Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Your favorite celebrity may be a great actor or singer, but that doesn’t make them a knowledgeable resource for politics. If a celebrity wants to make an endorsement, they have every right to use their platform to do so. But pressuring someone to act or speak out in favor of a political candidate in any way is unhealthy and unrealistic. No one should be expected to take a stance on issues they aren’t prepared to assert themselves under, especially people whose primary responsibilities include performances and fame.

A mere four hours after Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris announced her campaign, British hyperpop artist Charli xcx posted on X, “kamala IS brat.” Harris’ team took full advantage of this, quickly changing its Kamala HQ social media branding to mimic the lime green color and simplistic font emblematic of Charli xcx’s album style.

The album’s release date in early June was incredibly attractive to young voters, who generally are the most susceptible to or encouraged by celebrity endorsements. Launchmetrics created the Media Impact Value algorithm to measure the potential profitability of media placements or marketing activity. The algorithm found that after 48 hours, the “brat” branding had already earned Harris roughly $15.9 million in MIV. What’s especially interesting about Charli xcx’s now intense connection to Kamala’s campaign is that she never meant for her message to be interpreted as a political endorsement.

Charli noted that her tweet was supposed to be “something positive and lighthearted,” saying that politics do not influence her music. Charli is not a United States citizen and is unable to vote in the U.S. election; therefore, she hasn’t faced pressure to insert herself into political discussion and chose to do so of her own free will. Her lack of citizenship is part of what makes it easier for her to comment on the electoral race because, regardless of the outcome, it’s not really her problem. But what this does is reinforce the expectation for all celebrities to comment on politics, even though the ramifications of doing so vary.

Taylor Swift announced her support for Harris on Instagram immediately following the presidential debate with Donald Trump. Swift says she was prompted to endorse Harris as AI-generated images of her in support of Trump began spreading across the internet. The gravity of Swift’s endorsement was exemplified by the more than 300,000 people who accessed Vote.gov from Swift’s post. For celebrities with a massive influence like Swift, it’s reasonable to want them to utilize their platform to enact social change when seeing the impact they have, but we must remember this isn’t their main job.

Ilana Zahavy | Design Editor

After her recent rise to fame, Chappell Roan has also begun to struggle with the expectations that come with musical stardom, including pressure to endorse a political candidate and use her platform to spread political rhetoric.

On Sept. 24, Roan posted a TikTok addressing an interview where, when asked who she was voting for, she said, “I have so many issues with our government in every way. There are so many things that I would want to change, so I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone.”

Audiences misunderstood her message and believed Roan was purposefully avoiding advocating for a particular candidate to maintain a diverse fan base and “play both sides” of the political spectrum. Roan said she believes actions speak louder than words and that actions mean more to her than an endorsement. “No, I’m not voting for Trump. Yes, I will always question those in power,” she said, concluding her video.

This clarification was not enough for fans, because the next day, Roan got back on TikTok to once again counter the backlash she was continuing to face. Angrily, she responded by officially stating that, yes, she is voting for Harris, but she is not endorsing any particular campaign and that she encourages her fans to do their own research and stay educated.

In my eyes, Roan has every right to defend her choice to not endorse a candidate. Yes, she could’ve been more intentional about how she chose to articulate her message and could’ve focused more on emphasizing her point of individual education on political topics. But the root of her videos was a call for boundaries that every human being regardless of social popularity has a right to.

Voters need to educate themselves on the policies and matters that are most important to them; your favorite artist is likely your favorite because of what they create, not purely based on social viewpoints. There are plenty of talented people who aren’t well-versed or understanding of political issues, and pressuring them to speak out isn’t necessarily productive for a campaign or for democracy overall.

People who plan to vote in the upcoming election should research each candidate’s policies and make an educated decision on how they plan to exercise their constitutional right. College students specifically are the most susceptible to celebrity electoral endorsements since we follow pop culture closely, so we must be careful to vote responsibly.

Dan Tiwari is a freshman film major. His column appears bi-weekly. He can be reached at dtiwari7@syr.edu.

Published on October 22, 2024 at 11:15 pm