Emma Li

Swift, despite espousing praise for the more progressive candidate in this year’s upcoming election, emits 1,800 times more carbon than the average American. By contrast, Harris, the candidate Swift supports, has put forward emission-reducing, pro-environment policy.

American history features its fair share of idols. The iconography of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jordan has always shaped the country’s culture, creating a pantheon of legends who define trends and impact public opinion.

As such, famous figures have long participated in politics, mostly via endorsements. For over 100 years, droves of actors, athletes and assorted public figures have lent their support to campaigns. Unfortunately, neither our superficial culture nor obsession with palatable figures and their opinions allows for these endorsements to be based on support of real policies. This creates a general undercurrent of artificiality that pervades public discourse as we continually put the rich and famous on a pedestal.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, we have seen the trend of celebrity endorsements in full bloom, most notably from pop megastar Taylor Swift, who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency via Instagram on Sept. 10. The singer made headlines for her unequivocal support of the Democratic candidate, joining a group that includes talk show host Oprah Winfrey and television scientist Bill Nye. On the other side, Harris’s Republican challenger, Donald Trump, garnered praise from musician Kid Rock and former wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Swift, despite espousing praise for the more progressive candidate in this year’s upcoming election, emits 1,800 times more carbon than the average American. By contrast, Harris, the candidate Swift supports, has put forward emission-reducing, pro-environment policy. 

Swift, though, must endorse Harris. As the forward-facing, female candidate running against a virulent misogynist and convicted rapist, the Vice President appeals to Swift’s audience, mainly composed of women and girls who look up to the singer as a model of strong womanhood. Swift probably supports Harris, but her lack of follow-through on the basic progressivism often associated with matters like climate consciousness makes the musician’s single Instagram post look insignificant. 

Like any American citizen, celebrity or not, Swift does not have to “walk the walk” of every, or any, progressive policy. In fact, her endorsement, along with every other political announcement or promotion that public figures make, encourages voting in general, a clear benefit to democracy. To Gen-Z fans, though, who tend to lean towards the more progressive side of the spectrum, her support rings hollow. While she holds the right to express her beliefs, one must not fall into the trap of blind faith in her.

On the other side of the spectrum, we must recognize and encourage the use of celebrity for the common good. NBA player LeBron James put his generally progressive political leanings into action, establishing a school for underserved youth in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. Ironically, James faced criticism from right-wing commentator Laura Ingraham for expressing his beliefs, with the Fox News host stating that he should “shut up and dribble.” We hold the rich and famous to an odd duality in which they must simultaneously appear politically active and yet not vocally support specific policies at the risk of angering their fans. This culture of fake concern directly leads to more examples of pragmatism like Swift’s, and less positive change, like that which stems from James’ work.

While celebrities might not hold an explicit obligation to use their influence and wealth to improve society, their lackluster attempts to do so call into question the shape of our culture. Does our idolization of these figures really aid us in creating an American identity at all? Certainly, their work brings the populace great joy, and even provides value as an artistic reflection.

We must confront the sobering reality that many celebrities do not care about the average person or improving their life, as policy-makers and elected officials are obligated to. This truth, however dour, has lurked in the American subconscious for too long, uplifting our worst tendencies to make gods out of ordinary citizens who become famous.

Society’s obsession with micromanaging celebrity opinions narrows down their scope of being to whatever we find palatable. While we can’t force apathetic or profit-concerned stars to express their views fully and put their money where their mouth is, we can shift our culture from one of idols to one of ideals, bringing realism, policy and impactful work to the forefront of our country’s value system. Fame comes at a price, and this price should not be the efficacy or well-being of our democracy and ability to make positive change.