In this morning's video, I note that when Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for US President, everyone took note. But do such endorsements matter, and should more people put their heads above the parapet and declare what they think in public? My answer is a resounding ‘yes'.
The audit file is here:
This is the transcript:
Does Taylor Swift's opinion matter?
I hate to tell you. I think it does.
Now, I will also be honest about something. I am not a great fan of Taylor Swift's music. I know that there are vast numbers of people who are and that they will pay extraordinary sums of money to go and see her in concert, and good luck to them. That's their right. But for me, I could give it a miss.
However, she is one of the most influential younger people in the world at present, and the fact that she has endorsed Kamala Harris does very clearly give her election campaign in the USA to be the first female president of that country an enormous boost.
My question is not whether Taylor Swift is right to endorse Kamala Harris. I think most people watching this video will know what I think about that. Instead, my question is, should she have engaged on this issue? And my answer is very clearly that, yes, she definitely should.
I believe that it is the duty of people who are in the public domain to engage on issues around politics. There is no aspect of life that is not political.
I loved a quote that came from a Republican, which I saw, I think, on CNBC after she had endorsed Kamala Harris. And that person said, “I love her songs, but I want to live in a world where liberals make my art and conservatives make my laws and policies.”
An interesting contrast. He's happy for someone to be liberal, so long as they don't govern the country. I'm sorry, whoever that person is - and I've forgotten. That approach is wrong.
All of politics is about life. Music is most especially about politics because most of the music that is of any quality is about stories, and I know that Taylor Swift's very often are. The point is, you can't differentiate those stories and the power relationships which they explore from the world of political economy, which is what our politicians actually occupy.
Political economy is about power relationships - how we allocate resources in society. So even Taylor Swift's love songs - those about her relationships, about the relative balances of power between her and other pop singers, or her and her partners, or anything else - they're all about political economy. And so too is politics when it comes down to all those socially liberal issues which are of concern to so many people in so many countries around the world, including the USA.
Therefore, if a singer or a writer, or an academic, has an opinion on an issue, and they think that opinion is of worth, I think they have a duty to put their head above the parapet and tell the world what they think, and, if they wish to support a particular political party, to go on and do so, or as in my case, draw out the faults in many of the political parties that we face.
The expression of opinion in public is fundamental to the health and well-being of our political process. If we don't have people like Taylor Swift talking about the importance of elections, saying she's going to vote, encouraging young people to partake in the voting process, then where is democracy going?
This is why I also get so frustrated with academics. As my friend Danny Blanchflower and I agree, why is it that there are so few academics in the UK who are willing to do what we are, which is to express an opinion in public?
We will, they won't, because they're frightened.
It takes courage to sit in front of this camera.
It takes courage to sit in front of a television camera, or to write an article for a newspaper, or to send a tweet. But if you think by doing so you can in some way change things. I believe you should.
And I believe you should too, even if you're not Taylor Swift; even if you're not a professor; even if you're not somebody who is in any way in the public eye; there is still the opportunity to take part in debate. And the more people that do so, the better that debate will be, the louder will be the voices that are heard on the side of fairness and democracy and equality and social democracy and everything else that goes with it. And, therefore, the more chance there is that we will have a decent society.
So, Taylor Swift matters, and what she's done is important. But so, too, does what you do matter. Because you, too, can have an opinion. Whether it is writing a letter to your local newspaper, or whether it is phoning in to your local radio phoning programme, or whether it is sending a tweet, or posting on Instagram, or a TikTok, or whatever it is you might do, all of those things are part of our political narrative.
I admire Taylor Swift for having the courage to come out and say explicitly what she's going to do and to encourage others to engage in the debate, which is actually what she said others should do. She didn't say they should vote as she is planning to do. She said they should research the facts and vote, nonetheless.
In other words, she accepts some will vote for Trump. But whatever happens, she encouraged that debate, and debate is at the heart of a healthy society, as are differences of opinion. She made that clear. I welcome that fact.
Taylor Swift's opinion does, as a result, matter, but just as importantly, so too does yours, and you have the right to express it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Interesting observation on Taylor Swifts statement here
https://davidallengreen.com/2024/09/how-taylor-swifts-endorsement-of-harris-and-walz-is-a-masterpiece-of-persuasive-prose-a-songwriters-practical-lesson-in-written-advocacy/
What Academics can bring to debate – as you do of course is rigour and anaclasis, we dont only know what yo think but have a well reasoned explanation with it.
