Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
Cross Face Chicken Wing

Wrestler's Political Affiliations

Recommended Posts

I don't know why I care, but I do:

 

Republican

Ric Flair

The McMahons

Bill Watts

 

Democrat

????

 

Independent

Jesse Ventura

 

I'm drawing a blank on any others that we know for sure, or can reasonably assume based on comments, should be lumped in with a specific political party.

 

(And feel free to take this thread totally off the rails, if you wish, by using past promos or out-of-the-ring misdeeds to affiliate certain wrestlers with certain political parties)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Real-life Democrat: Mick Foley.

 

Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster.

 

Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard.

 

IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about their party affilitation, but what we know about their personal positions on issues tends to be pretty liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster.

 

Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard.

 

IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem.

 

 

I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side).

 

IRS was a joke answer, but he did hang out with "Bill Clinton" at WMX and gave him praise for his tax hike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess, if we're considering all wrestlers, their white males, nominally Christian, many of whom are above thirty five, and from the South. That's a recipe for a Republican voter if I've ever heard one. Throw in relatively high salary (at one point) plus the fact their independent contractors, and again, I wouldn't be shocked if 70-80% of the WWE & WCW roster since 1990 voted Republican.

 

OTOH, with the WWE roster being more diverse, younger, and with more women in it, I'd actually guess Romney only won 60-40 among the locker room. After all, even with their pay, I doubt either Punk or Bryan is voting for Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do CM Punk and Daniel Bryan identify as?

 

I would guess Bryan is solidly liberal, or to the left of liberal, and will remain that way through thick and thin.

 

Punk seems like the type of who would support some type off-the-wall candidate that nobody has ever heard of, then if that candidate ever begins to get somewhat popular or mainstream, he'd ditch him and find someone else to support that nobody has ever heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster.

 

Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard.

 

IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem.

 

 

I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side).

 

 

Struck me as Steiner playing "face", and that was the "face" position in the country at the time. Cheap heat spot, and forced Chris to be anti-war because it was the heel spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy.

 

This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Character Democrat: Christopher Nowinski, Irwin R. Schyster.

 

Always thought Chris was more of the Elite Oligarch Harvard boy rather than Obama-style Harvard.

 

IRS is a little tricky. It's not like Mike played it as a Dem.

 

 

I was thinking of that bizarre feud between Nowinski and Scott Steiner over their positions on the War in Iraq (Chris was against it, if you couldn't guess. Scott took the "RAH RAH MURICA" side).

 

 

Struck me as Steiner playing "face", and that was the "face" position in the country at the time. Cheap heat spot, and forced Chris to be anti-war because it was the heel spot.

 

 

I still love the idea of ANY political movement/position selecting Steiner as their mouthpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inoki is a neocon (no shit, is anyone surprised) and Hase is a Lib-Dem. For those in the UK, there’s a distinction between our Lib-Dems and the Japanese ones who are more towards centre-right and not centre-left.

Onita ran in the same party as Hase though he was booted out of politics after he used government funds to book hotels to have threesomes with a porn star and some other chick. What a guy.

Mil Mascaras has spoken politics several times on interviews and surprisingly he’s more towards the left than I’d have ever imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats.

 

Yeah he is strictly anti-Republican (right wing ones for sure). Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Democrat although he is a very vocal supporter of Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know if Jim Cornette is a Democrat or just someone who got fed up during the Bush years. I think most people in wrestling are going to be Republicans. It's interesting that historically, most wrestling fans have been Democrats.

 

Yeah he is strictly anti-Republican (right wing ones for sure). Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Democrat although he is a very vocal supporter of Obama.

 

 

Cornette mentioned in one of his podcasts that he never paid a lot of attention to politics when he was active because he was too deep in the wrestling bubble. He only started hating republicans in the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy.

 

This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP

 

 

Yeah, dude has writings up on Lew Rockwell's website. He's pretty close to as philosophically into it as it gets.

 

Which is funny since Bryan at least used to be a total Chomsky reading commie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bryan is a pretty hardcore left-winger. Recall his "down with capitalism" speech on NXT.

 

I don't really think Inoki qualifies as a neocon. His Sports Peace Party was at least nominally left-wing and formed an alliance in the Diet with the Democratic Socialist Party. Of course, he's currently affiliated with the far-right Japan Restoration Party. The impression I get is that he's basically an opportunist with no deep-seated principles beyond his own advancement.

 

It should be noted that the real-life John Layfield isn't nearly as conservative as the JBL character. I remember seeing an interview with him from the 90s where he said he was a centrist who voted for Clinton. And after the 2012 election, he said on Twitter that Obama and Romney both sucked and that his ideal candidate was someone like Bloomberg.

 

Some of you may be surprised to know that Kevin Nash is an Obama supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nash formed his own rogue collective bargaining group to ensure that he and his friends got paid what they thought they deserved. It doesn't surprise me that he's a pretty staunch Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy.

 

This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP

 

 

Oh, I know his stuff about Austrian economics. But having read his framing of it relative to Keynes, it tends to come across much more as Tea Party / Paulian view of Austrian econ than truly deep philosophical and thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Libertarians: Val Venis, Glen Jacobs, probably numerous others.

 

Kane is more a Tea Party "libertarian" rather than a deeply philosophical libertarian. Not dissimilar to where a lot of people who were typically GOP ran to during/after the Bush years and "Republican" made some of them a bit uneasy.

 

This isn't really true. Jacobs is a believer in Austrian economics, very familiar with Mises, Rothbard, et. It is true that he is somewhat wedded to the Ron/Rand Paul political strategy, but I know for a fact he is more deeply philosophical than a lot of people who are actually in the LP

 

 

Yeah, dude has writings up on Lew Rockwell's website. He's pretty close to as philosophically into it as it gets.

 

 

Which is pretty much what I mean. Rockwell is a classic Paulian version of Libertarian: on the econ side where/when they care for it, and slide over to social conservatism when they care for it, and end up with a melting pot mish-mash. The Gov is evil... except when we want the Gov to quash out what we don't like.

 

Granted, you'll get the same mish mash over on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which is pretty much what I mean. Rockwell is a classic Paulian version of Libertarian: on the econ side where/when they care for it, and slide over to social conservatism when they care for it, and end up with a melting pot mish-mash. The Gov is evil... except when we want the Gov to quash out what we don't like.

 

Granted, you'll get the same mish mash over on the other side.

 

 

Rockwell and the Mises Institute guys are pretty pragmatic (they were all about Buchanan in the 90s too) but they're very different from the Tea Party type. The Tea Party was 95% pure rebranding with the 5% being a slight de-emphasis on aggressive foreign policy. Even the more "dedicated" Tea Partiers would be more interested in reading the Federalist Papers than Human Action. Actually, I'd be interested to know how much Kane is into the founding fathers reverence stuff.

 

For fun though, here is Kane's incredibly poor argument (even on his own terms) against equal pay:

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/fallacy-equal-pay-equal-work/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×