Taylor Swift | Pop stars & Politics

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Taylor Swift | Pop stars & Politics

Post by Lay Vegan » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:12 pm

Not sure if people here follow pop music, but singer Taylor Swift has made international news when she publicly endorsed a couple of democrats in the Tennessee midterm elections. She also critiqued Republican senator Marsha Blackburn due to her questionable voting record against social justice issues. Taylor Swift is basically a master of image control, and up until now has remained notoriously silent on the matter of politics (even during the 2016 presidential elections).

Of course, there has been severe backlash from her “conservative” fanbase who may feel alienated by her public support of democratic senators. The backlash seems a bit astonishing for 3 reasons:

1. It is her constitutional right to publicly state her political views. Being a public citizen does not negate or invoke her first ammendment rights, even if her publicity is not relevant to politics.

2. She didn’t actually tell her fans who to vote her. Nor did she declare a party affiliation. Her actual Instagram post merely detailed her own political endorsements, and encouraged her fans to vote for a candidate who best represents one’s values
Taylor Swift wrote:Please, please educate yourself on the candidates running in your state and vote based on who most closely represents your values. For a lot of us, we may never find a candidate or party with whom we agree 100% on every issue, but we have to vote anyway. So many intelligent, thoughtful, self-possessed people have turned 18 in the past two years and now have the right and privilege to make their vote count. But first you need to register, which is quick and easy to do. October 9th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in the state of TN. Go to vote.org and you can find all the info. Happy Voting!
3. Talyor Swift’s dabble into politics is actually pro free-speech. Given that conservative politics upholds our constitution as the edifice on which our society is built, I’d expect conservatives to support her. I know that this is not a legitimate freedom of speech issue (she’s not being put on trial for her post) but given a basic understanding of actual conservatism, I think that most of the people expressing opposition of her music are actually angry reactionaries masquerading as conservatives. I feel that legitimate conservatives would respect her more for her conviction.

I’m a bit conflicted on the topic of pop stars involving themselves into politics. It is without a doubt their constitutional right, but I’m also aware that they aren’t politicians, so speaking out carelessly may influence fans to make the wrong decisions (voting for people with harmful/inefective policies. Conversely however, celebrities have the power to influence fans to vote for politicians with beneficial or effective policies. And why does it matter if a celebrity has no political experience? Nor too did Donald Trump before literally being elected as the President of the United States.

I’m not only unbothered Taylor Swift’s post, but in support of it. Thanks to her, Vote.org saw a spike in voter registration. vote.org reported nearly 65,000 people nationwide between the ages of 18 and 29 had registered since Oct. 7th. More than 40,000 people between the ages of 30 and 70+ registered. Voter apathy has been a longstanding issue nationwide, so politicians with young fanbases are a useful tool in galvanizing young people to vote. In addition, Marsha Blackburn is a Republican (not exactly a science-enthusiast party) and does indeed have a questionable political history. She’s even voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

I’m glad that Taylor Swift spoke out. Not only did she express personal growth and conviction in her values, she reinvigorated young people to politics, and publicly endorsed a politician who is in favor of effective policies. I think more pop stars and celebrities should follow suit.

What are your thoughts on this? I know @Red seems to be knowledgeable in the field of politics, so I’d like to hear your thoughts.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8948
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:38 pm

Celebrities usually lean left, and in a political environment dominated by ideas that are quite right of the mainstream that's definitely important to support.

Republicans can't rely on their ageing base and a fractured left forever. The party is going to have to drop some of its medieval policies and catch up with the times. Or just die, and let libertarians fill the void.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:35 pm

I'm writing a response to Jebus in the other thread, but since I was mentioned here, I'm going to respond here anyway.

Famous (and oftentimes talented) Celebrities are generally the activists for, not only political causes, but for humanitarian causes (like Matt Damon who was a founder of Water.org), and are generally liberal (such as Moore). I personally don't see this as a bad thing, since it's bringing attention to both types of causes (and having celebrity endorsement of things oftentimes has a noticeable positive effect), and advocating for their causes in their fields of art could be even better (like Moore's new 11/9 documentary might be able to swing the midterms in the Democrats' favor) but of course, you have cynics (like Matt Stone and Trey Parker, two libertarians who claimed they hate both liberals and conservatives) who mock their actions, but there isn't really anything you can do on that front.

