"I'm just here, 'cause he's promised me a spot in his cabinet. And I belong in a cabinet, 'cause I'm full of spice and I've got a great rack!" gawked Tina Fey in her much anticipated reprisal role as the former republican governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (Vulpo). The skit that aired in early January on Saturday Night Live depicted Palin’s endorsement trip to Iowa in support of Donald Trump. Fey’s cameo led to yet another triumph in a string of campaign-fueled high ratings for the otherwise grappling program (Nededog). Reaching millions of Americans, comedians and other celebrities are using their fandom to launch themselves into the political arena by tying their name and brands to primary candidates this election season. This type of association between popular culture and American politics has arguably never been closer begging us to wonder if the relationship is actually healthy for democracy. The interjection of celebrity is detrimental to the democratic process because the clout of American icons persuades voters from focusing on important issues at hand.
Celebrities have been involved in presidential races for more than a third of American history. The very first celebrity endorsement came from Al Jolson in 1920 (Boardman). The Harding campaign commissioned the song “Harding, you’re the man for us” from the musician who at the time was considered America’s most famous and highest paid entertainer. Jolson, known for his relatable jazz, blues and ragtime tunes, was an active conservative throughout his lifetime supporting three candidates turned president. His involvement in politics revolutionized the way those seeking office reached voters. Icons from Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash to Oprah, Adam Sandler, and Chuck Norris have campaigned, fundraised and actively supported presidential hopefuls (A&E). Some candidates are intentional about celebrity involvement – Richard Nixon even had a “Celebrities for Nixon Committee” during his campaign. Meanwhile other candidates prefer a subtler approach; an upcoming Red Hot Chili Peppers concert is doubling as a Bernie Sanders support rally in Los Angeles later this month (RHCP News). Whether it is the stars supporting the candidates or in some cases becoming the candidates (looking at you Reagan), it seems that elections are now intricately tied with stardom.
The best tracked and documented evidence of celebrity persuading voters for an altered outcome is Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama prior to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary (Garthwaite & Moore). Obama, an ambitious, freshman U.S. Senator out of Chicago, IL, was not a household American name when he began the journey towards his presidency. The three term Illinois state senator lost his first race on Washington when he attempted to run for a House seat in 2000. Ultimately, Obama was rewarded with a seat in the Senate in 2004 heralded as the “most liberal” sitting member of congress. Winfrey crossed paths with the Obamas in Illinois during these important campaign years and became an active supporter of the couple – even mentioning her admiration for the Senator during a guest appearance on Larry King Live in 2006. Winfrey officially endorsed Obama’s candidacy three months after his announcement to run for the office of the president in May of 2007. Coincidentally, Oprah was named Forbes most powerful celebrity of the year both in 2007 (primary year) and 2008 (presidential election year) (Forbes).
How did Forbes determine Ms. Winfrey’s power? According to Craig Garthwaite and Timothy Moore, researchers at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern, “Oprah Winfrey is a celebrity of nearly unparalleled influence.” The researchers attribute her persuasion by her appearance in Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people, the sales spikes of items featured on “Oprah Favorites” list, altered sales of books in her monthly book club, total magazine subscriptions, and the number of total TV viewers for her daytime talk show. Garthwaite and Moore used an empirical formula to estimate what the influence of Oprah’s endorsement of Obama had on her fans. They checked their calculations with falsification exercises including fans’ existing preferences for democratic platforms, bias towards other candidates, and the role of race as it pertains to Oprah Magazine readership. The results of the study were both “statistically and politically significant” and demonstrated how the endorsement directly altered the outcome of the primary election. Winfrey’s support increased voter participation by 2,196,300 additional voters during the primary election – that’s slightly larger than the entire population of Houston. In addition to her effect on participation, it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement is responsible for 1,015,559 popular votes for senator Barack Obama. For reference, Obama only beat Hillary in the primary election by 278,966 popular votes. Without Oprah, we could have seen a presidential race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton and changed the course of Modern-American history.
Obama’s primary run demonstrates three essential consequences of celebrity endorsement: 1) celebrity impacts voter participation, 2) celebrity clout persuades voter decisions, 3) celebrity is a tool wielded for political gain. It is up to the voter and the politician to exercise caution when utilizing celebrities to improve the democratic process rather than dilute it.
