#13 Should celebrities weigh in on politics?
Given the last President of the United States was a former reality star, can we really tell celebrities to butt out of politics?
I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few months. While this isn't a new question, it has gained fresh relevance amidst the escalating and ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Several figures, including Beyoncé, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Amal Clooney, Drake and DJ Khaled, have faced criticism for their perceived silence. In light of this renewed scrutiny of celebrity accountability, I wanted to explore the role, if any, celebrities should play in confronting injustices and oppression.
It's a recurring and circular theme:
Celebrities sharing their political views is not new. From Jane Fonda and Muhammad Ali's outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War to former NFL player Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality, well-known figures have often risked their careers for causes they believe in. Kaepernick, in particular, faced significant consequences for his actions, effectively being sidelined from the league at the peak of his career. Considering the repercussions, should we expect our favourite celebrities to speak out regarding social injustice, or should they stick to their day jobs and leave politics to the politicians?
Whether you’re pro or against celebrities speaking out, the arguments are typically the same. I use the seven most common arguments to assess the question from both angles before providing my point of view.
Shut up and sing - the case for celebrities staying in their lane.
1a. “They should stick to their day job - I didn’t vote them into political office!"
This position stems from believing celebrities need more expertise and authority to weigh in on political matters. Admittedly, it's a pretty one-dimensional view of what an individual offers society, but it acknowledges that we all have our strengths and expertise, and just as one doesn’t seek out their accountant's POV on their health, the argument follows that they wouldn’t ask a Hollywood star about military spending.
2a. “They don't understand the issues fully!"
This argument becomes more persuasive when we consider the widespread political ignorance among the public. Studies conducted in the USA and the UK have shed light on significant gaps in understanding even the most basic principles of government.
Controversially, these academics favour the idea of 'small government' where politicians lead decision-making versus issues being put to the electorate. One example of political ignorance they cite is "Regrexit" - Britons who voted for Brexit and now regret doing so because they feel they were misinformed about the likely consequences.
They point to the enormous spikes in internet searches immediately after the Brexit vote, asking 'What is the EU?" and 'What does it mean to leave the EU?" indicating that some Brits may not have been informed enough to decide for themselves.
To bring this back to celebrity activism - our culture can be guilty of equating fame with authority. These concepts are not the same.
3a. “Celeb opinions don’t make a difference anyway!”
In a study conducted in 2019, 65% of Americans said that political endorsements from Hollywood celebrities have no bearing on their voting decisions. 24% of those surveyed added that a celebrity endorsement would make them less likely to vote for a celebrity-preferred candidate. Two years earlier, a British YouGov poll found that 63% of Britons believed celebrity opinions make no difference in their decision-making.
Note: These studies are several years old. Intuitively, I’d question if people would readily admit to celebrities' impact on their political decisions. I’d also suggest that in a post-Summer 2020/resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, where online activism has become more common, this data might look different if the study was conducted today.
4a. “It causes more harm than good!”
We cannot afford to gloss over or minimise this point.
Celebrities throwing up online posts with little thought can have tangible impacts in the real world. The crisis in Israel and Palestine has seen an unprecedented spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism.
The following is not designed to minimise the experience of Palestinian Christians, but I wanted to highlight faith-based backlash specifically, which has primarily affected Jewish and Muslim communities.
Muslims and Jews are historically marginalised communities who are being further marginalised in the fallout of what is happening in the region. There have been several hate crimes directly linked to the crisis, from the fatal stabbing of six-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume in Illinois, in which his mother was also severely wounded, to the attempted murder of three Palestinian students in Vermont - resulting in one of the young men, Hisham Awartani, being paralysed from the chest down to the defacing of the statue of Amy Winehouse where a pro-Palestinian sticker was placed directly over her star of David necklace.
What happens in the region encourages those who already hold racist views to unleash them; it’s a pattern that we’ve seen repeatedly, but the level of hate we’re currently seeing feels unprecedented.
