OCT 3, 2024 | OPINION | By Stecy Mwachia
The United States of America. Land of the free, the home of the brave, and most importantly, the land of celebrities and scandal. The United States political scene has long been no stranger to actor-politician dualists. With the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the founder of the current GOP Ronald Regan entering politics, it was no shock in 2016 when reality TV star and failed entrepreneur Donald Trump threw his hat in the ring for the presidential candidacy. I first witnessed Trump on a WWE segment when I was a child, and it understandably shocked me when I recognized him descending the iconic stairs on the news several years later.
Who knew the first image I had of my future president would be while he was shaving the head of Vince McMahon?
What I’m interested in exploring today is not the existence of celebrity politicians, but rather the effect of celebrities, particularly musical artists with large international fanbases, on the American voting cycle. We tend to think of celebrity worship as a modern convention, a product of social media exposure at a young age or a consequence of the normalization of parasocial relationships. However, this perception is untrue.
While the relationship between fans and celebrities has changed significantly over the past 20 years, there’s nothing humans have been better at historically than idolizing other human beings. Though in many ways we have escaped our animalistic tendencies, when it comes to hierarchical organization, there is nothing more primitive or ape-like still about us.
Politics has always been a game of popularity and power more than it ever has been about policy and practicality, so it only makes sense that in the most popular and most powerful country in the world, pop culture and politics often collide. This phenomenon is not as specific to the United States as you would expect it to be, however, it is common across countries with developed media and production worldwide. What makes the United States unique is the overwhelming concentration of international celebrities with mass influence over exceedingly large audiences, often larger than constituencies, with the power to flip electoral votes.
Mega-celebrities who draw crowds fill sporting arenas with fanbases within the voting age such as Taylor Swift and Chappel Roan. Especially now, in the height of the internet and social media, if celebrities have enough power and influence over their fanbases, notably the spending habits of young people, could that power, if turned to political action, have enough weight to shift voting behavior as well?
Taylor Swift chose to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 Election and posted a link to vote.org to her 280 million followers on Instagram
“I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote.
According to NBC, this link drove 400,000 voters to vote.org in only 24 hours. Her post was also followed by extreme vitriol from the conservative media, with neo-conservative watchdog and Twitter dictator Elon Musk chiming in with an extremely derogatory and sexually explicit comment to the pop artist, which I sincerely feel is too disgusting to mention here.
While the conservative response to the endorsement has been consistently and overwhelmingly negative, the liberal perspective is more nuanced and complex. Factions of the left have taken up an anti-elite perspective that makes them more hesitant to shift to the opinions of celebrities than 2008 Democrats would have been. Newsweek writes that their poll of 1,750 registered voters conducted on July 29 found that 26% of Gen Z voters were “less likely” or “significantly less likely” to vote for a candidate backed by Swift. Members of Gen Z were born between 1997 and 2012, giving them a maximum age of 27.”
While Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Haris generally leads more people to vote, its effect on Kamala’s candidacy is inconclusive. Statisticians are currently trying to establish if it will be a promising influence, such as Oprah’s, or more of a failed endorsement, such as Clint Eastwood’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2012. Researchers are skeptical about how much midline voters will move because of this endorsement, believing that the youth will not be swayed much as a demographic specifically.
Taylor Swift’s struggle to garner the support of the left signals a bigger phenomenon among Gen Z. Liberals of the 21st century have a conflict to solve within themselves, one that is of strong emphasis at a liberal arts school such as our own.
Do the left-leaning youth want celebrities to advocate for social and political causes, or do they want them to shut their big fat privileged mouths?
To understand the relationship between media and politics in the United States in 2024, we need to go back to the last century, specifically, the 1960 and 1972 election cycles, which I believe we can learn the most from. The first major example of entertainment media influencing political campaigns in the United States was Frank Sinatra’s song “High Hopes” in which the spirited Sinatra enthusiastically endorsed John F. Kennedy during the 1960 election. The lyrics read, “Come on and vote for Kennedy, Vote for Kennedy and you’ll come out on top!” Before Sinatra, musicians, actors, and artists alike were made to sign “Morality” clauses within their contracts with production studios, effectively silencing them from speaking on political issues.
This was the era of the Cold War, and communist suspicion was embedded into every aspect of United States society. This was done by executives not as an effort to silence actors, but rather to avoid litigation and investigation by the federal government into their releases. Many members of the artist class were persecuted relentlessly during the early 20th century (most notably, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles). But if the production companies were in cahoots with or being controlled by the federal government de jure, why were the creators of popular media even being targeted or accused of being sympathetic to communists?
This is because, within almost all societies, the artist class tends to lean left in comparison to their cultural peers. They tend to be more accepting of marginalized members of their community including gender, sexual and ethnic minorities, and advocate for more fluid ways of being.
