On the menu today: Variety accuses Taylor Swift of cynicism for not endorsing Kamala Harris yet; why there’s a lot of pressure on Harris in tonight’s debate; and a very special guest joins the Three Martini Lunch podcast.
Let’s Leave Pop Stars out of Politics, Please
Daniel D’Addario, Variety’s chief correspondent, accuses Taylor Swift of heresy for not coming out and endorsing Kamala Harris, and points out several other sins of omission that indicate Swift is insufficiently down with the cause:
While there is time to go before the Nov. 5 presidential election, Swift has remained silent thus far. Unusually protective of her likeness even by the standards of celebrity, Swift let Donald Trump’s use of A.I.-generated images falsely suggesting she endorsed him go by unremarked-upon; unusually willing to leverage high-profile friendships to show different sides of her, she’s chilling at the U.S. Open with Brittany Mahomes, whom Trump has thanked for her support.
How dare she hang around with her boyfriend’s teammate’s wife! (Insert that gif of that pro-Hamas activist here.) Doesn’t Swift realize that all good and right-thinking people are supposed to shun and berate anyone who dares openly support Trump? Doesn’t she realize that by being seen in public with Brittany Mahomes, she’s — er, somehow — increasing the risk that Donald Trump wins in November?
It goes on for paragraphs, until D’Addario makes Swift wear the scarlet “C” for cynicism for not endorsing Harris: “Given, though, how much mileage Swift got in the past out of her decision to speak out on politics, the idea that she will remain silent would seem to make her past speaking out, at a more convenient moment, appear cynical.”
Get ‘em, Swifties!
D’Addario isn’t alone. Don Lemon, formerly of CNN, recently told the Daily Mail, “Taylor Swift needs to step forward. She’s very influential. She can move an election.” Glamour, New York, Vanity Fair — they’ve all written about a Swift endorsement as if it would be a decisive moment in the 2024 election. No less an authority than the celebrity reporter for BuzzFeed has declared the continuing Swift-Mahomes friendship “kind of a big deal.”
(A smart observation by B. D. McClay in the New York Times: “As an electorate, we continue to hold out hope that celebrities, through their sheer persuasive charisma, will save us from the hard work of politics itself.” Some people perceive Swift as a magic wand that can be waved to ensure the “correct” candidate wins.)
Now, before any Trump fans start kidding themselves, there’s not much reason to think Swift prefers Trump to Harris. Lyrics like “control your urges to scream about all the people you hate, ’cause shade never made anybody less gay”; her post-Roe tweet, “I’m absolutely terrified that this is where we are — that after so many decades of people fighting for women’s rights to their own bodies, today’s decision has stripped us of that”; and her 2019 comment, “Rights are being stripped from basically everyone who isn’t a straight white cisgender male,” make it fairly clear how Swift perceives the culture wars. Swift endorsed some Tennessee Democrats in the 2018 midterms, and then endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020.
(I notice D’Addario writes, “Her words — in part because she weighs them with great care — move culture in a startling and profound way.” Tell that to former Tennessee governor and Senate candidate Phil Bredesen. Swift endorsed him, and he finished with 43.9 percent of the vote — better than usual for Democrats in that state, but still more than 242,000 votes short of victory. Maybe Swift’s words move culture, but that’s not the same as moving votes.)
And if you’re wondering about any political influence from her boyfriend, Travis Kelce does commercials for Pfizer and Bud Light, and knelt for the National Anthem back when that was a big thing. Again, this doesn’t directly tell us which party Kelce usually votes for, but it gives us a hint as to his worldview.
We were destined to reach this point, I suppose. Not taking a loud and public stand in favor of Harris is, in the eyes of some diehard Democrats, a form of supporting Donald Trump. It doesn’t matter if Swift is voting for Harris. If she doesn’t use her platform to tell people whom to elect as president, she’s somehow betraying everyone else. The politicization of pop stars is no longer encouraged; it is now mandatory — or at least certain corners of American politics want to make it so.
As Erick Erickson wrote in a different context, more than a decade ago, “You will be made to care.” Not endorsing, or having the yard sign, or undertaking some other public act of appropriate partisan loyalty will be perceived as a faux pas at best, a reason for deep suspicion and perhaps a sign that you’re a sleeper agent for the enemy.
After all, if Taylor Swift can enjoy herself with someone who apparently “liked” Donald Trump’s Instagram posts, well, doesn’t that make a grand moral statement about the character of Swift?
Actually, no. This is hyper-partisan nonsense. It’s a free country, and Swift is free to vote for whomever she likes, and to decide whether she wants to share her voting preference with the world. And she’s free to be friends with whomever the heck she likes.
