Hussein subsequently resulted in the decline of his credibility as a politician; not to mention his infamous stint on Celebrity Big Brother.
Another celebrity to bring the celeb-politics bandwagon into disrepute was Wyclef Jean. Following the Haitian earthquake disaster of 2010, the famed musician decided to run for presidency. His decision to run was condemned by many - including Hollywood actor Sean Penn - as being nothing more than a publicity stunt. A way of increasing record sales following a sharp wane in popularity. A whole 15 days after declaring candidacy, his bid was rejected by Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council due to the fact that Wyclef had not resided in Haiti for the required five years before election. In the December of 2010 - surprise-surprise - Wyclef released an album entitled 'If I Were President: My Haitian Experience'. Needless to say, his little candidacy adventure did nothing to help develop celeb-politics' reputation.
As I type, I feel the need to pause and inhale, for I cannot quite believe the path I am about to lead this article down. But here goes. Throughout the plethora of current political discussions taking place, celebrities have actually had a lot of meaningful viewpoints to express. I was viewing Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show (BBC) and was surprised to find myself agreeing with near enough everything former cricketer Imran Khan had to say on the 'War on Terror'. In his current role as chairman of political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) Imran has had a number of important points to make. His latest book, Pakistan: A Personal History, unveils his attitudes towards America's repugnant response to 9/11.
During the interview with Marr he incessantly reeled off points I have previously made with regards to drone strikes. He explained how, in his experience, drone bombardments merely increase anti-West sentiment and strengthen the Taliban. He described the need for negotiation and diplomacy as opposed to military might and resentment. His views were refreshing to hear from someone who had previously enjoyed the life of an overpaid sportsman. But let us not get carried away. Khan's political career thus far has been tainted by what the Guardian refers to as "swerved and skidded" ideas and affiliations. His stance has never been consistent and until his proposed policies become clearer, we shall have to handle him with much caution. Nevertheless, Khan could potentially prove revolutionary and offers Pakistan a much required glimmer of hope.
Domestically too, celebrities have been weighing in with their hardline perspectives. Actor Hugh Grant was instrumental in the unearthing of News of the World's widespread corruption. His subsequent New Statesman article was a worthwhile read also. Academy Award winner Vanessa Redgrave has been a vocal supporter of the Dale Farm travellers. She has stood up for the rights of the vilified community, expressing her outrage at proposals to move them off their land in Essex. This week, actress Emma Thompson spoke out against government policy towards child asylum seekers. She declared, "It is current British policy to send back lone refugees as soon as they turn 18 to the ware zones from which they fled. But no one has any idea what then happens to these kids, who've adapted to British life". Her passion for the subject-matter was praiseworthy and the views articulated commendable, especially from someone who need not give a damn.
Whilst a resounding rejection at the polls has highlighted a public desire for celebrities to stay away from Westminster - Esther Rantzen and George Galloway's defeats in Luton and Poplar respectively being prime examples - we should not overlook the uses they offer away from parliament. Although it is clear that the public does not wish to have celebrities drawing up governmental policy, we perhaps need to accept that on some levels they are a useful ally in our battle against power. Their influence spreads far and wide and, with the right amount of sincerity, they can actually make a positive, decisive difference.
A fortnight ago, had a right-minded individual approached me, explaining rationally how they felt celebrities should keep a healthy distance from political issues, I would have been inclined to agree with them. However, following the eloquent contributions of Redgrave and Thompson in the serious debates surrounding travellers and child asylum seekers I have reassessed my standpoint. Providing their involvement is well-intentioned, I do not see why, just because you are privileged enough to be a famous superstar, you should remain silent on crucial topics that affect the day-to-day wellbeing of the nation. Yes, Ronald Reagan's administration was a nightmare, and yes, Wyclef Jean's Haitian presidential bid was nothing more than a cynical PR stunt, but the views of multi-millionaire celebs - as outlined above - can be just as valuable as the words of a Pilger, Fisk or Hitchens.