It’s important to highlight that your Jewish, Muslim, Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, friends and family are ‘not ok’ right now. Increased security around Jewish schools, synagogues, mosques and community centres cannot be considered a normal state of affairs.
Statements in moments of social and political turmoil were usually reserved for those in political office, but with the advent of social media, anyone with a platform can feel pressurised to say something and that comes with consequences when those statements aren't fully thought through and haven’t been examined thoroughly for bias - unconscious or otherwise.
5a. “It's complicated. You don’t know enough!”
This sentiment is often used to describe the ongoing crisis in Israel and Palestine. Although it can silence legitimate debate, it's also a reminder that geo-political issues are nuanced and context is critical. Complexity, perceived or otherwise, does not mean specific topics are taboo, but it can mean that some posts may lack nuance and lead to binary discussions versus seeing the totality of a situation.
Online discussions from those with a platform must be conducted responsibly. Unfortunately, celebrities like Amy Schumer and Selma Blair failed to get this memo. Their recent posts have been highly problematic and contributed to others being either encouraged to add their discriminatory voices or being silenced from speaking out in opposition due to fear of a similar backlash. Schumer and Blair’s rhetoric aside, neither of these options is good for a healthy, progressive, forward-thinking democracy.
6a. “If you speak out about this, then you need to speak out about every injustice!”
Supporters of Israel have argued that Israel attracts a disproportionate level of criticism and is held to a higher standard and that if one is speaking out about injustice, one should speak out about injustice wherever it occurs.
I do not want to position this statement as the equivalent of the problematic retort “All Lives Matters” because a. It minimises the centuries of antisemitism that has persisted across the world and b. How could one speak out about this pressing humanitarian crisis without being cognisant of injustice elsewhere? This is a sentiment that everyone should agree on.
7a. “Social Media is not the place for this!”
I heard someone once describe social media "as the place action goes to die," the inference being that posting on social media about social justice matters fools us into thinking we've done something tangible - sometimes referred to as virtue signalling or "slacktivism".
One commonly cited example of this would be #BlackOutTuesday - held on June 2nd 2020. On the day, 28M people posted plain black squares to Instagram to signify support for the ‘Black Lives Matter’ (BLM) movement. Many users found that their feed had turned entirely black, indicating the movement had galvanised international attention, but rather than amplifying Black voices, it, unfortunately, muted conversation between activists. Although the awareness was a good thing, some in the movement feared that the broader consciousness of BLM and the issue of police brutality started and ended with that single black-squared post.
Social media can make us feel like we've taken action, but does that mean anything if we aren't taking action in other parts of our lives? Signing petitions, donating funds if we can, attending rallies, discussing the issue with friends and family, writing to our parliamentary and government representatives?
Say where you stand: The case for speaking out:
There's no doubt that celebrities are influential. There have been numerous instances where celebrities have shared a personal health problem, raising immediate awareness of that condition. One recent example is the spike in searches for ‘enlarged prostrates’ following King Charles’s announcement concerning his treatment for the condition.
If celebrities were not influential and their actions had no bearing on our lives, then why are people so often up in arms when a celeb is caught having an affair or taking drugs? It matters because, like it or not, those in the public eye are viewed as role models.
1b. “They should stick to their day job - I didn’t vote them into political office!"
In the 1920s, movie stars were enigmas, mysterious characters people knew little about. Today, we readily consume GRWM videos of our favourite celebrities, wear their merch, and listen to their podcasts. ‘Celebrity’ looks and acts differently now, so wouldn’t it follow that we would also know what their political alliances are or how they feel about social justice issues?
In fact, shouldn’t greater awareness and engagement in society be something we actively encourage from everybody, regardless of whether they have a platform? Don’t we all have a sphere of influence we should deploy for the betterment of society, especially if we can shed light on an important cause?
2b. “They don't understand the issues fully."