Voters should be aware that celebrities tend to lean left in the political spectrum. The balance of party support by artists is heavily skewed toward more liberal candidates due to use of government programs, the influence of large cities, and the pursuit of non–industry careers (Wister). When an individual follows creative or artistic ambitions rather than industrial ones, it is expected that their compensation will be less reliable than careers in traditional trades. Many artists are more likely to use government programs to support their path to stardom or view these programs as a backup in case of failed pursuits. There is also a tendency for celebrities live and work in socially progressive cities such as New York City and Los Angeles. The diverse and culturally open-minded environments of these major cities are conducive to liberal values. Many artists perceive living in cultural hubs a requirement for breaking into their respective industries and are subsequently introduced to the values of city life. In addition to safety nets and major cities, the extreme wealth achieved through stardom, not brought about through traditional industry work, can create a sense of idealism around the involvement of government. It is not up to me to say if the balance of celebrity in the spectrum of political ideals is right or wrong, however it is clear that when young voters are introduced to politics via icons of popular culture it will likely be in association with a democratic agenda. An example of this type of introduction takes place in an original video series recently released by the mobile-app sensation Snapchat. Snapchat’s discover channel titled “Good Luck America” releases a series of 10-second or less videos telling a story hoping to educate the young, voting population. This particular episode featured an 18-year-old University of Iowa student supporting Bernie Sanders. When asked why she chose to caucus for Sanders, the student described her interest in the free Florence and the Machine concert that coincided with a Sanders rally event. She mentions that prior to the event she was not intending on getting involved in this primary election, however she heard his platform before the concert and was excited by his ideals. Peter Hamby, former CNN reporter and narrator of Good Luck America, did not discuss with the young voter whether or not she looked into the platforms of other candidates. Do we consider her actions participation in democracy or merely entertainment that resulted in a vote? Florence and the Machine is certainly aware that they are tying their brand to a political ideology hoping to persuade fans of their music to also consider their beliefs. However, there are many artists who have incidentally supported politicians.
Celebrity endorsement of a candidate is potentially risky for the brand and the business of the artists. The majority of music utilized by political campaigns in advertisements, public forums and speeches, and radio commercials are not explicitly verified by the musicians themselves. For example, if a candidate like Donald Trump rents out an auditorium for a public rally and that venue has a public performance license through a songwriters’ association, he has the opportunity to play any song the association has included in their package regardless of the political affiliation of the artists (ASCAP). If the artist is ideologically opposed to Donald Trump, they are left with two options: a) make a public statement or request for Trump to discontinue use of the song and draw additional media attention to his campaign, b) pursue costly and public litigation to remove the work from the candidates’ arsenal, or c) do nothing and continue to be lightly associated with the candidate. This association can be dangerous for the artist’s reputation if it promotes values that they do not align with through their work. It can also confuse the voter’s decisions if the voter cannot determine if a group they are fans of also supports candidates of their liking.
Democracy, defined by its Greek roots, hands major decision-making to citizens (“demos” means people and “kratia” stands for power or authority) (US History). Trusting constituents to know about critical issues and to vote smart is a core assumption of the political process. When politicians introduce celebrities to support their campaigns, they shroud the focus on issues related to their candidacy with a cloud of deception. Voters must be able to separate celebrity involvement in an election from political ideologies clearly noting that celebrities are not economists, policy makers or global peacekeepers. Celebrities are also not average citizens. It is clear that the cheap political games politicians play to attract voters (think attack ads and false promises) will not go away and that certainly includes use of celebrity endorsement. The ball is in the court of the voter to be more exercised at deciphering tricks for political gain from politics. If celebrities are encouraging Americans to get informed and get involved in democracy, then I’m all for it. However, I am disillusioned by those who see politics as an extension of popular culture. Separating these two worlds protects the integrity of democracy.