An interesting period of United States history followed the debut of one of America’s final classic sitcoms, “All In The Family” during Richard Nixon’s presidential term. Though the effects of popular culture on voting behavior are yet to be determined, there is a strong link between media representation and social acceptance of marginalized groups. It could be said that this fact, and its inverse, would be especially true in this case. “All in the Family” depicts a traditional United States family in the 1980s, led by a conservative and straight-laced patriarch Archie Bunker. Due to the nature of United States history, Bunker’s conservatism and traditionalism encompassed many aspects of racism, homophobia, xenophobia and overall ignorance. He was a self-identifying bigot and was a stand-in for many white suburban fathers across the country at that time.
A newsman in 1972 read for the evening news, “Some politicians are referring this year to the Archie Bunker vote!” referring to people who consider themselves “old-fashioned” Americans. Bunker represented the generation of voters who turned their backs on the pro-integration Democrats in favor of the orthodoxy of Reagan and Nixon. He was an extremely popular character, and in the 1972 election cycle, many politicians sought out his endorsement. Though he played a “bumbling bigot” on the big screen, the actor Carol O’Conner behind Archie Bunker considered himself liberal and thus gave his endorsement as Carol O’Conner for Liberal Mayor of New York John Lindsay. This showcased an element of the Democratic playbook we still see today, casting a really big net. Though John Lindsay intentionally avoided using bigoted language and racial dog whistles in his campaigns, he still heavily desired the endorsement of the country’s most infamous middle-class blue-collar stereotype, the exact audience the dog whistles of his opponent would be pandering to.
Another fascinating element of this campaign cycle was that President Nixon hated Archie Bunker’s portrayal of the middle-class American man on cable television. He described him as a slob and an idiot, and was appalled that conservative ideals were portrayed like that on a national platform. He once remarked that once he saw Archie’s character on All in the Family, “I shut that damn thing off! As reported by Matt Baume.
Nixon was among the more clever members of the audience, because Archie Bunker’s character was, indeed, a satirical portrayal of a Reagan Democrat from famously liberal and openly gay TV producer Norman Lear. The creator of “All in the Family” wanted the show to be a way for traditional American families to transition into a post-1960s world, into an era of acceptance and tolerance. Later on, he would include a gay character as a permanent fixture to the cast, a drag queen even (Baume 2023)! I recommend watching this character arc if you can access it online, or on YouTube. It was one of the first empathetic portrayals of a gay character on Network television and you WILL cry! Lear was also the creator of “Maude” and “The Jeffersons,” the latter of which was responsible for the first interracial couple on television.
Tragically, “All in the Family’s” satirical message didn’t land as Lear would have hoped. In a 2016 interview, Lear would proclaim about former president Donald Trump, “He IS Archie Bunker!” This brings us to our current election cycle; that of Kamala Hariss vs Donald Trump. In the year of our lord, 2024, we no longer idolize sitcom stars, jazz artists, or even network talk show hosts such as Oprah Winfrey, who may have been responsible for a million votes for Obama back in 2008. In 2024, the idols in the hearts of the youth are pop stars, hip-hop musicians and social media influencers. This has created an interesting pit crew for campaign rallies, featuring names such as Lil Pump, Megan thee Stallion, Logan Paul and many more.
No artist has the cultural force, power and legacy in the United States even close to matching that of Taylor Swift, the elephant in the room so to speak. I myself am not a Swiftie, though I won’t go as far as former President Trump as he stated “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” on Truth Social last month.
I am a part of her target demographic as a young woman at a PWI and a sorority girl, but I, similarly to formerly respected rapper Kanye West, prefer Beyoncé as the artist of our generation. I once won a “Who said it, Taylor Swift or Shakespeare?” contest in my freshman year of high school. When my Swiftie English teacher asked me how I won the game, I’m assuming she expected me to say something about how enlightening her verses are, but instead, I said I had chosen the corner of the two options for every prompt much to her displeasure. All of this withstanding, I cannot underestimate the absolute dominance Taylor Swift has had over the music industry for the past 15 years; it is undeniable no matter what music taste you personally have. I think that this is very important to establish, as she has been the subject of overwhelming hatred and misogyny for the past five years, with the main effort being to minimize her power and influence as a woman within the music industry. I need you to understand that when I say Taylor Swift’s influence and power is indescribable, I’m not being biased. Taylor Swift is truly the giant whose shoulders current pop artists stand on, male or female, and that’s coming from someone who isn’t a fan.
Taylor Swift in particular has always occupied an interesting position in the United States psyche, and an extremely gendered one at that. This niche has become amplified by her long-term relationship with football superstar Travis Kelce, the tight end of my hometown Kansas City’s team, the Chiefs. It seems that at the beginning of Swift’s career, she represented small-town country girls, the precursor to a conservative-leaning woman. However, she wasn’t necessarily toted as an example of virtue by conservative men in United States society, being consistently shamed from left to right for her romantic pursuits.
The entire 2010s consisted of Taylor Swift consistently producing quality albums that have all stood the test of time, and the media focusing on ridiculing her for dating different men. Considering how much purity culture has loosened in the last 20 years within the music industry, it seems ridiculous in hindsight that the media focused so much on a woman being in committed long-term relationships as a subject of their hatred and ire. So while Taylor Swift embodied conservatism in her “girl next door with a guitar” persona, she was still consistently ridiculed by America as a whole. This pattern continues to this day, survived by the attitudes of Chiefs and NFL fans alike.