Whilst someone may not know the ins and outs of water sanitation, most people would agree that clean, safe drinking water is a human right without having to be an expert to hold that view and speak out about it. We then rely on experts and politicians to enact policies to guarantee a supply of clean water.
Handing power to a small ‘knowledgeable’ minority of people to speak for us feels like the antithesis of a free and just society. The question we’re left with is, does one need to hold a doctorate to know that innocent people losing their lives wherever they live is wrong?
3b. “Celeb opinions don’t make a difference anyway!”
Despite what the data tells us above, celebs hold tangible political sway.
Last year, an Instagram post from Taylor Swift encouraging her fans to vote sparked a massive 1,226% increase in voter registrations in the hour after she posted.
There is no denying that those in the public eye have influence and a great deal of soft power. How else would we explain the latest iteration of celebrity - the multibillion-pound influencer industry?
4b. “It causes more harm than good!”
The points above (4a.) all apply here as well.
Celebrities must conduct their online conversations responsibly, but should we police people’s right to speak out about human rights issues that matter to them, especially when the same constraints are not placed on other issues deemed political, such as the war in Ukraine?
There is value in our shared values. Celebrities speaking up makes it easier for others to do the same. It raises awareness, which in turn provokes discussion. These aspects are good for societies that prize themselves on their democratic values.
5b. “It's complicated. You don’t know enough!”
There are degrees of understanding. One celebrity may be intimately familiar with the history of the region, and another may have become aware of the plight of Palestinians more recently following the heinous terrorist attacks by Hamas on innocent Israelis on October 7th. Irrespective of the level of understanding, shutting down conversations this way isn’t something to be encouraged. It’s patronising at best and sinister at worst. If someone does not understand something, then a conversation should occur to increase that understanding.
Typically, shutting down conversations only benefits those who want to maintain the status quo.
6b. “If you speak out about this, then you need to speak out about every injustice!”
Whilst new voices have come to the fore in the past four months to advocate for Palestinian rights - notably journalists based in Gaza - those with established social justice platforms, such as @so.informed, @everydayracism_, and @khaledbeydoun, have continued to do what they always do and speak out about what is happening in Gaza, alongside their posts regarding Congo, Sudan and other instances of marginalisation regardless of where they occur. For them and many others, this statement is a given 24/7, 365 days a year.
My concluding thoughts
I have several reflections, some of which may seem contradictory, but I maintain that they are not. This duality demonstrates the importance of applying critical thinking to geopolitical issues.
It’s not the act of speaking out that's the issue here - it's the topic that dictates whether it is welcomed or met with controversy. Unfortunately, when it comes to the crisis in Israel and Palestine, the act of asking for a ceasefire has become controversial, which I can’t even begin to fathom. The only reason why someone would want Israel’s action to continue is because they see all Palestinian citizens as collateral damage and/or as terrorists, and if that is the case, then that individual needs to interrogate their racism and prejudice.
Your opinion will invite further debate - if you express an opinion online or IRL, this will invite further opinions and that discourse can only be a good thing. Yes, some people may double down, but some may come away having learned something or been persuaded to see something from another perspective.
Alternatively, if you’re going to keep quiet about an issue, the public/your friends may fill in the gaps themselves and decide for you. In my opinion, very few people in the public eye have been able to straddle the ambiguity of where they stand politically or on major social issues. The only exception I can think of is Dolly Parton. Parton's traditional base is conservative and Republican, but her songs, style, and presentation appeal to a progressive, liberal audience. Very few celebrities have this advantage. We exist in an age where it's so easy to communicate with your fanbase; why would a celebrity want an undesirable/unfortunate/controversial perspective projected on them when they have the means to set it straight?
Online pile-ons help no one and are a distraction - While I follow @Celebrities4Palestine - I’m not interested, nor do I condone the online harassment of celebrities who have not spoken out on a given topic.
