There seems to be a growing perception — particularly on the part of those who are rabidly involved in politics — that entertainers hold undue sway over the public's political opinions. Celebrities who find themselves on the wrong side of this attack-dog mentality had best beware.

Performers at the Democratic National Convention and supporting events can expect to be derided as out-of-touch limousine liberals. For example, Fox News' Neil Cavuto bashed a slew of liberal celebrities in his July 22 edition of "Common Sense." Performers at the Republican National Convention such as Toby Keith, Brooks & Dunn and Ted Nugent are sure to inspire similar antagonism by liberals.

Let's look at one of the most prominent examples of celebrity involvement in a political convention. Ben Affleck was everywhere at the DNC — he made speeches, went to parties and sat alongside Democratic politicians and their families. However, Affleck, for all his fame, couldn't even get anyone to see "Gigli." Does anyone seriously think he is going to convince anyone to vote a certain way? Where are the polls that take "the Affleck factor" into account? Oh wait, there aren't any (thus exposing the lack of empirical evidence that celebrity endorsements sway elections).

To hear the party faithful from both sides though, one would think celebrity endorsements were all that mattered in politics. Perhaps the most famous example of celebrity involvement in politics was the Dixie Chicks' vilification of the war in Iraq. In response to the group's anti-war comments, conservative groups led boycotts. Once the Dixie Chicks' record sales and radio play were at an all-time low, the stage was finally set for the invasion of Iraq. Whew, I was worried for a while that the Dixie Chicks might single-handedly change the course of American politics. Good thing there was a boycott.

Celebrities — liberal and conservative — have the First Amendment right to express their beliefs. We have the right to agree or disagree with them. However, expecting celebrities to believe exactly what we believe — under threat of boycott — is unfair. Most people would not demand such ideological conformity from friends or family. So why do they demand it of people whom they will never meet?

The fact is this: The opinions of a few entertainers don't matter much in the grand scheme. Our votes count for as much as Kid Rock's, who is a Bush supporter. Our speeches will probably sway as many people as Affleck's. It is only the size of celebrities' soapboxes that differ from ours. They have a bigger voice than we do; that's just a fact. If we don't want to hear what they have to say, we don't have to listen. But there's a difference between not listening and demanding silence.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.