Celebrities have been involved in presidential races for more than a third of American history. The very first celebrity endorsement came from Al Jolson in 1920 (Boardman). The Harding campaign commissioned the song “Harding, you’re the man for us” from the musician who at the time was considered America’s most famous and highest paid entertainer. Jolson, known for his relatable jazz, blues and ragtime tunes, was an active conservative throughout his lifetime supporting three candidates turned president. His involvement in politics revolutionized the way those seeking office reached voters. Icons from Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash to Oprah, Adam Sandler, and Chuck Norris have campaigned, fundraised and actively supported presidential hopefuls (A&E). Some candidates are intentional about celebrity involvement – Richard Nixon even had a “Celebrities for Nixon Committee” during his campaign. Meanwhile other candidates prefer a subtler approach; an upcoming Red Hot Chili Peppers concert is doubling as a Bernie Sanders support rally in Los Angeles later this month (RHCP News). Whether it is the stars supporting the candidates or in some cases becoming the candidates (looking at you Reagan), it seems that elections are now intricately tied with stardom.
The best tracked and documented evidence of celebrity persuading voters for an altered outcome is Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama prior to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary (Garthwaite & Moore). Obama, an ambitious, freshman U.S. Senator out of Chicago, IL, was not a household American name when he began the journey towards his presidency. The three term Illinois state senator lost his first race on Washington when he attempted to run for a House seat in 2000. Ultimately, Obama was rewarded with a seat in the Senate in 2004 heralded as the “most liberal” sitting member of congress. Winfrey crossed paths with the Obamas in Illinois during these important campaign years and became an active supporter of the couple – even mentioning her admiration for the Senator during a guest appearance on Larry King Live in 2006. Winfrey officially endorsed Obama’s candidacy three months after his announcement to run for the office of the president in May of 2007. Coincidentally, Oprah was named Forbes most powerful celebrity of the year both in 2007 (primary year) and 2008 (presidential election year) (Forbes).
How did Forbes determine Ms. Winfrey’s power? According to Craig Garthwaite and Timothy Moore, researchers at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern, “Oprah Winfrey is a celebrity of nearly unparalleled influence.” The researchers attribute her persuasion by her appearance in Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people, the sales spikes of items featured on “Oprah Favorites” list, altered sales of books in her monthly book club, total magazine subscriptions, and the number of total TV viewers for her daytime talk show. Garthwaite and Moore used an empirical formula to estimate what the influence of Oprah’s endorsement of Obama had on her fans. They checked their calculations with falsification exercises including fans’ existing preferences for democratic platforms, bias towards other candidates, and the role of race as it pertains to Oprah Magazine readership. The results of the study were both “statistically and politically significant” and demonstrated how the endorsement directly altered the outcome of the primary election. Winfrey’s support increased voter participation by 2,196,300 additional voters during the primary election – that’s slightly larger than the entire population of Houston. In addition to her effect on participation, it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement is responsible for 1,015,559 popular votes for senator Barack Obama. For reference, Obama only beat Hillary in the primary election by 278,966 popular votes. Without Oprah, we could have seen a presidential race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton and changed the course of Modern-American history.
Obama’s primary run demonstrates three essential consequences of celebrity endorsement: 1) celebrity impacts voter participation, 2) celebrity clout persuades voter decisions, 3) celebrity is a tool wielded for political gain. It is up to the voter and the politician to exercise caution when utilizing celebrities to improve the democratic process rather than dilute it.
Voters should be aware that celebrities tend to lean left in the political spectrum. The balance of party support by artists is heavily skewed toward more liberal candidates due to use of government programs, the influence of large cities, and the pursuit of non–industry careers (Wister). When an individual follows creative or artistic ambitions rather than industrial ones, it is expected that their compensation will be less reliable than careers in traditional trades. Many artists are more likely to use government programs to support their path to stardom or view these programs as a backup in case of failed pursuits. There is also a tendency for celebrities live and work in socially progressive cities such as New York City and Los Angeles. The diverse and culturally open-minded environments of these major cities are conducive to liberal values. Many artists perceive living in cultural hubs a requirement for breaking into their respective industries and are subsequently introduced to the values of city life. In addition to safety nets and major cities, the extreme wealth achieved through stardom, not brought about through traditional industry work, can create a sense of idealism around the involvement of government. It is not up to me to say if the balance of celebrity in the spectrum of political ideals is right or wrong, however it is clear that when young voters are introduced to politics via icons of popular culture it will likely be in association with a democratic agenda. An example of this type of introduction takes place in an original video series recently released by the mobile-app sensation Snapchat. Snapchat’s discover channel titled “Good Luck America” releases a series of 10-second or less videos telling a story hoping to educate the young, voting population. This particular episode featured an 18-year-old University of Iowa student supporting Bernie Sanders. When asked why she chose to caucus for Sanders, the student described her interest in the free Florence and the Machine concert that coincided with a Sanders rally event. She mentions that prior to the event she was not intending on getting involved in this primary election, however she heard his platform before the concert and was excited by his ideals. Peter Hamby, former CNN reporter and narrator of Good Luck America, did not discuss with the young voter whether or not she looked into the platforms of other candidates. Do we consider her actions participation in democracy or merely entertainment that resulted in a vote? Florence and the Machine is certainly aware that they are tying their brand to a political ideology hoping to persuade fans of their music to also consider their beliefs. However, there are many artists who have incidentally supported politicians.
