Superbowl LVIII on Sunday was keenly watched for more than just American football. The presence of Taylor Swift at numerous NFL games due to her relationship with Kansas City Chiefs’ player Travis Kelce has been a point of contention for football fans and point of celebration for Swifties. Yet it was conspiracy theories from the Trump-supporting right that made headlines and added greater cultural significance to this event. They believed that the game would be rigged for the Chiefs would win, Taylor would attend, and she would endorse President Joe Biden for his 2024 Presidential run. Despite the Chiefs winning and Taylor on full display, no endorsement came. While it is the latest in conspiracies from that end of the US political spectrum, the weight of the possibility of a Taylor Swift endorsement was enough to cause a level of panic for the GOP. This was demonstrated by their extensive briefing in the media where they attempted to discredit her and disparage a potential foray into the political circus. The question is though, why was this fear valid, and what does it say about our culture that celebrities with no political experience as perceived to hold such considerable sway over an electorate?
The influence of celebrity political endorsements in the US has been documented and quantified. Most notably, reports have said that Oprah Winfrey gave to Barak Obama in 2007 granted the then candidate an additional million votes at the polling booth. More recently and specifically, Taylor Swift’s encouragement for her fans to register to vote on Instagram led to 35,000 people registering to vote in September 2023. When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 there was a succession of celebrities who endorsed her. This example is notable as she famously did not win the presidency in spite of this support. This illustrates the fact that celebrity endorsements do not tend to necessarily cause a win for their candidate. Taylor Swift herself endorsed Marsha Blackburn in a Tennessee election, but she was beaten. Studies suggest that these endorsements tend not to change the way people vote, but rather encourages them to become more active in their preexisting support. Therefore, while political endorsements do not sway elections, they do have an impact in providing momentum and galvanising support for a candidate. This happens most prominently in the US, but it is also found in the UK and other countries. Stormzy’s criticism of the Conservatives may not have removed them from power but has certainly strengthened the negative sentiment towards them by his fans.
With this in mind, it may seem odd the fear that the potential Taylor Swift nomination seemed to engender in the right. However, the fervour around this issue is symptomatic of the wider integration of celebrity in politics. Ironically, Donald Trump himself is the biggest benefactor of this trend as he traded on his celebrity status and reputation to become president. He was not the first in conservative US politics with his predecessor Ronald Reagan first being cast into the spotlight as an actor. The blurring of the lines between politicians and celebrities makes sense from a logical perspective. Western society has steadily become more enamoured with celebrities, through reality tv and social media amplifying their presence and removing a pretense of needing an exceptional talent in a field to achieve this status. With democratic elections functioning as a popularity contest, it makes sense that those disenfranchised with the traditional political leaders would turn to those they idolise for guidance. The era of influencers has combined with a trend of people being fed a particular view rather than building that view themselves through critical thinking.
In a political landscape that is increasingly populist, celebrities will continue to hold significant power. Perhaps they may not historically control the outcome, but there is a very real possibility that they could. The question remains then, is this a positive or a negative? Some will argue that celebrities should keep political views to themselves, but this comes from the fallacy that politics is kept in a box and does not permeate throughout the rest of our lives. While it would be wrong to encourage celebrities to make bold statements without careful consideration, muzzling them would be a problematic course of action. However, the ability of someone famous to have such an impact on our electoral systems may say more about the flaws in those systems which allow voices to influences without a threshold for credibility in their statements.
The real necessity is not to remove celebrity from political discourse, but instead to disentangle it from political action. Governance is a role that requires a strong command of the facts and careful evaluation of the potential options before proceeding with a course of action. Celebrities could certainly acquire or possess this ability; they are people at the end of the day. But society’s tendency to equate success in these other fields with success in political office needs to be challenged. Our desire should be for the most competent government, not the one we like the most.
The US will continue to struggle with this election where divisiveness and fearmongering will be at the forefront. Given the entrenched views, even someone of Taylor Swift’s considerable influence will not be able to guarantee a win for a candidate. But the reaction to the possibility of her intervention is a portent of things to come if we allow the spheres of celebrity and politics to continue to merge.
Commenti