Unless you have been living under a rock for the past year, you are probably aware that there is a presidential election taking place. As a political science student studying abroad from the UK, this is the first time I have experienced an American election season first hand. The main difference between the U.S. election, and the election campaign for Prime Minister in the UK last year, is the huge impact popular culture has in endorsing, satirising and promoting candidates.
Televised debates only began in the last couple of elections in the UK, and the closest any candidate got to celebrity involvement was Russell Brand tearing apart conservative politics with his controversial, and very entertaining, interview with Labour Party candidate Ed Miliband.
Here in the U.S., you can barely turn on the TV without watching Hillary Clinton take over Jimmy Fallon’s snapchat, or Saturday Night Live’s hilarious take on the Republican debate. Clinton, Sanders, Bush and Trump have been racking up more talk show appearances than most actual celebrities.
For the most part, this is a way in which people who don’t follow politics can be exposed to the candidates. Let’s face it; most of us are more likely to tune in to The Ellen DeGeneres Show than the Democratic debate. Whilst this is obviously a useful strategy for candidates to gain popularity while showing that they have a personality beyond the policies they stand for, it is arguably taking the focus away from the real issues. Hillary Clinton dancing with her five-year-old mini-me on Ellen shows that she can be a fun and relatable person, but what does it really say about her ability to lead the country?
Talk shows are a fun way for celebrities to promote their latest work, but over the past few elections, they have also become a place for politicians to promote and defend their policies. However, getting people to go see the latest Jennifer Lawrence movie is simply not as important as the future of the country, and therefore, should not be the same platform used to showcase the next president of the United States. And for the record, I would vote for JLaw to be President but she isn’t running and I’m not a US citizen. And, unfortunately, I don’t think either of these will happen in the near future.
Having said that, her non-candidacy hasn’t stopped Lawrence from vocalizing her thoughts on the upcoming election. With the simple statement, “If Donald Trump becomes president it will be the end of the world”. She is by far not the only high profile celebrity to publicly share her political views. Hillary Clinton has now taken a selfie with Kim Kardashian, let Lena Dunham take over her Instagram, and even had Katy Perry offer to write her a campaign theme song. Some would criticise Clinton for almost trying too hard, and might suggest that we instead vote for Bernie Sanders, who managed to solicit X in public donations, rather than relying on $2,700 ticket events. Yet, he also clearly sees benefits to celebrities endorsing him since he launched a page on his website under the banner ‘Artists for Bernie,’ with a mix of admittedly lesser-known celebrities, including Danny DeVito, Will Ferrell and all of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.
Whilst it is not unsurprising that the more educated and wealthy sectors of society tend to be more liberal, Donald Trump has managed to solicit a fair share of talk show appearances, ranging from hosts like Jimmy Fallon, who was clearly doing his best to hide his dislike of Trump, to Michael & Kelly, who genuinely seemed to be excited for him, unless they were just doing a really good job of acting.
So far, there has been little research done to show the real effect of celebrity endorsements on candidates. The only concrete evidence of this has been the estimated one million extra votes for Obama after Oprah declared her support for him. Even though the person your favorite celebrity is endorsing might not directly affect the way you vote, there is an almost greater issue in that just because of their profession and wealth, they have an automatic privilege to meet with high profile politicians and presidential candidates, and form relationships with them.
If Lena Dunham decides she wants to spend her free time hanging out with Clinton while she’s in town, then she can. In contrast, it would be practically impossible for an average college student to discuss policy with Bernie Sanders. The idea that you need to be famous/successful/very wealthy and have the luxury of time to spare in order to get invested in politicians and presidential candidates is part of the reason why voting levels are much lower in low-income households. By having a page dedicated to the celebrities who have promised to vote for him, in a sense, Sanders is saying that those votes matter more than the millions of Americans who aren’t in the entertainment industry.
So, not only are politicians given the same television coverage as actors, but those same actors are also given an exclusive access to politicians. That isn’t to discredit the incredible advocacy work many actors dedicate their spare time to; Emma Watson, Angelina Jolie and Nicole Kidman have all been appointed as UN Goodwill Ambassadors, last year actress Connie Britton (Nashville) spoke at the School Counsellor of the Year Awards at the White House, and her and Kerry Washington (Scandal) joined Obama in a video about preventing sexual assault. It is just interesting to consider where the line is drawn between viewing the president, and future president, in the same light as people who just happen to be in the entertainment industry.
Show business and politics are too very different lines of work, with the only mutual factor being that they have a great reach over the general population. And whilst politicians appearing on celebrity talk shows may be good for exposure, and very entertaining, there is a real issue in aligning the two, as it risks increasing the elitism associated with politics.