Opinion

On Celebrity Activism, Obligatory Voting, And “Cool” Candidates

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

William Vaillancourt Freelance Writer
Font Size:

Every four years, many of Hollywood’s brightest — and I’m not talking about smarts — use their status in the public eye to commandeer the political power of their adoring fans. It’s quite the spectacle. This year, the list includes Amy Schumer, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, LeBron James, George Clooney, Bradley Cooper, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Meryl Streep, Alicia Keys, Katy Perry, and Demi Lovato – these last five even spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Needless to say, Tinsel-town Clinton backers far outnumber Trump’s allies. The Republican nominee’s mere name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is on pace to be vandalized more often than the number of lies Hillary has told about her emails!

Why do these celebrities repeatedly inject themselves into political affairs? Their own publicity aside, it seems clear that they implore their fans to participate in the electoral process with the explicit – yet sometimes implicit – message being that they should vote for the liberal candidate. I find it hard to believe that the disproportionately liberal Hollywood crowd would be as inclined to stress the importance of voting were it the case that a higher turnout of their fan-base meant that the conservative candidate would gain an advantage. A recent electoral map scenario shows that Clinton would win 498 to 23 if only people ages 18 to 34 voted; this is not lost on those who depend largely on that age group to be financially successful.

Actors, musicians and athletes can, of course, continue their shenanigans however they please with minimal attempts to obscure their ideological motives. But where I take issue is how many of them merely advocate to “go vote” rather than to become informed on the issues. Miley Cyrus went from dorm room to dorm room at George Mason University, putting students on the spot under the glare of television cameras by urging them to vote for Hillary. Anne Hathaway told us in a star-studded PSA, “You have to suck it up and do it – that’s what it means to be an American.”

No, Anne, nobody must vote. Urging us to vote just for the sake of voting – regardless of whether we want to or not – does not aid the democratic process.  Your and Miley’s message comes across as peer pressure more than anything else.

Mike Rowe, former host of Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs, wrote about this type of celebrity activism and why he has chosen to use his influence to encourage people to get informed rather than to vote. He explains:

I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms. I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens? Casting a ballot is not so different.

Voting requires absolutely zero knowledge of the issues – for better or worse, that’s how our system operates. But that does not mean we should take advantage of it. Voting is a right, but let’s treat it like a privilege.

Mr. Rowe’s wise advice to do so is seldom adhered to by others who share his gift of influencing millions with the click of a button. It cheapens democracy if an actor’s #ImWithHer post catches your eye and you think, “Hey, I thought he was a great lead in that adventure movie, so maybe Hillary would be a great world leader.” Or, you may see your favorite football team’s quarterback in a ‘Stronger Together’ t-shirt and think, “This guy is great with read options, so I’ll trust him that Hillary’s good at dissecting legislation.” This type of cue-taking from celebrities regarding which dot to fill in on our ballot should be taken with the same weight as what fashion designer they wear on the red carpet.

The underlying message that ultimately comes with celebrity endorsements is that the candidate has become “cool” after forming bonds in the public eye. But should “cool” really have much to do with one’s reasoning for or against a candidate? It seems shallow, devoid of political utility, and an offshoot of that dominantly liberal group-think that pressures the non-converted to vote for the popular, hip candidate.

President Obama is “cool,” claim many – especially millennials. The folks at MTV took it upon themselves to make a list of the “11 times Barack Obama was the coolest president.” He is also liked by many “cool” musicians and actors. But why should this matter? The day I take any advice in civics from Snoog Dogg or Jay Z will be the day I, for all intents and purposes, relinquish my voting privileges. “I got 99 problems but Mitt ain’t one” elicited some type of reaction among fans at a concert, but if it also translated into votes against Romney four years ago, then that’s quite disheartening.

The mounting pressure by celebrities to vote as if our lives depended on it – but only for the “cool” candidate, of course — is ultimately a symptom of showbiz politics. Entertainment has encroached so much into the political arena that at times it is difficult to distinguish the two, with no thanks to rapidly innovative technology. When we consider candidates for public office, let’s not become distracted by fads or succumb to coercion when outnumbered. Instead, let’s pay no mind to a candidate’s extraneous attributes that get beefed up by talking heads and the mainstream media for the cheap purpose of obtaining viewers, maintaining consumers, and creating voters.