Politics And Pro Wrestling

In this edition of The Wrestling Estate roundtable, we discuss politics and pro wrestling.

Do you care about pro wrestlers’ political affiliations/beliefs?

David Gibb: “Yes” and “no” are both wrong answers here…but I guess “Yes” is closer to how I feel.

Juan Bautista: I really don’t care that often, but there are situations that cause you to question. I respect Glenn Jacobs for handling himself well in one of the rare times that politics and pro wrestling mixed nicely. Then you have someone like Jim Hellwig, who voiced very disgusting comments.

Chad Gelfand: It does factor into what I might think of them as a person, but when I’m watching the show, I try to be objective about their abilities in a wrestling context. Unless it’s Hulk Hogan.

Steven Jackson: I don’t care about a wrestler’s political affiliations and/or beliefs…within reason. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as this doesn’t come at the detriment to the other talent or fans.

John Corrigan: I keep politics and pro wrestling separate. I may chuckle at certain beliefs, such as the earth being flat, but that doesn’t take away from my admiration of AJ Styles.

Matthew Smith: Not really. They are grown and allowed to have whatever affiliations they so choose.

Jack Goodwillie: Yes and no. I don’t really care as much about one’s political agenda one way or the other. I do take major issue with those who passive aggressively, or even aggressively, try to go political missionary on the audience, excluding people for things that have little do with the action we see on weekly TV.

Do you wish pro wrestlers kept those affiliations/beliefs to themselves?

Gibb: I want the wrestlers who agree with me to shout their beliefs from the mountaintops and the wrestlers who disagree with me to maintain silent shame, of course.

Bautista: I wish they did because these days there’s so much automatically associated with whatever party they belong to that by default, they are thrown into this pit through no fault of their own.

Gelfand: No. Wrestlers are people, too, and politics affect everything around us, so they have the right to weigh in as well.

Jackson: We could say the same outside the wrestling world, wishing everyone would keep their views to themselves! However, it’s good that wrestlers have the opportunity to share their beliefs, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them.

Corrigan: No, I just wish fans didn’t give wrestlers so much shit for said beliefs. For example, if Jake Hager doesn’t believe Greta Thunberg should have been TIME’s Person of the Year, who cares.

Smith: It’s better when they keep it close to their chest. We often get too involved in the lives of wrestlers and forget that they are still human beings. They’re allowed to feel a certain way and believe in whatever they want because all they are supposed to do is entertain us for the three hours we tune in. Getting lost in “he believes in this or she thinks this way” can take away from what they are doing on screen and the sacrifices they make just to entertain us. Politics and pro wrestling shouldn’t mix.

Goodwillie: Yes, I do, EXCEPT when it’s being incorporated into the on-screen character. You can do business with that. You can’t do business with say, a Bray Wyatt or Baron Corbin for example, pandering on Instagram to go out and “rock the vote” *wink wink*. Of course, I’m also not too big of a fan of the kayfabe/shoot meta we have going on where wrestlers are a certain way on screen, but on social media are just people portraying the character. I prefer those who stay loosely in-character and then maybe have a private account or two for close personal friends. Velveteen Dream and Becky Lynch are both very good at walking this line, and to no surprise, those are two very compelling characters. Shawn Spears? Not so much. His wife? Really not so much, and I’m happy to take that up with anyone who wants to over on the Twitter machine.

Do the McMahons’ association with President Trump affect your feelings about WWE?

Gibb: Very much so. I also lived in New York during both of Linda’s senate campaigns against Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and the aggressive tone of their ad campaign really turned me off. (They literally made jokes about how his first name is “Dick” and how his last name sounds “untrustworthy,” like that wasn’t the biggest dog whistle of all time.)

Bautista: No because it hasn’t been used as a platform to help Trump’s campaign. There were rumblings of him appearing at the premiere of SmackDown on Fox, but he didn’t show. As a NASCAR fan, seeing the president at the biggest race of the year was cool, but it also seemed like a political move.

Gelfand: Honestly, it doesn’t make me feel good and makes certain decisions that WWE makes look funny when you consider the McMahons’ association with Donald Trump.