PS My oldest son has seen Taylor Swift
You hit on an important point.
My view is that the fear you speak of is real.
The fear though comes from corruption – corruption of morality, probity, data, logic, argument, principle etc.
When the queen supported the proroguing of Parliament, maybe she was scared of the consequences for her family, propped up and rewarded by a corrupt system that might turn on them?
Corruption makes the system that enslaves us possible.
It is based on making money and having credibility awarded to you for supporting it. And the fear of loss keeps those delivering the system in check and compliant.
Just look at how Danny, Yanis Varoufkis , yourself and any number of people (Keen, Kelton) get frozen out.
Neo-liberalism is a system of compliance that rewards one’s compliance as in politics and academia. It’s means of persuasion is money, of which it has an almost bottomless pit of.
We don’t have a vote in foreign elections. America won that War of Independence after all. But are you saying that we should seek to influence those relatives, friends and acquaintances who do have US citizenship?
No
I said we can seek to influence opinion where we are
I would have thought that obvious from what I wrote
I view the US election as possibly carrying an existential risk for the UK, and would have no qualms in seeking to persuade any US voter of my acquaintance to not vote for the orange eejiit, whose mental capacities appear very restricted.
After all the US has deliberately, and as a matter of course, interfered in national elections around the globe, often not through ‘persuasion’.
As for pop music and politics, the most articulate (and nuanced) musical comment on US politics ever, came from Jimi Hendrix in his rendition of Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock in 1968.
Good morning Richard. As one who occasionally comments here (under his own name), I heartily endorse your ‘heads above the parapet’ sentiment. Bur I respect those (such as Pilgrim Slight Return) who do so anonymously, perhaps as required by conditions of employment.
Back in 1795, Robert Burns had to publish ‘A Man’s a Man for A’ That’ anonymously for fear of losing his employment as an Exciseman.
Two centuries later, dissent is still frowned upon. Why?
You may be right
But PSR is very welcome, nonetheless
I use a pseudonym because I could lose my job – it is a risk – and I actually need politicians (local and national, all parties) to help me do my job which hard enough as it is.
In the public sector, we officers are supposed to be apolitical and not show favour or publicly disagree.
That is just the way it is.
But I just happen to think that that discretion has now been subject to abuse for far too long and the public needs to know a lot more about what has been happening to their public services behind the scenes of the policy changes we have been seeing.
“Everything is art. Everything is politics.” – Ai Weiwei
I agree with him
If Harris is elected the US will continue to support Israel’s genocidal operations and Ukraine’s nationalist parties (Zelensky’s electoral mandate expired several months ago, no sign of any new elections).
Representative democracies in the West are a sham.
If by western democracy we are talking about democracy as in the original Atlantic treaty, then it has been in decline for some time. It’s decline is how Putin, Orban, Trump etc came to power in the first place. The liberal world order that aimed to provide freedom from want, freedom from fear etc, does not exist.
Wants and fear are back on the political landscape.
Is it more fear of losing the sustenance to survive and support any semblance of life one has created in a difficult world?
Brought about by obvious scant historical or current situations of nonexistent or poor support networks. Along with governing bodies determined to undermine supportive networks.
That is probably a large factor of the impetus to not stand up and preference to influence a smaller circle or just to survive at all.
I think Swift had to respond.
There were AI fake videos out there saying that she was endorsing Trump.
And Trump’s running mate, Vance, had attacked her in 2021 for being a childless, cat lady.
She signed off her endorsement of Harris with – “Childless Cat Lady”
Then she was attacked by the egomaniac that is Elon Musk, who offered, in a creepy tweet, to “give her a child.”
Then there is Trump’s use of music without permission that has got up the nose of many artists.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/muscial-acts-trump-campaign-illegal-use-songs-1235988369/
Trump’s response to Swift has been the usual nasty right wing attack. That the market will make her pay for her endorsement of Harris.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/donald-trump-taylor-swift-harris-endorsement-response-1235998071/
Like you say, when the Right Wing is on the march, those who oppose it have to respond. If you don’t, and they get power, they will remove your right to respond. That is what the Right Wing and fascists have always done. They only like free speech when they can use it.
