The increasingly polarising political climate makes it difficult for anyone, let alone public figures, to āsit on the fenceā or play neutral. Audiences view being non-political as political and consequently is inherently a stance in itself. So what should this mean concerning activism for those in the spotlight?
Prior to the 2024 US election, hundreds of sports stars, singers, actors and musicians came out in support of either political candidate. Whilst many criticised public figures, labelling them as naive in assuming theyād have an impact, studies highlight that 7% of Americans have supported political campaigns directly because of celebrity endorsement. Effectively demonstrating the power public figures have in changing the audienceās political beliefs.
Yet do we think this is fair? Knowing the influence and power many celebrities wield, is it necessarily a good thing that they share something as personal as their political stance with the world, knowing that many people will be influenced by their choices? Arguably yes. Regardless of the stance, celebrities from across the political spectrum have been instrumental in motivating people to go out and vote and engage with their local politics. Sharing political opinions or speaking on important cultural topics shouldnāt be prohibited for celebrities, simply because they have an audience; if anything, it seems unfairly restrictive. Though this level of power shouldnāt go without caution. Amplified by social media, celebrities arguably now have more platforms and influence than at any other point of time in history. Thus, there is an extra responsibility and possibly a duty that might come with being a celebrity that is starting to be discussed more.
Once we acknowledge the bias people may have towards celebritiesā views and assume that most of the population, weād like to hope, wouldnāt blindly follow someone elseās views, then the outcome doesnāt seem as problematic. Many public figures are well-educated, rational thinkers who can respectfully provide useful insight and share their different perspectives on politics in an educational way. Though Iām sure we can all think of many examples of celebrities who donāt exactly fit this ideal example. So, possibly the alternative is to allow celebrities to be open about their political stances, but with the necessary addition of including political disclosures or encouraging objective fact-checking to help diminish the distribution of fake news.
Another consideration is the implications for their career. Logically, getting involved in politics would alienate a large portion of your fan base if they donāt politically align with you. Or even worse, risk speaking on an issue and have it permanently plastered on the internet, open to comment from literally anybody who can access it. Thus, weāre often left with celebrities feeling scared of judgment or social banishment if they engage in politics publicly, due to fear of being ācancelledā, leading to ultimate career death.
Evidently, itās a troublesome dilemma for celebrities, mixing the demanding obligations of being a public figure with the natural instinct of self-protection. A celebrity chooses what they wish to share with the world and what to keep for themselves. Withholding their political opinions from the world and actively not participating in debate or discussion on these topics, therefore, is a choice, and one that should be considered alongside their influence. Whilst celebrities should not be ignorant to these global issues, they should also not be ignorant of the power their voices have, and how it can be used for good. Possibly in their role as a public figure, they might not have a moral obligation to speak out, but rather as a person experiencing these issues, or witnessing the world around us, it seems imperative that celebrities get involved in politics. Celebrities shouldnāt be pressured into sharing their political views or see it as their duty as a public figure, though perhaps it should be encouraged alongside the support of objective fact-checking. With the platforms they hold, inaction is a political stance, and a very unfavourable one at that, though itās a choice they are well-permitted to make.