Be Like Mike, Not Taylor
Be Like Mike, Not Taylor
Non-Political Public Figures Should Stay Out of Politics
Throughout the 2024 campaign, former President Trump and Vice President Harris have vied to obtain declarations of support from unions, business leaders, centrist politicians and other influential figures. But, Harris has now gotten the most sought-after endorsement of all.
This is the one-endorsement-to-rule-them-all of endorsements. This is St. Taylor of the Church of Taylor, she who is personally implored by heads of state to tour in their countries; whom the U.S. Travel Association credits with adding more than $10 billion to the nation’s economy; whom the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia expressly cited as having boosted the regional hotel industry; and who quintupled the jersey sales of boyfriend Travis Kelce of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs, after her relationship with him became public.
But, don’t fret, Trumpers. Brittany Mahomes is Team MAGA. And Patrick Mahomes, Brittany’s husband and Kelce’s more celebrated teammate, is staying out of it.
Swift’s endorsement is nothing new, either for her, as she gave the nod to Biden in 2020, or for celebrities generally, who have been endorsing political candidates for more than a century. In 1920, singer and actor Al Jolson backed the bid of Republican Warren G. Harding, helping Harding become president. Eight years later, baseball legend Babe Ruth didn’t have as much luck with his candidate, Democrat Al Smith, who was defeated by Republican Herbert Hoover in the 1928 election.
Like several other presidents from his party who would follow (John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama), Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was a celebrity magnet. Henry Fonda, Lucille Ball, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Bette Davis and Frank Sinatra were among the stars of that period who stumped for FDR.
Sinatra was also an avid backer of JFK in 1960, but by 1970, his allegiance had shifted to Ronald Reagan, whom he supported in the California governor’s race. Sinatra also backed Reagan’s run for president.
Arguably, the most impactful endorsement in political history was that of Obama by daytime screen queen Oprah Winfrey in the Democratic primaries in 2007. A 2008 study found that the endorsement from Winfrey, the first one she had ever made, led to a million more primary votes for Obama.
Celebrities also have a long history of political involvement beyond making endorsements. Some of their activities helped bring about necessary societal change, such as their work in the civil rights era. Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, Marlon Brando, Muhammad Ali, Josephine Baker, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Sammy Davis Jr. and many more advanced the cause of civil rights both through their own efforts and the actions of those whom they inspired.
Stars also sometimes participate in causes that are indisputably good. Disaster relief efforts; public service announcements about public health-related matters; founding organizations with uncontroversial missions like keeping kids in school, helping domestic violence victims, protecting animals and fighting cancer; or donating to those kinds of organizations—nobody would oppose that type of activism.
But, stars also get behind causes that fiercely divide people. Jane Fonda was extremely vocal in her opposition to the Vietnam War and visited North Vietnam in 1972, earning the nickname Hanoi Jane and becoming a symbol of the era’s polarization. Charlton Heston, whose politics in that day were similar to Fonda’s, turned into a staunch conservative in the late 1980s and became president of the National Rifle Association in 1998.
In recent years, athletes, in particular, have been at the forefront of the movement protesting what adherents see as systemic police violence against people of color. Colin Kaepernick, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Megan Rapinoe and numerous other sports stars have been spoken out vociferously on the topic.
To be clear, Fonda, Heston, and Kaepernick and the rest were merely exercising their constitutionally protected right to free expression. But, in the process, they chose a side and lined up on it. They publicly identified with a political team, becoming heroes to their team, but villains to their opponents.
By choosing sides, celebrities also set themselves up to become targets of the side they pick against. James and Durant experienced this in 2018 when Fox News personality Laura Ingraham, addressing their activism, said they should “shut up and dribble,” which set off a firestorm.
The “shut up and…” admonishment, as pertaining to those in the public eye being told to can it about political subjects, dates back to at least the prior decade. As recounted by country trio The Chicks (then known as The Dixie Chicks) in the documentary Shut up and Sing (2006), that was the message the group heard from radio station executives, as well as country music’s conservative-leaning fans, after frontwoman Natalie Maines denigrated President George W. Bush during a performance. In 2003, Maines told a London crowd that she and her bandmates didn’t support the forthcoming Iraq War and were “ashamed” that the Texan Bush was from their home state. The backlash from country listeners and radio and music executives was ferocious, and the arc of the band’s career was forever altered.
Yet, with due respect to James, Durant and The Chicks, stars have to understand that by affiliating themselves with politically or ideologically partisan stances, they invite combative reactions from opposing partisans. By allying themselves to one side and against the other, public figures become symbols of division. They might as well be featured on red and blue trading cards.
The divisiveness quotient is multiplied when, rather than an ostensibly non-political figure, it’s an ostensibly non-political group that strays into politics. It’s one thing for actors, athletes or music artists to say or do something partisan. It’s another if their studios, teams or record labels do it.
Public figures who speak or act in partisan ways will earn accolades from their own side and disdain from their foes. Some of the blowback will even be targeted at groups these individuals are associated with and may result in minor actions of protest against these organizations.
But, the impact won’t be close to what it would be if the divisive words or actions come from the organizations themselves. If approximately half the country believes that an entire corporate entity is against them, protest actions will just be the start. The brand will forever be associated with the side it aligned itself with. This doesn’t mean that people from the other side will boycott it, although some will. But, more destructively, it will burn into these folks’ brains the impression that the organization is not on their team and is antagonistic to their values.
In 1990, Michael Jordan was in the same position as Swift. In that era, there was no brighter star in the American cultural galaxy than MJ.
A 1998 analysis by Fortune Magazine estimated that Jordan added $10 billion to the US economy, which adjusted for inflation would be more than $19 billion today. His economic impact hadn’t reached that level yet in 1990, but it still measured in billions, according to the magazine.
Hoping to capitalize on Jordan’s massive appeal, Democrats pleaded with him to endorse Harvey Gantt, a black Democratic candidate for Senate in North Carolina, Jordan’s home state. But, Jordan declined, a decision for which he was heavily criticized.
Jordan was ripped not just for his decision to abstain, but also for a remark he made that was seen as a soulless rationalization. “Republicans buy sneakers too,” he said, a quote that made critics believe he was only interested in his marketability and didn’t care about social change.
In his documentary series The Last Dance (2020), Jordan says the line was just a lighthearted comment to teammates. He also explains his mentality in the same segment. “I never thought of myself as an activist. I thought of myself as a basketball player,” he says. “I wasn’t a politician when I was playing my sport. You know, I was focused on my craft…. That’s where my energy was.”
But, even if MJ had simply been motivated by base consumerism, his instincts were, well, anti-partisan. By refusing to publicly pledge to a party, Jordan avoided pigeonholing himself as a partisan figurehead. He remained a symbol of unity rather than division.
* Portions of this post have been adapted from my upcoming book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down (2024).** Follow Jeff Gebeau on X at @antipartisanusa or on Facebook
