Last month, US Republicans spread the conspiracy theory on social media that Taylor Swift had the power to influence the US vote and prevent Trump from returning to the White House. These conspiracy theorists have labeled Swift a “Pentagon asset.” In fact, many celebrities have endorsed certain politicians like Oprah Winfrey who support Obama, but should they be able to use their platform to promote a specific political agenda?
We all have the right to freedom of expression, and this extends to social media. Therefore, it is argued that celebrities can express their political opinions as publicly as they want. Additionally, while few celebrities have the power of influence that Swift has (in terms of the sheer size of her fan base), all celebrities have the ability to influence. That's essentially what makes a modern celebrity. This influence is also determined by the public, because when public support for a celebrity decreases, their influence also decreases. Therefore, the conspiracy theory that accuses Taylor Swift of manipulating voters into voting a certain way should blame the public for making her influence mean anything. As voters, we have the opportunity to both allow a celebrity's political opinions to influence our individual voice and to prevent them from having any power at all. This highlights a fundamental flaw in republican theory. In a democracy, citizens have freedom of thought and the freedom to vote for their preferred candidate. Everyone has some form of epistemic power, just varying degrees of successful influence. The public believes that these celebrities are credible and pays attention to them, so it can be concluded that the public is equally to blame. This conspiracy theory essentially creates the image that Democrats are easily manipulated and lack the confidence to vote for themselves. While there are celebrities who are very open about their affiliation with the Democratic Party, there are also those who publicly support the Republican Party, such as Ye (Kanye West).
Even if you don't agree that celebrities can “manipulate” the public in a certain way to vote, they can use their power to promote good. For example, in September 2023, Taylor Swift posted an Instagram story with a link to the US voter register and urged her followers to register to vote. This resulted in 35,000 people registering, which is an incredible achievement. There are also differences in the way celebrities express their political opinions. For example, there are political advocates like Greta Thunberg who use their platform to support larger political causes like climate change. Other examples of this include Mila Kunis speaking about Ukraine and the Hadid's support of Palestine, which has helped both raise awareness and provide financial aid to great causes. If far-right Republicans want celebrities to withdraw from the political sphere, then celebrities using their influence to seize power is in direct contradiction to those wishes. Donald Trump was a celebrity before he became president, but he used his platform to boost his presidential campaign.
So where can the line be drawn? As a society, we live in the age of celebrity and the age of social media. These public figures not only have influence, but they also have the ability to reach millions with a single post. If people want to undermine an entire political campaign by suggesting they lost because of an Instagram post, then don't. Everyone has their own individual agency to decide how they vote, and if they want to be influenced by Taylor Swift, then it is their own decision, not hers or anyone else's.
Image by Aaron Kittredge on Pexels
Comments are closed.