The film business is hurting. As more channels, websites and video games compete for a truly limited resource—people’s time—films are finding smaller and smaller audiences.

So it might not seem like the wisest business decision for the industry to become even more stridently left-wing. But, as the Hollywood Reporter notes, that’s exactly what Hollywood is doing:

Hollywood has always worn its liberal politics on its sleeve, from 1976’s “All the President’s Men” and 1979’s “Norma Rae” to 2002’s “Bowling for Columbine.” With Tuesday’s crop of Oscar contenders, though, politics have never been more front and center.

“What all these films have in common is they’re about the human condition,” said Oscar-nominated “Crash” co-writer Bobby Moresco. “The pendulum has swung back to movies about politics. People want films that have something to say; they’re tired of fluff.”

Maybe people want films that have something to say, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they want films that all say the same thing.

Steven Spielberg reminisces about the glory days of the left:

It’s been an amazing year, very much like 1968, ‘69 and ‘70, when you suddenly see all of these political movies coming out at the same time, out of the watershed of politics. Some of it is due to our own insecurity about the voices representing us in government right now. We feel like our government has set us adrift, and we’re trying to make our voices heard. We’re telling them to be worried about these things.

Maybe that’s part of what ails the film business. Are films supposed to be entertainment? Or are they platforms for expressing political opinions? Perhaps they can be both, but if so, then Hollywood should remember that most of the country does not share its politics. Where are the films for the rest of America?

George Clooney pats himself on the back for his bravery in repeating what everyone else in his industry is saying:

I haven’t shied away from political and social conversations in my life, so I don’t shy away from them in the films I make either. [...] We as a society since 9/11 have, for the first time since Watergate, sat around and had outrage, discussion, polarization and arguments from both sides of the aisle. Questions are being asked. And that is good.

But the films coming out of Hollywood aren’t part of a discussion. They aren’t representing “both sides of the aisle.” Discussions tend to have multiple perspectives presented. What Hollywood is engaged in is a monologue. It’s a lecture.

Delighted that the Academy chose to “reward people who took risks this year,” [Crash director Paul] Haggis cited “risks Steven Spielberg took, and the heat he’s getting. All the films are passion pieces that ask troubling questions. It’s the ’70s all over again. It’s great for the films and great for the nation. It says people are embracing these issues, that they don’t want to go to the theater to forget. They want to be involved, to participate.”

I repeat: it is not a risk to say what everyone around you is saying. It is not a risk to put out a film with a perspective shared by all your friends. That’s easy. What would be risky is if someone in Hollywood got behind a film that they didn’t agree with, one that they knew most of Hollywood would disagree with. That would take balls.