From Taylor Swift to Chappell Roan, should we expect more from celebrities, and do their endorsements have an impact, anyway? Travel Editor Ella Ruddle discusses.
Celebrities have a long history of endorsing politicians in the United States and the 2024 presidential election is no different. Pop culture, memes, and TikTok have been a feature of Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ campaign as she tries to connect with GenZ voters.
Among others, Jennifer Lawrence, Bruce Springsteen, Olivia Rodrigo and George Clooney have all come out in support of the Harris campaign across different social media platforms. Taylor Swift, Charli XCX, and Billie Eilish, the top names in the music industry right now, have also endorsed Harris. Yet rising star and Liberal advocate Chappell Roan has said that “Actions speak louder than an endorsement.” So, should we expect more than just an endorsement of Harris from our favourite celebrities?
Taylor Swift has historically used her voice to encourage voters, and endorse Democratic candidates. On the 11th of September, just minutes after the Harris-Trump Presidential debate, Swift took to Instagram to show her support for Kamala Harris. In her post, she wrote
“I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them…I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and women’s right to her own body for decades.”
The New York Times reported that within 24 hours of Swift’s endorsement, there were 405,999 visits to Vote.gov, significantly more than the site’s 30,000 daily average. Yet the tangible effects of these numbers are hard to decipher. Analytical journalist Ethan Singer explains
“It doesn’t tell us whether the visitors were new voters, whether those visits translated into actual registrations or what any new voters will do on Nov. 5.”
It is difficult to prove if Swift’s endorsement will move the needle, especially when evidence suggests those with an already strong voting alliance aren’t impacted by celebrity endorsement.
Yet Richard T. Longoria, a professor specialising in the intersection between celebrities and politics, says people who are uninterested in politics, or new to voting could be influenced by celebrity opinion. He said, “In a close election, that could mean the difference between winning and losing.” Harris has used Swift’s endorsement to her advantage, going on to sell out Taylor Swift-coded friendship bracelets on their campaign website. Politicians stay in the media loop with the help of celebrities.
While Swift has a history of speaking out about local and national US elections her activism has been criticised for its inconsistency, notably her silence surrounding the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Many left-leaning critics believe Swift should be added to the #BlockOut2024 list, where celebrities are blocked and unfollowed for their silence on Gaza. If Swift can use her platform to promote Harris and Walz, to speak about body image, female autonomy, and the patriarchy, should we as fans expect more from her? It is clear that Swift's endorsement of Harris has impacted the campaign in some capacity – so why should she stop there?
Singer Chappell Roan, chronically in the media since she rose to fame this Summer, has been changing the landscape of GenZ celebrities. Recently she has added an interesting spin to the discourse surrounding the Harris/Walz endorsement. In an interview with The Guardian, Roan said:
“I have so many issues with our government in every way,” she says. “There are so many things that I would want to change. So I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone. There are problems on both sides. I encourage people to use your critical thinking skills, use your vote – vote small, vote for what’s going on in your city.”
The comment “there are problems on both sides” exploded on social media as it unintentionally evened out Harris and Trump as being equally flawed, which for many, isn’t the case. Advocate for Transgender rights Charlotte Clymer said Roan’s lack of endorsement for Harris is an “excessively privileged position to take,” and one that could confuse new voters.
To clarify her argument Roan took to TikTok explaining; “There’s no way I can stand behind some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views,” she said. “F*ck Trump, for f*cking real, but f*ck some of the shit that has gone down in the Democratic Party that has failed people like me and you, and more so Palestine…”
Roan is talking about how a Harris government would still continue to fund the genocide in Gaza, and uphold ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’. Roan has since made it clear she will be voting for Harris and said to The Rolling Stone she feels “lucky to be alive during an incredibly historical period when a woman of colour is a presidential nominee.” She acknowledges the weight of Harris’ nomination, but urges her fans to be critical and question people in power.
The crux of Roan’s argument is that endorsements are performative, lack nuance and critical thought. She won’t endorse a candidate just because that is what celebrities do and neither will she stay silent on politics simply because she is a singer. Cultural writer for Slate, Scaachi Koul, says “What she needs to do is exactly what she’s already been doing: Being honest about how a federal election limits us, and how dispiriting it is that a Democrat whose administration refuses to stop enabling violence and death is the best option of countless many that are far worse.” Roan is encouraging a fanbase of informed voters who won’t settle, and isn’t that what we want out of a democratic election?
Whether in the US election or otherwise, we should be doing our research and making our own informed decisions, irrespective of the celebrities we follow. However, we should hold celebrities and influencers who have a fanbase to a certain standard when it comes to political issues. They should be using their influence to do more than just check a box. Yes, the more Harris endorsements the better, but nuanced debates about voting and left-leaning causes are vital too.