Thanks
And agreed
I do have reservations about celebrities and others endorsing a political point of view. They may well be knowledgeable about the topic but may not be. Their views are often not of any greater value than say a person working in retail or delivering parcels. The problem is that people take more notice of them! I tend not to take much notice of say singers or actors commenting on political and other issues. As for people who do have some knowledge such as scientists fine – they probably know what they are talking about.
The plus is what Swift did
She said do your own research
And register to vote
That is good
@Peter Wills
In the USA more people under the age of 50 know in-depth details about Taylor Swift than they do the basics of semi-socialist billionaire Mark Cuban.
Taylor Swift is a catalyst for good that reaches crowds not reached by other celebrities willing to voice their opinions..
It depends. When it comes to turn out and getting people to register to vote, then public endorsements do have a political effect.
When it comes to changing minds. The answer is no. A celebrity endorsement will not make a trump voter into a Harris voter. There has to be long term political engagement for that to happen.
On this topic it’s well worth watching this clip from the MSNBC panel that took place immediately after the debate. Just over 6 minutes specifically on the subject, all excellent points, and Lawrence O’Donnell’s comment in particular are very interesting.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Thanks
Lawrence O’Donnell’s comments are always particularly are very interesting.
Celebrity involvement in politics is a double-edged sword. I recall celebrities such as John Cleese and Michael Cain’s support for Brexit, for example. Yes, celebrities should get involved, but only when they have studied the issues on which they pronounce, as Taylor Swift (or whoever on her team wrote that post) clearly has.
Celebrities have much as much right as you or I to get involved and voice opinions.
It is not our fault nor a celebrity’s fault that The Daily Fail and TMZ and not interested in what you and I have to say or think.
I never paid any attention to her until the recent tragedy. But she seems a decent sort.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/taylor-swift-bonuses-life-changing-truck-driver-1234799876/
Dick Cheney and his daughter both arch neocons also now endorse Harris – are we happy with that?
Carlisle Group bought up ‘TayTay’ several years ago.
Such information ‘assets’ have been developed over years, as discussed in 2019 at a Nato group, which also involved the 77th Brigade of the U.K. Here detailed by Mike Benz who came across it in his study of Nato archives.
https://nitter.poast.org/gc22gc/status/1834001429373264117#m
So I’m dubious that she is an individual who made up her own mind, she is of course a well managed Brand. Who makes huge amounts of money for anodyne songs and captures Tweenies and their parents.
I read Trump has his musical influencers too. Plenty of Rappers
What exactly don’t we see that shows them to be just another bricks in the wall of the modern daily more fascist Collective West information management and propaganda?
I pray that we can have genuine music protests and calls for Peace as we are daily escalated to a full War Time mindset.
Roger Waters of Pink Floyd- 80 something now I believe I went to the great performance earlier in the year, of his This is Not a Drill Tour – he for example is working hard for press freedom, Palestine justice and anti war !
Here’s my favourite anti war Clash tunes – many of these popsters from the 70’s and eighties knew what they were about, like John Lennon and others who feared the gung-ho nuke weapon use fetishists. They got ostracised or worse.
https://www.theclash.com/discography/the-call-up/
There were many such real musical heroes – we need more of that now.
reading tea-leaves
Here’s a couple:
“When Trump was asked whether he regretted anything about his actions around January 6, and he gave a noncommittal answer before reiterating his election lies, there was a spike in Google searches for how to register.” to vote that is…” That spike actually exceeded the later rise resulting from pop star Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.” …
“The debate night also saw a sharp spike in online donations. Following the debate and through the next day, ActBlue reported a whopping $77 million in new donations for the Harris campaign and the Democrats. ”
Further details are here:
https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/harris-trump-post-debate-polls?publication_id=1258230&post_id=148816957&isFreemail=true&r=2nvyg&triedRedirect=true
The bigger,bigger picture though remains the need to address the elephant in the room. Kamala touched on a profound truth when she hinted that USA needed a new beginning, that means casting off the past – but she did not specify the neoliberal albatross of vested interests that currently dominates in Washington and is responsible for the Trump-supporting MAGA mass of disadvantaged and disaffected.
They support him precisely because they see him, however misguidedly, as a wrecking ball of the system that treats them with contempt. They will continue to support him while their perception of the system remains correct.