It seems that she and Lana del Rey have respectively moved in opposite directions, with their aesthetics and political views matching this shift correspondingly. Taylor increasingly incorporated elements of black culture into her musical career (the signal of a “leftist” artist in the 2010s i.e. Miley Cyrus), focusing on female empowerment and showing support to the LGBTQ community. She established herself as a celebrity with a cosmopolitan worldview, someone who was tolerant and open to change. Gen Z responded to this incredibly, and thus Taylor Swift maintains her fanbase of tweenage girls to this day while preserving the original fanbase who have grown into young women at the same time. This falls in line with what many conservative political pundits describe as “the woke takeover.” There is a perception among many right-leaning politicians and constituents that pop culture has increasingly been dominated by “immoral influences” and vulgarity. This has been a concern about the arts for centuries, most recently with the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s, and perceptions that over-consuming art and beauty would corrupt the moral sensibilities of aristocrats go back to the court of Louis XIV of France. Marilyn Monroe advocated for gay and black entertainers alike, and Frida Khalo had affairs with many women. What conservative voters perceive as pop culture moving to shift the social needs of a democratic agenda is just celebrated artists doing what they have always done, being gay and being ethnically inclusive.
The only difference between then and now is that the Internet has given artists a larger platform to be who they want to be and support what they want to support, and our normalization of parasocial relationships through the use of social media has had the effect of making them more comfortable sharing their opinions. Regardless of this, due to corporations needing the buying power of marginalized groups as well as artists needing their support publicly, the general notion is that the status quo is no longer the pro-United States evangelist camp of Bush or even the moderate democrat Obama. The radical, liberal, democratic establishment is now viewed as the status quo, and conservatism is a nostalgic counterforce to that establishment.
Taylor Swift, although representing herself as left-leaning and democratic in the media throughout her career, still represents that girl next door in the eyes, hearts and memories of many Americans, and her courtship with Travis Kelce has re-invigorated that image. What draws imagery of the preppy cheerleader and the celebrated football player more than these two? It’s reminiscent of “Jack and Diane” by John Mellencamp, who is the quintessential image of what the American Dream was for decades of United States history. In many ways, I believe this reinvigoration of an image that many Americans are nostalgic for made Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris that much more disappointing to the moderate to conservative voting base. It’s one thing for an artist who is part of a marginalized group to advocate for a party that they feel represents their needs and interests, but for the poster child of white femininity, the country singer turned biggest pop princess in the world, to turn their back on the party of Reagan? The grand ole’ party? It’s gonna ruffle a lot more feathers.
Since 2020, there has been much deliberation online into the “silence” of major celebrities following the killing of George Floyd. There was a popular protest cry during this time that proclaimed “Silence Is Violence.” Many celebrities endured vitriol and disappointment both within and outside of their fan bases for not speaking up about police violence towards African Americans in the United States, and an equal amount endured the same for displaying what was interpreted as “performative activism” by left-leaning youth. Last year, a similar phenomenon occurred following Oct. 7, 2023, wherein public figures were at a loss on whether to stay impartial or to make their beliefs known on the international conflict. What would be the best course of action for a public figure with an extremely large international following during a tumultuous political year? When the United States was in a period of high patriotism and unity following 9/11, statements of condolences and American pride were common and expected, and it was the dissenters of the Iraq war that were ridiculed. In 2024, who deserves the disparagement, and who deserves the praise? Should we be praising celebrities for being involved politically at all, or is the bare minimum for human behavior some level of political activity? If we decide that political activity and participation are the bare minimum, what incentive would a celebrity (a person whose whole identity and source of income is based on public favor and praise) even benefit from stepping into the minefield that is United States politics?
It seems as though we have arrived at a time in the United States where no one knows who’s who. Taylor Swift can be perceived as a radical feminist Marxist sympathizer by some and a white feminist performative fake liberal by others. Chappell Roan’s recent disinterest in the two-party system and rejection of voting can either be interpreted as radical protest or out-of-touch virtue signaling.
No one knows who is the status quo, who represents the people in power, who moves the culture forward or preserves its greatness. There ceases to be any semblance of a universal American political culture whatsoever anymore. Popular culture continues to parody and satire traditional United States culture, Christianity, racial segregation and anti-immigrant sentiment as more marginalized people become successful within the entertainment industry. Alongside entertainment’s leftward momentum, political culture remains moving more and more to the right, both from the Democratic effort to desperately preserve political ideals from the 20th century and the Republican effort to reinforce social expectations that were universally regarded during that century.
We are all moving in the shadow of this tumultuous and toxic relationship between popular culture and politics because ultimately, they are the two ways we see immense power within our everyday lives. We don’t consider our rulers to be media conglomerates or the energy giants that make our world move; the industry titans are almost always invisible. The politicians, the influencers, the actors, and the comics are our American aristocrats, our nobility. What they lack in corporate ties and market share, they make up for in influence over our minds and habits.