But with all of that said . . . considering the increasing amalgamation of Hollywood and the Democratic Party, maybe a celebrity who wishes to remain apolitical or keep their voting choices private is making a de facto statement in support of those who dissent. I was reminded of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s saying earlier this year that he did not intend to endorse either candidate:
“The takeaway after that, [endorsement of Biden in 2020] months and months and months, I started to realize, ‘Oh man, that caused an incredible amount of division in our country.’ So, I realize now, going into this election, I’m not going to do that. I wouldn’t do that because my goal is to bring our country together. I believe in that — in my DNA. So in the spirit of that there’s going to be no endorsement. Not that I’m afraid of it at all, but it’s just I realize that this level of influence I’m going to keep my politics to myself, and I think it’s between me and the ballot box.”
The rules of social-media engagement — prioritizing conflict, drama, exaggeration, provocation, and demonization — might lead you to believe that the more polarizing and partisan you are, the more popular you are. But there’s considerable evidence that the opposite is true.
On the front page of the Wall Street Journal today:
In a heated election season, with global conflicts intensifying, news abounds. Some Americans are avoiding it at all costs.
They are canceling subscriptions, deleting apps, silencing notifications and unfollowing rabble-rousers. Many want no part of Tuesday night’s presidential debate or its fallout. Political discourse has infiltrated everything from the Sunday church service to afternoon football, and they have had enough.
Even those with firm political views say they feign ignorance rather than join impassioned discussions. It isn’t, they say, that they are uninterested or uncaring about world events, but they are inundated by the sheer volume of news headlines. Deciding it is bad for their mental health, they are retreating or seeking apolitical havens.
Those who are politically impassioned — and who look upon the political opposition with scorn and contempt — have no idea how exhausting and insufferable they can seem to others, even those who are aligned with their beliefs.
Maybe Dwayne Johnson and Taylor Swift recognize that a lot of Americans are just sick of it. And in the end, they’re not elected officials, campaign representatives, or pundits.
Debate Night 2024: The Mania in Pennsylvania
On paper, almost everything has gone right for Kamala Harris in the 51 days since Biden resigned — gushing press coverage, Democrats loving Tim Walz, and the convention going about as well as it could. And yet, there was no polling bump, and the pressure’s on Harris tonight.
The last few national polls are pretty “meh” for Harris — New York Times/Siena showing Trump up by one, Pew Research and the Harvard/Harris polls showing ties. A tie or near-tie in the popular vote probably leaves Trump with more than 270 electoral votes. (Remember, when all was said and done in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percent.) You almost never see a swing-state poll that has either Trump or Harris ahead by more than three points, meaning almost everything’s within the margin of error. At this moment, this presidential election is on pace to be closer than both 2016 and 2020.
(Cue the opening chords from the “Jaws” theme at DNC headquarters.)
Trump is the ultimate known quantity. Think about it: What could happen between now and Election Day that could significantly reduce Trump’s support in the states that matter most? Turning Point USA’s get-out-the-vote operation stumbles? Trump starts shooting people on Fifth Avenue? Trump’s getting shot barely had any lasting effect on the race; why would we think a rambling, shouting, or bullying performance tonight would change the numbers significantly? More than half the country already thinks he’s a rambling shouting bully. Heck, for a chunk of the MAGA crowd, that’s what they like best about him!
Yes, Trump has a “hard ceiling,” but he also appears to have a hard floor, too.
Now ask yourself, what could happen between now and Election Day that could significantly reduce Harris’s support in the states that matter most? Before she ascended to the nomination, her job-approval numbers and favorability numbers were consistently below 40 percent. After seven weeks of adulatory coverage, those numbers are . . . 44.5 percent and 46.3 percent, respectively.
Harris is a much harder sell than any Democrat wants to publicly acknowledge — and the nominee is her own worst saleswoman. Our Charlie Cooke notes that The New Republic writes that the Harris strategy is to avoid questions from the media as much as possible — which is the same strategy Biden employed before he imploded on a debate stage.
Around 10:30 tonight, a massive state-of-the-art communications apparatus will swing into action, aiming to convince you that Harris was masterful and that Trump was a stumblebum. Some will stick to the narrative no matter what happens; I will remind you that New York Times columnists Jamelle Bouie and Lydia Polgreen insisted the Biden-Trump debate ended in a tie.
NR is liveblogging tonight’s debate, as is that other place I write for.
ADDENDUM: Greg and I have taped a lot of great episodes of the Three Martini Lunch podcast, but yesterday’s ranks among our most fun episodes of all time, featuring actor, director, and singer, Robert Davi. (We’re a lighthearted Generation X right-of-center podcast obsessed with Die Hard; you’re forgiven for wondering how we haven’t interviewed Davi already.) Davi discusses playing Leonid Brezhnev in the new movie Reagan and the surprisingly deep research he did for the role, and what it’s like being an outspoken conservative in Hollywood and how his political views grew and evolved. Plus, he offers some fantastic and hilarious stories about making Die Hard and the reaction of his old friend, Arnold Schwarzenegger. (I thought my impression of Schwarzenegger was good, but Davi’s could easily fool someone on the phone.)