logo
Democrats Must Embrace Their Inner Jerry Springer

Democrats Must Embrace Their Inner Jerry Springer

New York Times09-05-2025

Given that Hollywood is often caricatured as a hotbed of liberalism, it's surprising that Republicans seem so much better than Democrats at the showbiz side of politics. Two Republican presidents have stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame: Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, as does the former Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yet among liberals there persists a sense that running celebrities for public office is somehow déclassé, cynical or simply not something a serious party does.
The Democrats need to reckon with a new reality: The electorate wants to be entertained. Instead of continuing to run highly credentialed political lifers, the party needs to embrace the idea of the celebrity candidate — and find someone with sincerely-held progressive beliefs, sky-high name recognition and experience winning over the kinds of voters who've supported the MAGA movement. In other words, they need to find someone like Jerry Springer.
Mr. Springer, who died in 2023, is best known for his gleefully distasteful TV show, which for nearly three decades featured a parade of cheating spouses, incestuous siblings and rowdy strippers who routinely erupted in brutal onstage brawls. With his glasses, jacket and tie, Mr. Springer would hang back at a safe distance, an unlikely instigator standing amid a jeering crowd and politely asking questions.
Yes, that Jerry Springer should serve as a model for the kind of standard-bearer Democrats should be looking for: a professionally famous person with an intuitive grasp of attention, a flair for drama and conflict, and a proven ability to communicate with a broad audience regardless of its political affiliations.
As a celebrity, Mr. Springer had none of the glamour of, say, a Beyoncé, a George Clooney or a Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson — some of the names occasionally mentioned as possible political recruits. But that's the point. For Democrats, the issue of being perceived as talking down to voters is one that the party continues to struggle with. Many of the voters who improbably regard Mr. Trump, a gilded billionaire, as an everyman with a common touch, cheered for Mr. Springer because he seemed relatable and never condescending. That kind of figure, coupled with a talent for showmanship, might prove a recipe for success now, even more so than it did for Mr. Springer during the political career he began in advance of rising to fame as a talk-show host.
Before Mr. Springer became an icon of bad taste, and before his name — Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! — became a kind of tawdry war cry, he had a promising career in government. He was an idealistic and ambitious progressive reformer elected to office in Cincinnati, Ohio, during the 1970s as a city councilman. He appealed to countercultural college students and blue-collar workers alike. During his time in City Hall, he opposed the Vietnam War, led a successful campaign to create a city-owned bus system and advocated reforms at the local jail. He resigned from the City Council in 1974, following a prostitution scandal — a seeming career ender at the time, though one he came back from, successfully reclaiming his seat and then serving as mayor of Cincinnati.
Both his political gifts and his nose for spectacle would contribute to his rise as a big-tent TV celebrity. That tent included many of the kind of people Hillary Clinton would later label 'deplorables,' an infamous slight. Even as his studio audience — and many critics — sneered at Mr. Springer's guests and judged him for putting them on his televised circus, he always managed to seem genuinely interested in them: their feelings, their decisions and occasionally their hopes for the future.
After Mr. Springer ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in the Ohio governor's race in 1982, he essentially stumbled into a career in media — first as a pundit delivering commentaries on the news, then as an Emmy-winning evening news anchor, then, starting in 1991, as the host of a daytime talk show focused on current affairs and human interest stories.
After a stretch of incurably low ratings, 'The Jerry Springer Show' began its transformation into the shocking free-for-all that we remember, and he became an international celebrity. But he spent the rest of his life looking for ways to get back into politics, even as his infamy made the prospect less viable. He seriously explored running for statewide office again in Ohio during three separate election cycles, starting around the time of his show's commercial peak in the late 1990s. He found that neither voters nor party leaders were willing to look past his TV show: A University of Cincinnati poll in 2003 found that he had an unfavorability rating of 71 percent.
Many found the idea of Mr. Springer in the Senate not just implausible but offensive. Representative Ted Strickland, who would later become Ohio's governor, denounced Mr. Springer as someone 'who abuses damaged, vulnerable people for his own purpose' and swore he'd never share a stage with him.
Mr. Springer ended up not running in 2003, channeling his passion for politics into a radio show on Air America, the short-lived experiment in progressive talk radio. His radio show — on which he talked about issues like abortion, the death penalty and public education — aired alongside that of another entertainer turned political aspirant: the former 'Saturday Night Live' comedian and future senator from Minnesota, Al Franken.
It was in 2017, the year after Mr. Trump's election, that Mr. Springer and his inner circle of supporters thought perhaps his moment had finally come, and they began kicking the tires on a campaign for governor of Ohio. If Americans could be convinced to vote for one famous guy they'd seen on a cheesy TV show, why wouldn't they embrace another? As Mr. Springer said of Mr. Trump, 'His constituency is basically mine. These are fans of the show.'
Several of Mr. Springer's advisers told me that, in a general election, they had no doubt he would have won the Ohio statehouse, by bringing home the kinds of lifelong Democratic voters who had switched to Mr. Trump in 2016. An Ohio State senator, Bill DeMora, told me of Springer fans: 'They related to somebody like Jerry Springer, because he talked to them, not down to them.'
In hindsight, Mr. Springer's story lends credence to the notion that politics and entertainment have more in common than we like to admit. If nothing else, Democrats must get past their aversion to the unseriousness of celebrity and treat it as a selling point, not a stumbling block. Why not Oprah Winfrey? Or the ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith? Or the 'Shark Tank' personality and billionaire Mark Cuban? Just pick someone who's willing to run, who's good at their job, and who lots of people like. Democrats would do well not to let the next Jerry Springer slip away.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire

Fox News

time11 minutes ago

  • Fox News

JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire

California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.

US Justice Department reportedly shrinks foreign bribery investigation team
US Justice Department reportedly shrinks foreign bribery investigation team

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US Justice Department reportedly shrinks foreign bribery investigation team

-- The team at the U.S. Justice Department responsible for investigating allegations of foreign bribery has significantly shrunk, according to a Reuters report on Monday. This comes as President Donald Trump's administration reassesses its enforcement of an anti-corruption law that has been in place for decades. The Department of Justice's Fraud Section, which is in charge of enforcing the anti-bribery law, has been reduced to around 15 prosecutors. This is a substantial decrease from the 32 prosecutors reported in January, as stated on the department's website, the report said. This reduction follows an executive order issued by President Trump in February. The order called for a temporary halt in the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law enacted in 1977. The FCPA prohibits companies operating in the U.S. from bribing foreign officials and is considered a fundamental part of federal efforts to fight corruption. Related articles US Justice Department reportedly shrinks foreign bribery investigation team SEC progresses toward DOGE goals, eyes voluntary workforce reductions Trump signs orders to enhance drone defenses, support supersonic travel

Could L.A. ICE Riots Stop the BET Awards? Here's All the Tea
Could L.A. ICE Riots Stop the BET Awards? Here's All the Tea

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Could L.A. ICE Riots Stop the BET Awards? Here's All the Tea

As ICE and the U.S. National Guard continues to ravage the city of Los Angeles, one of the most anticipated events of the year could be in danger of getting shut down. The BET Awards is set to take place Monday (June 9), but many folks fear President Donald Trump's recent antics will spill over to the Black award show. What started as peaceful protests against Trump's unlawful immigration raids quickly took a violent turn after the president sent the National Guard to L.A. without the governor's approval. Over the weekend, the violence escalated resulting in destroyed property, fires and tear gas being thrown at civilians… And who wants to throw a party in the middle of a riot? Organizers for the annual BET Awards insist the ongoing violence will have no impact on the show. In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, a spokesperson said, 'BET remains committed to the safety of our guests and staff. We are working closely with LAPD and monitoring the situation.' Despite organizers' confidence that the event will go on, many folks online noted just how insane this past weekend has been for the city. 'LA so crazy and random right now,' @NapKingColeP said on X. 'ICE raids, national guard, protesting, BET Awards weekend, and the gay pride parade.' @_itsmelimel added there's 'sooo much sh*t goin on in LA.' She continued, 'ICE protests are going on and ppl are outsideeee celebrating the BET Awards. I am overstimulated.' One TikToker said right now, Los Angeles is very 'dystopian.' @itsneyha added, 'L.A. is continuing to hustle and bustle with DOTY performances and celebrities all in town for the BET Awards while there are literally protests closing down the 101 [freeway].' Widespread violence has taken over the city, and it's going exactly to Trump's plan. The president is set on looking 'tough' as his nation-wide crackdown on immigration continues. He and Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom have previously come to blows over the state's known sanctuary cities– a city that limits cooperation with ICE and other federal immigration agencies– and now, their beef has reached a new level. Trump took to his favorite social media platform Truth Social on Monday to call for even more violence against protesters. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he said. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth came out echoing Trump's sentiments. He threatened, 'If violence continues, active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' He added in a separate tweet 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE.' Meanwhile, Gov. Newsom announced plans to sue the administration over the Guard deployment and state's rights, according to CBS News. As of now, the 2025 BET Awards will go on as scheduled starting at 8 p.m. ET Monday night.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store