Celebrity endorsements in politics are nothing new. We’ve seen stars like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and even Charli XCX lend their names to political campaigns in the hopes of boosting a candidate’s appeal. But as recent election cycles have shown, the influence of famous faces on voter turnout and candidate support isn’t as powerful as many believe. In fact, celebrity endorsements might even work against candidates in some cases.
Justine Bateman, actress, director, and author of Fame: The Hijacking of Reality, offers unique insight into the limits of celebrity influence. Having worked in the entertainment industry for decades and experienced fame firsthand, Bateman’s perspective highlights why celebrity endorsements often fail to sway voters or, worse, alienate them.
In this post, I’ll break down Bateman’s views and explore why celebrity endorsements don’t always deliver the expected results in political campaigns.
The Allure of Celebrity Endorsements in Politics
Celebrities have long been used in political campaigns to capture attention. From Taylor Swift supporting Kamala Harris to Beyoncé passionately backing the same candidate during her concerts, it seems like star power is an easy ticket to success. But after the polls close, the hype often doesn’t translate into votes. Why?
Bateman notes that celebrity endorsements might bring visibility to a candidate, but visibility doesn’t always equate to votes. It’s important to differentiate between product endorsements, which are effective in driving sales, and political endorsements, which are not as straightforward.
The Paradox of Celebrity Influence in Politics
Many people assume that the mere presence of a celebrity will create the illusion of credibility for a candidate. After all, celebrities are influential in many areas—fashion, music, entertainment. But politics is different.
Here’s why celebrity endorsements often fall short in elections:
-
Partisanship Trumps Star Power: According to a recent survey conducted in Ohio, Taylor Swift’s endorsement had a negative impact in certain areas. While it motivated her fans, it alienated others, particularly in red states. Swift’s endorsement may have resonated with liberal voters, but it didn’t move the needle with those who were already undecided.
-
Mimetic Desire: Justine Bateman draws on the ideas of cultural theorist René Girard, who introduced the concept of mimetic desire. According to Girard, people don’t inherently know what they want. Instead, they mimic the desires of others—often celebrities. While this works well in consumerism (think buying the same brand of car or phone as your favourite actor), it doesn’t translate well when it comes to political preferences. Voters don’t want to simply follow the crowd; they want to make informed decisions about issues that affect their lives.
-
Voters Aren’t Looking for Advice: Bateman believes that when celebrities endorse a candidate, they are, in effect, telling voters what to think. And this is where the problem lies. Voters don’t like being told what to think. Even if the endorsement is from a beloved celebrity, many will reject it because they feel like their autonomy is being undermined.
Celebrity Endorsements Can Alienate Voters
While celebrity endorsements might rally the base, they often fail to expand a candidate’s reach beyond their core supporters. Bateman argues that escapism—a common trait in celebrity culture—doesn’t translate well into political engagement. Here’s why:
-
Escapism Isn’t Effective for Policy Discussions: Celebrities bring a sense of fantasy, something Bateman refers to as “escapism”. While escapism might be great for entertainment, it’s not the kind of mindset you want voters to be in when choosing the future leader of their country. Voters need to engage with real-world issues like healthcare, taxes, and education, not just bask in the glow of celebrity endorsement.
-
The Wrong Kind of Attention: Bateman also brings up a fascinating analogy from the film industry. In Hollywood, some films fail even though they have a star-studded cast. The problem, she argues, is that big stars can distract from the real message. Similarly, celebrity endorsements may steal the limelight and distract voters from the issues at hand.
-
Virality and Oversaturation: With social media making celebrities even more accessible, we’ve reached a point where fame is overexposed. Celebrities now go viral daily, not just for their work, but for their opinions. This constant exposure can lead to endorsement fatigue, where voters tune out the constant barrage of famous faces pushing one candidate or another.
The Case Against Celebrity Endorsements in 2024
Let’s take a look at some high-profile examples to understand why celebrity endorsements in politics aren’t as powerful as they might seem:
-
Kamala Harris’s Campaign: The Harris campaign was full of celebrity enthusiasm. Beyoncé performed at rallies, and Charli XCX endorsed her. However, the results were less than stellar. Why? Because, as Bateman points out, celebrity endorsement may get people excited but doesn’t translate into voting behaviour. As much as people admire Beyoncé’s music, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll vote for her endorsed candidate.
-
Barack Obama’s 2008 Campaign: Obama’s campaign didn’t rely as heavily on celebrities, although he did get support from stars like Oprah Winfrey. The difference here was that Obama’s message was rooted in hope and change, which resonated with people on a deeper level than simply the endorsement of famous people.
So, What Actually Works in Political Campaigns?
As Bateman suggests, visibility alone isn’t enough. Here are a few things that actually make a difference in winning votes:
-
Authenticity: Voters want to know that the candidate is authentic, not just another face selling an idea. Personal stories, real connections with voters, and transparent policies will always beat celebrity fanfare.
-
Policy Over Personality: At the end of the day, voters want to know how a candidate’s policies will affect their lives. Politicians who focus on clear, impactful policies that address voters’ concerns will have more success than those relying on celebrity appeal.
-
Grassroots Movements: Engaging with local communities, addressing their needs, and empowering grassroots organisations can build genuine support. This kind of community-based approach resonates more than any endorsement from a star.
Conclusion: Why Celebrity Endorsements Aren’t the Magic Bullet for Elections
Celebrity endorsements in politics can bring attention and excitement, but they rarely have the power to win votes. As Justine Bateman points out, fame is an illusion, and while it may drive sales for products, it doesn’t necessarily translate into votes for a candidate. Voters want authenticity, clarity, and policies that speak to their needs—not the glitz and glamour of celebrity backing.
If candidates truly want to make an impact, they need to focus on engaging with voters on a deeper level, not relying on the flashiness of famous faces. After all, elections are about the future of the country, not the latest viral trend.
Relevant Links for Further Reading
- The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements in Politics Politico
- The Science Behind Celebrity Influence Psychology Today
- Taylor Swift’s Political Impact Vanity Fair
- Justine Bateman on Fame Amazon: Fame: The Hijacking of Reality
