At The Times, A Pet Peeve: Celebrity political endorsements don’t matter. They just don’t. They don’t win elections. They don’t change people’s minds! And that is because the relationship we have with celebrities is… an entirely different category of relationship than the one we have with politicians:
The fact that so much celebrity wattage produces so little social change might be at least in part because celebrities exist for us as aspirational figures, not practical ones. I might try Jane Fonda’s aerobics program because I envy her physique or join Reese Witherspoon’s book club because it will make me feel like we’re friends. But political candidates are ultimately public servants. They work for us; we’re not their fans, we’re their employers.…
[Celebrity] voices, in practical terms, should count for just as much or as little as any other individual’s voice. We shouldn’t look to them to solve politics for the rest of us — and it’s for the best that they can’t.
Celebrities should of course feel free to express their political beliefs, to organize, to donate money, to volunteer where possible to do so etc. (Fiona Apple is a court watcher! So cool.) And it’s also one hundred percent fine (not that you need my permission or approval on this point) to feel disappointed in somebody for not being politically vocal, or to only be interested in artists who have overt politics in their public speech and art, etc etc etc. But the idea that famous people can Instagram post us into world peace (or a Harris presidency)1 is delusional.2
I wanted to write this piece without communicating any “leave Taylor alone ):” vibes and I feel like I succeeded—my problem with people agitating for a Taylor Swift endorsement is not that it’s somehow “unfair” or “mean” but that like… it’s ineffective and a waste of focus. Unless there’s a preponderance of Swifties in these six states, I guess.3 And my prediction is that Taylor will endorse Harris in October, for the record, much like she did for Biden.… But it won’t matter.4
ETA: And there it is (much earlier than I thought).
n.b.:
I am not affiliated with “Swifties for Kamala,” though I was Twitter mutuals with one of its founders back in the day (not sure if I still am since I don’t really log on much anymore).
If you’re new here, I think most of the primary texts of Taylor Swift Studies are the ones gathered at this link.
The New Yorker also had a piece on the same topic come out while I was working on this one, though I think its angle is a bit different.
My friend
did a reported piece for The Baffler about the Democrats in Michigan and how things have and have not changed with Biden stepping out and Kamala stepping in.
And if you think people aren’t saying that I have… some unfortunate news for you.
The big exception to my own claim that I can think of is probably the degree to which Hollywood swung behind the government in World War II, such that stars were running canteens, selling war bonds, etc. I think that’s slightly different though.
Any reports of unusual levels of Swiftiedom in Michigan are probably my fault.
Now if Batgirl endorsed… that would matter.…
The piece in the Times was great!! There’s zero proof that celebrity endorsements drastically affect political races — maybe local elections with little name recognition, but rarely major national races! TSwift endorsing Harris might drive a few extra votes, but it’s going to be negligible compared to investing more in ‘boring’ political things like canvassing, phone calls, ads.
Just as a lot of voters want to throw up their hands & give the work of politics to celebrities, i think a lot of democratic party leaders legitimately think that sending out celebrities can substitute for actual organizing or campaigning. Hilary’s campaign was the perfect example of that. ‘oh, just throw out the cast of Hamilton on the trail, that will get people excited,’ that strategy failed catastrophically! Democrats would be better served coming up with an actual platform, and making a case to voters, and involving them in the process, and not praying that the endorsements of Taylor Swift and Dick Cheney can somehow create a magical electoral firewall
I've always thought it was absolutely bizarre how little they mattered, but the aspirational vs practical dichotomy here finally gives a strong explanation.
Concerning another angle of the piece, I've always understood the Vonnegut stuff (and that whole vein of "art doesn't do anything in politics") on the basis that even if art moves people, it doesn't move *powerful* people, and thus it doesn't change policy, only make policies a bit more or less popular, in a way that doesn't ever really threaten power. But I wonder if your insight about aspiration can apply here too, in some way, or if something similar is going on, where we generally only allow art to shift our minds in some ways but not others. Insert coherent thought about conservatives becoming shocked every time they realize ________ is about them or is against them etc etc