One of the most important figures in this year’s US presidential election isn’t a politician, political operator or political commentator. It’s the pop star Taylor Swift.
Her endorsement has been a long time coming, and is apparently so valuable that Donald Trump shared AI-generated images of her and her fans supporting his presidency. Supporters of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris held a “Swifties for Harris” fundraiser featuring prominent Democratic women like Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand. On the last day of the Democratic National Convention, gossip swirled about a secret special guest who was rumoured to be Swift. Both campaigns and their supporters have used Swift’s lyrics in statements, on fundraising calls and on social media.
It’s not hard to see why the Trump and Harris teams covet a Swift endorsement. Taylor Swift is one of the most beloved and bankable celebrities on the planet, breaking records for album sales and concert revenue (her Eras tour has grossed more than $1bn). Her music is ubiquitous. Her fans are mobilised. They make their own merch (friendship bracelets), speak in their own language (pulled from Swift’s music), and treat her lyrics and social media posts like messages in a bottle they must decode. If Swift says “jump” – or, perhaps, “vote for Kamala” – her fans only want to know when and where. Young people are notoriously fickle voters: while they tend to be more liberal, they are also a lot less likely to vote. This puts the Democrats at a disadvantage. The feeling amongst them is that Swift could give Harris a significant boost.
In many ways, Swift’s endorsement of Harris seems natural, if not inevitable. Her fans are mostly young women, a demographic that leans left and prioritises issues such as abortion rights. Trump is far less popular among young women, thanks to his boasting about ending abortion rights, and his vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance, demeaning single women as “childless cat ladies”. Swift is in her thirties, childless, and a devoted cat owner – many of her fans aren’t so different. She endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, and while she isn’t overtly political, it’s not hard to read liberal leanings into many of her comments.
Political campaigns are also, fundamentally, popularity contests. Sure, policy matters: in an ideal world, voters would choose between two equally sane parties with legitimate policy differences. But I doubt most voters could explain the difference between Trump and Harris on corporate taxation, for example. In 2016, Trump benefited from the sense that his campaign was fun, with its rallies and the insults that repelled liberals. Earlier this year, Biden’s campaign felt like a slog, and struggled to pull in support. Now that Harris is running, the campaign seems to have launched in screaming colour: the lurid green of Charli XCX’s album Brat, thanks to a semi-endorsement from the British singer (she posted “kamala IS brat” in reference to the chaotic, party-girl aesthetic of the record). Celebrity backing has been part of what has made the Harris campaign feel rich, dynamic, and loud – something young voters want to support, not an obligation.
Some evidence suggests celebrity endorsements can make a difference among younger fans. And that makes sense: America is full of poorly informed voters, many of whom get their information from social media. These voters are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats, but they’re also more likely to be young. Americans establish their political preferences for all sorts of wacky reasons – some Trump voters believed the conspiracy theory that prominent Democrats ran a child sex ring out of a Washington DC pizza parlour. Some voters prefer a candidate’s style. I will never forget door-knocking in Pennsylvania for 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry and talking to a voter who told me he hated George W Bush for policies that gutted his small town, and for the Iraq War – but he didn’t like that Kerry once brought up the sexual orientation of Bush’s vice-president Dick Cheney’s daughter, so was considering voting for Bush anyway. As far as reasons for voting go, an impassioned endorsement from your idol is hardly the least rational. Yet it’s uncomfortable to see the Democrats salivate over celebrity endorsements. Trump, after all, is a celebrity, one with a loose grasp of both policy details and American democracy. While the Republican Party has increasingly rejected expertise, education and excellence, the Democrats have supposedly embraced all three.
“I liked him on this TV show,” or “she makes great music” are not good reasons to vote someone into the White House or to back their choice of candidate. It’s wonderful when politics is fun, even celebrity-studded, but it would be better if celebrities’ views were given appropriate weight (somewhere between those of the charismatic guy you talked to for five minutes at the bar and the high school acquaintance you follow on Facebook). Lil Jon representing Georgia at the DNC? Great. Swift’s endorsement being make-or-break in Tennessee? Not exactly the sign of a healthy electorate.
But there is the world as it should be, and the world as it is. The stakes of this election are high because Trump is a dangerous candidate. The Democrats need to do everything they possibly can to win, and they know all too well that an endorsement from Taylor Swift can make a difference. Although I wish celebrity were separate from politics, I hope Swift is fearless enough to use her position to endorse Harris – and that her fans are ready for it.
[See also: How America resembles the dying Soviet Union]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 04 Sep 2024 issue of the New Statesman, Starmer under fire