Celebrities rely on audiences who endorse their art. I want the celebrities I follow to share my values, but there has to be depth in their convictions. Yes, I think someone like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift speaking out would be huge, given the size of their respective fanbases, but I’m not going to harass them into doing that when my time could be better expended elsewhere.
If I sense an artist does not align with my values and views on any topic, I withdraw my endorsement - I do not watch their shows, follow them on social media, buy their books, download their songs or listen to their podcasts. There is power in each of our actions, and I would rather this than try and plead with someone to see basic humanity when they are seemingly determined not to.
‘Neutrality’ and being ‘balanced’ are not the same - the former is about sidestepping an issue, and the latter ensures we acknowledge and fight for each other’s humanity. I refuse to disregard someone’s humanity or their fears based on where they were born or how they pray.
Silence maintains the status quo - just with #BLM, #StopAsianHate, Islamophobia and antisemitism, there will be those who will not want others to speak out because they claim it’s divisive. For BLM, this means systemic racism and police brutality going unchecked; for Palestinians, this means ongoing subjugation and oppression; for the East-Asian and Jewish communities, this means a disregard for their safety as they are seen as communities that hold other privileges. I do not know of a single issue that’s been solved by not talking about it. We do not cause more cancer by talking about it; we raise awareness. We give ourselves a chance to find solutions and, in time, reconciliation and reparations. We must be mindful that when others do not want us to speak out, they typically have something to gain from that silence.
Speaking out makes it safer for everyone - whilst we should always take action IRL - speaking out online sends a message to marginalised people that they are not alone, are seen, and matter; it educates those who may need to be made aware of the topic; it helps those who want to lend their voice but who feel they don’t have the ‘right’ words to join in; it creates a groundswell that those who own and monitor platforms for user sentiment cannot ignore, and that, in turn, impacts what our political leaders, the media and business leaders choose to focus on. Speaking out should not be underestimated, but it should not be the only thing you do.
What’s political to one person is survival for another - it is challenging to watch thousands of innocent people be killed without wanting to say something. You would need to be dead inside, in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to share their views, express concern and outrage, offer historical context or highlight what they consider to be bigotry, whether they have a platform or not.
It would be incredibly sad and scary for society if the default mode were to ‘stay in our respective lanes’.
The Read-Watch-Listen List
It’s hard to pivot from the above to my February 2024 recommendations, but I hope they provide some much-needed light 💛.
📻 LISTEN to British comic and author Ben Elton’s conversation on ‘The Louis Theroux Podcast’. I’m not a regular listener, but the title drew me in. It’s a balanced, thoughtful discussion on ‘cancel culture’ and recollections from his early stand-up career. If you love stand-up and the history of the craft - I’d suggest it’s a must-listen.
📱 WATCH this TikTok where Ambika Mod, who plays the romantic lead in Netflix’s brilliant adaptation of David Nicholls ‘One Day’ discusses why it took her a while to see herself as ‘Emma’. It’s only a few minutes long, but it’s just lovely 🤩. If you don’t have TikTok, here’s an Instagram link. This leads nicely into the following…
📖 READ The Christmas Orphan’s Club by Becca Freeman. This isn’t a typical LMM recommendation, but I have a soft spot for books about platonic friendships. The primary reason for recommending it is how Freeman, a white woman, approached the race and ethnic identity of two of her characters. Most writers deploy the white default, or they use code words to describe racial characteristics, usually entailing foodstuffs (“her caramel colour skin” to denote someone is Black or brown), but Freeman just had them exist in their humanity. It was the cherry on top of what was a delightful read.
I’m super cognisant that whilst I’m discussing the merits of celebrity opinions, millions of people throughout the world need our urgent support. Please take a look at the information below, which includes suggestions for charities operating in various countries and regions.
Until next month, take care of yourselves,
Donation links:
Congo: Crisis Relief - UN
Gaza: Unicef Appeal
Sudan: Unicef Appeal
Ukraine: DEC Ukraine Appeal