Jackson: The Trump influence on WWE has zero effect on my feelings about the product. WWE has really been in a rut for some time, and I sadly can’t blame all of it on Donald Trump.

Corrigan: No. The McMahons have kept politics and pro wrestling separate during Trump’s campaign and presidency. But partnering with Saudi Arabia certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Smith: Not at all. My pay scale doesn’t change based on who they are associated with and I, like millions of others, still tune in every Monday night.

Goodwillie: Not at all. WWE has attempted to navigate all over the political map, whether it was sending The Rock and Linda McMahon to the RNC before Bush v. Gore or feigning a progressive attitude with the “women’s revolution.” But what I can appreciate is that as far as we know, the McMahons still have a good relationship with the Trumps despite The Donald’s current job. So many people who were friends with Trump, like Howard Stern for instance, completely severed ties over their political differences. If I’m truly someone’s friend, a difference in political opinion should not shake that. It certainly shouldn’t define who we are as people.

Will The Rock ever run for president of the United States?

Gibb: I sincerely hope legislation will be passed in the next decade to prevent celebrities from cutting the whole public service line and running for president on name value. With that said, yeah, probably.

Bautista: No. He is probably in the best shape of his life and is continuously making movies that break box office records. Being the president of the United States is a thankless job.

Gelfand: At this point, why not? He would be the most charismatic and the best trash talker, which really has nothing to do with the job, but it would help him get elected.

Jackson: Who knows!? It would definitely be exciting if The Rock ran for president. But how credible he would look to politicians and non-wrestling fans is another story.

Corrigan: Absolutely. I’m surprised he didn’t enter the race this year.

Smith: I love The Rock as much as the next person, but let’s hope he stays in Hollywood. I don’t doubt for a second that he could do it, but for us as a country, do we want to go for another celebrity as our leader? Just seems like there will be more qualified, albeit not as recognizable candidates. Remember: politics and pro wrestling don’t mix.

Goodwillie: He will, and he has all the tools to win. My biggest knock on our current president is that he’s not a uniter – he’s a divider who seems to get his jollies from pissing off the very people he’s meant to protect and have their best interests in mind. The Rock is not that way. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, anybody can appreciate Dwayne Johnson’s story, work ethic and kindness. What most people do not know is that The Rock is one of the few Republicans in Hollywood, although you’d have to go out of your way to look that up because it’s not the type of thing he really projects; which to me, makes him all the more likable. I’m of the belief that the president doesn’t have as much true power as people seem to think, which is a credit to the system our Founding Fathers (not you, Whited) put in place to a certain extent. That said, if anybody can bring both sides of the aisle together, Dwayne Johnson, crazy as it sounds, might just be the guy to do it.

If you had to watch a debate between two wrestlers, who would they be and what topic would you prefer?

Gibb: RJ City and Tony Schiavone debating the cinematic and historical value of Ready to Rumble.

Bautista: RVD and Matt Riddle debating what’s the best weed.

Gelfand: Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles debating the shape of Earth.

Jackson: David Starr and JBL on capitalism. Both men are at complete opposite ends of the scale in regard to their views of money (as well as other topics), so I know it would be a really fun and exciting debate!

Corrigan: Jesse Ventura and Jim Cornette on any conspiracy theory. Speaking of debates, I’m sick of these: Did Vince do the right thing at Montreal, who/what killed WCW and does Chris Benoit belong in the WWE Hall of Fame.

Smith: CM Punk and Triple H. I could listen to these two go back and forth about whether the sky is blue. For topics, I’d be interested in them debating health care for pro wrestlers and how to raise annual income through other means than taxation.

Goodwillie: Jim Cornette could debate a cardboard cutout of [insert your favorite wrestling personality here] and it would pop a rating. But I cannot help but buy into his current “feud” with Dave Meltzer. While I think it stinks of a work, someone has to be lying, right? Get Conrad Thompson to moderate it and have Jim Ross throw in his two cents whenever necessary. I can see it now: “Well, Corny. Dave makes a good point. But you need to remember the two things of our business. It’s cash. And creative.”