Hollywood Finds an Unlikely, Silent Ally in Bush White House

When the Federal Trade Commission issued its latest study recently on the marketing of violent entertainment to children, there was an unusual reaction from the White House: silence.

The White House was silent again when Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman and Hillary Rodham Clinton followed the report by introducing legislation to expand the FTC’s authority to combat the problem. For reasons ideological as well as political, President Bush is considered extremely unlikely to support that bill, significantly reducing its already thin prospects.

These are two straws in a wind that has suddenly changed direction.

Hollywood loved President Clinton and reached into its pockets for the campaign of Vice President Al Gore. In return, it received admonishing threats of regulations reining the industry’s propensity toward offensive material.

Hollywood turned its back on Bush. Now it probably couldn’t be happier with him.

The Bush White House’s restrained tone is raising eyebrows across the political spectrum. Already, social conservatives are quietly grumbling.

“It would be very odd for a [president] that owes [his] election to millions of social conservatives to then not use the power vested in his office to shame and otherwise make uncomfortable those that are exploiting our kids,” said Gary Bauer, who opposed Bush for the GOP nomination in 2000 and now directs the conservative think tank American Values.

Likewise, Lieberman said he finds Bush’s stance “puzzling.”

“I would think that the president would be in sympathy with the kind of concerns that I and others in both parties have expressed about the impact of the entertainment culture on our children’s values and behavior,” the Connecticut senator said in an interview.

Bush’s early hands-off approach toward the entertainment business upsets the usual assumption in Washington that the best way to predict politicians’ positions is to track their contributions. Gore and the Democrats raised far more in Hollywood than Bush and the GOP.

“It’s highly ironic that many Hollywood people supported Clinton and Gore and opposed Bush when Bush is much more philosophically predisposed to view these issues in the same way the creative community does,” said Tony Podesta, a Hollywood lobbyist whose brother, John, was Clinton’s chief of staff.

Added Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America: “My judgment is that this administration has a healthier regard for the 1st Amendment than did the Clinton administration. They understand that you can posture all you want, but the 1st Amendment is the least ambiguous clause in the Constitution.”

But Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America, said Bush still has time to weigh in. “I don’t think that we should expect any politician to ignore this issue. We know that Republicans and Democrats all hear from constituents who care about it.”

Over the last several years, particularly in the wake of school shootings in the late 1990s, Washington has debated a succession of issues revolving around the exposure of children to violent and sexually explicit entertainment. Most of these issues have produced unusual political alignments.

Generally, centrist Democrats led by Clinton, Gore and Lieberman have taken the hardest line against movie, music and video game companies. In the mid-1990s, Democrats took the lead in mandating that new television sets be equipped with a “V-chip” that would allow parents to block objectionable material. Then they negotiated with the television and movie industries to create a TV rating system that could be used along with it.

Clinton ordered the FTC study on entertainment marketing after the April 20, 1999, shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., that left 15 people dead. When the FTC released its initial report, Clinton held a rare joint appearance with Hillary Clinton (then in the midst of her Senate campaign in New York) to publicize the findings and admonish Hollywood.

On the same day, then-candidate Gore said he would give the industry six months to improve its practices or he would introduce legislation expanding the commission’s authority to regulate it. In effect, that’s the legislation Sens. Lieberman and Clinton introduced last week. That bill has brought howls of outrage from Hollywood, which has angrily accused both legislators of scapegoating an industry that has financially supported the party.

Issue Has Divided the Republican Party

Republicans have been more divided about whether to regulate. Social conservatives such as Bauer want Washington to pressure Hollywood--through use of the bully pulpit and perhaps legislation--to limit children’s exposure to adult-oriented material. But their influence is offset in the GOP by a sizable group that is dubious of any federal regulation that might infringe on freedom of speech.

In this culture war over violent and sexually explicit entertainment, Bush has been Switzerland, neither defending nor excoriating Hollywood. The effect is to lower the heat on the entertainment industries after the tempestuous Clinton years.

“It’s not just a do-nothing agenda,” complained Bruce Reed, who was deputy assistant of domestic policy in the Clinton White House. “It’s a say-nothing agenda.”

Bush’s approach appears to be composed of equal parts political strategy, ideology and personal caution toward using the presidential bully pulpit--particularly to point fingers. “He is not the type who tries to lead by dividing . . . or trying to put responsibility at the feet of one sector or group,” deputy White House counselor Dan Bartlett said.

Few Complaints From Bush on Content

That was the same message Bush delivered to a group of Hollywood executives during a June 1999 campaign meeting in Los Angeles. “My job is not to pit one group against another,” Bush said at the time. “My job is . . . to call on all of us to do our part to help usher in the responsibility era.”

Indeed, in stark contrast to Clinton--or, for that matter, 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole--Bush rarely has complained about the content of popular entertainment. When the issue arises, as in the aftermath of school shootings, he typically has put more emphasis on the responsibility of parents, rather than producers, to shield children from inappropriate material.

Asked once in an interview about the V-chip, Bush fired back: “Well, how about the off-on knob? . . . The real answer is for parents to be diligent and mindful.”

Just as Bush’s personal preference makes him reluctant to use the bully pulpit against Hollywood, his ideological inclinations tilt him away from direct regulatory action aimed at the entertainment industry.

To chair the FTC, Bush has nominated conservative economist Timothy J. Muris, a longtime skeptic about federal intervention in the marketplace. In preparing for his confirmation hearings later this month, Muris already has signaled to congressional aides that he believes the FTC has little authority to regulate entertainment industry marketing.

May Be Letting the ‘Industry Off the Hook’

Political calculations also may reinforce Bush’s decision to lay off Hollywood. Entertainment executives believed Clinton used the issue to inoculate himself against charges of social liberalism. Bush, by contrast, has established strong ties with social conservatives on other issues and may have less need to tangle with the film industry.

Some Democrats working on entertainment issues believe Bush may be unduly reticent for fear of appearing “like a cultural zealot,” in the words of a Democratic congressional aide who asked not to be named. “It may be that they are bending over so far backward not to seem puritanical or extreme on these issues, to not scare off suburban women, that they are letting the entertainment industry off the hook.”

Moreover, two of the senators most closely associated with anti-Hollywood sentiment, Lieberman and John McCain (R-Ariz.), were political rivals of Bush during the last election.

An entertainment industry executive who asked to remain anonymous said: “Why should Bush help either of these guys run for president?”