Celebrity endorsement of a candidate is potentially risky for the brand and the business of the artists. The majority of music utilized by political campaigns in advertisements, public forums and speeches, and radio commercials are not explicitly verified by the musicians themselves. For example, if a candidate like Donald Trump rents out an auditorium for a public rally and that venue has a public performance license through a songwriters’ association, he has the opportunity to play any song the association has included in their package regardless of the political affiliation of the artists (ASCAP). If the artist is ideologically opposed to Donald Trump, they are left with two options: a) make a public statement or request for Trump to discontinue use of the song and draw additional media attention to his campaign, b) pursue costly and public litigation to remove the work from the candidates’ arsenal, or c) do nothing and continue to be lightly associated with the candidate. This association can be dangerous for the artist’s reputation if it promotes values that they do not align with through their work. It can also confuse the voter’s decisions if the voter cannot determine if a group they are fans of also supports candidates of their liking.
Democracy, defined by its Greek roots, hands major decision-making to citizens (“demos” means people and “kratia” stands for power or authority) (US History). Trusting constituents to know about critical issues and to vote smart is a core assumption of the political process. When politicians introduce celebrities to support their campaigns, they shroud the focus on issues related to their candidacy with a cloud of deception. Voters must be able to separate celebrity involvement in an election from political ideologies clearly noting that celebrities are not economists, policy makers or global peacekeepers. Celebrities are also not average citizens. It is clear that the cheap political games politicians play to attract voters (think attack ads and false promises) will not go away and that certainly includes use of celebrity endorsement. The ball is in the court of the voter to be more exercised at deciphering tricks for political gain from politics. If celebrities are encouraging Americans to get informed and get involved in democracy, then I’m all for it. However, I am disillusioned by those who see politics as an extension of popular culture. Separating these two worlds protects the integrity of democracy.
Works Cited
"Actors Turned Politicians." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Boardman, Madeline. "Before Bruce Springsteen and Stacey Dash: A Short History of Politically Minded Celebrities." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Nov. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Garthwaite, Craig, and Timothy J. Moore. "Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary." The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 29.2 (2012): 355-84. Yale University, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 9 Feb. 2016.
Good Luck America. Perf. Peter Hamby. Good Luck America. Snapchat, n.d. Web.
Heath, Alex. "Snapchat Is Doing Its Own Politics Show." Business Insider. Tech Insider, 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Knopper, Steve. "Why Politicians Keep Using Songs Without Artists' Permission." Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone Magazine, 09 July 2015. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Nededog, Jethro. "Donald Trump Scores Highest 'SNL' Ratings in Years." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 08 Nov. 2015. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
"News." RHCP News. Red Hot Chili Peppers, 26 Jan. 2016. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Rodriquez McRobbie, Linda. "Wilt Chamberlain Was a Nixon Man: A Brief History of Celebrity Political Endorsements." Mental Floss. N.p., 12 Dec. 2007. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
"The World's Most Powerful People." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 2008. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
"Using Music in Political Campaigns: What You Should Know." ASCAP (n.d.): n. pag. ASCAP. ASCAP. Web. 9 Feb. 2016.
Vulpo, Mike. "Tina Fey Returns to SNL as Sarah Palin: Her 7 Wildest Lines at Donald Trump's Mock Rally Revealed." E! Online. E!, 23 Jan. 2016. Web. 9 Feb. 2016.
"What Is a Democracy?" Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Wister, Will. "Why Is It That Entertainers like Actors and Musicians Tend to Be Liberals?" Quora. N.p., 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.