A possible issue with this is that liberal celebrities are probably prone to supporting liberal pseudoscience (anti nuclear, GMO), since their job doesn't include understanding those sciences. But of course, this can be countered by making documentaries (I saw Moore discussed Pandora's Promise, so hopefully he isn't a moonbat like I feared).

Of course, there are older celebrities/actors who do take part in politics, and they are the ones who seek political offices (Eastwood, Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Ventura), and generally lean more conservative and libertarian in nature, as brimstone hinted at, which brings an interesting phenomenon where the liberal celebrities don't seek political office as much as the conservative ones. But even if these pop stars aren't politicians (I mean, just look at our current administration), they just have to go tell their fans to become educated on these issues, and take a genuine step in learning about these things before voting.

This is probably the most important midterm election since probably 2010, and endorsement for Democrats is imperative at this point.

Was this a satisfying post? You pinged me so I don't want to make you disappointed.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:36 am

Red wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:35 pm
Famous (and oftentimes talented) Celebrities are generally the activists for, not only political causes, but for humanitarian causes (like Matt Damon who was a founder of Water.org), and are generally liberal (such as Moore). I personally don't see this as a bad thing, since it's bringing attention to both types of causes (and having celebrity endorsement of things oftentimes has a noticeable positive effect), and advocating for their causes in their fields of art could be even better (like Moore's new 11/9 documentary might be able to swing the midterms in the Democrats' favor)
I agree. I don’t personally subscribe to the two-party system, but I’d bet that Republican politicians are more harmful the democrats (who aren’t as likely to promote climate policies for example). I think Swift’s critique of Republican senator Blackburn was particularly important, given Blackburn’s stance against effective policies. The Violence Against Women Act provided $1.6 billion toward the investigation of violent crimes against women, and protection was extended to same-sex couples and immigrants, which is probably why so many conservative voters opposed it.

Of course, let’s not forget that Swift galvanized thousands of young adults (65,000 people nationwide between the ages of 18 and 29) to vote. Swift may have helped stem the tide against voter apathy. Celebs can and should do more to positively acquaint their audience to politics.
Red wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:35 pm
A possible issue with this is that liberal celebrities are probably prone to supporting liberal pseudoscience (anti nuclear, GMO), since their job doesn't include understanding those sciences. But of course, this can be countered by making documentaries (I saw Moore discussed Pandora's Promise, so hopefully he isn't a moonbat like I feared).
Interesting, I didn’t think of anti-nuclear, anti-GMO rhetoric as a distinctly liberal sentiment. Although Bernie Sanders in particular seems to be in support of GMO food labeling, and some of his statements in support of alternative medicine make me #FeelTheBern.

That’s the problem with the 2 party system; either major party has become increasingly polarized, and we’re forced to vote for politicians with extremist views on either end of the political spectrum. Where are the rational moderates who acknowledge our second amendment right to bear arms, but also want effective gun policies and a stronger national background check system (to keep guns out the hands of potential criminals)?
Red wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:35 pm
Of course, there are older celebrities/actors who do take part in politics, and they are the ones who seek political offices
Hi, Donald. :mrgreen:
Red wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:35 pm
Was this a satisfying post?
Sure, you seem to be generally knowledgeable in politics (are you studying political science)? Are you familiar with Blackburn's voting record?

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:39 am

Lay Vegan wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:36 am
Sure, you seem to be generally knowledgeable in politics (are you studying political science)? Are you familiar with Blackburn's voting record?
No.
I like to discuss politics if everyone in the room isn't relying on rhetoric. Not to mention political science is a soft science, which is prone to biases. @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz however disagrees with me.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:44 am

Red wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:39 am
Lay Vegan wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:36 am
Sure, you seem to be generally knowledgeable in politics (are you studying political science)? Are you familiar with Blackburn's voting record?
No.
I like to discuss politics if everyone in the room isn't relying on rhetoric. Not to mention political science is a soft science, which is prone to biases. @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz however disagrees with me.
I don't disagree with you.

It is a "soft science" but this is a very arbitrary term.

It is also prone to biases, but so is everything.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests