Trump keeps using Taylor Swift music in his TikToks.1 She is not the only person he’s used lately,2 but she’s the story and he keeps going back to her. People feel she should say something and that since she is big and famous her political speech in general is valuable. Should she? Should famous people talk about politics, just in general?
To my mind, this question is really three questions:
Should this famous person talk about politics (because they’re people who should be able to participate politically, like everybody else)?
Should this person talk about politics (because they should feel free to speak their mind)?
Should this famous person talk about politics (because their fame means they have a lot of influence over events)?
The answer to the first two questions is yes. The answer to the third question is no. If you think famous people should talk, or at least feel free to talk, about politics for reasons of principle, that is one thing. But if it’s a matter of pragmatism, that is a different thing.
To take this back to Taylor. Should she say, as this piece in the Guardian argues, that she doesn’t like that Donald Trump is using her music on TikTok, if she doesn’t like it? As a person who doesn’t like it either, I would like to say yes. But the pragmatic answer is: no. Taylor Swift reacting to Donald Trump gives him a discourse cycle in which he gets to use her as a foil and fund raise off of her and otherwise siphon off the big buzz of attention constantly surrounding her. That’s why he is using her music.
Also, it makes people mad. It makes people really mad. That anger is useful for somebody… but it’s not people Taylor Swift is trying to support.
I find this subject tricky to write about because it’s very hard not to slide into a tone that’s like “): leave Taylor alone ):” and so on. And, you know, I also don’t want to say that Taylor has an obligation to keep her mouth shut in public because if she makes people mad she creates an opportunity for Trump to take advantage of that anger. Taylor should get to say what she thinks about the president. Furthermore, Taylor is a person who once promised to be more outspoken politically. People who expected her to keep that promise are rightfully disappointed.
I’m concerned with the specific argument that because she is very famous, she can move the needle in the direction she wants. That works for selling products and it does not work for politics. Again, back to the Guardian:
Whatever you think about celebrities’ impact on politics, Swift’s platform is so monumental that any public opposition to the Trump administration would be valuable, be it through her art or her actions. It may further fuel what is already a fiery and divisive political climate, but her influence gives her the potential to galvanise thousands in rejecting increasingly regressive and terrifying social and political norms.
There is no reason to think this is true and there are reasons to think it’s not. Taylor Swift has weighed in in a big way on at least three elections and her candidate only won one of those elections. My beliefs about whether or not celebrity endorsements do much are a matter of public record, but what really matters here is negative polarization, which is using the urge to say “fuck you” to Taylor Swift to your own advantage. And if you think there aren’t a lot of people who long to say “fuck you” to Taylor Swift, I don’t really know what to tell you. You aren’t living in reality. A public feud with Taylor would be great for Trump. That is what he is trying to do here.
The degree to which you feel Trump’s goals should dictate Taylor’s own actions depends on how much you think she should approach her public politics strategically. I think it would be smart for Taylor to continue to say nothing in public. That is my position here. I think saying nothing is the best strategy for the political beliefs the record suggests Taylor holds because people love talking about Taylor Swift. The moment she says something it becomes a story about Taylor Swift. It already is, but it will become much more of one if she does.3
I scrolled through ICE’s Instagram reels trying to find the one Olivia Rodrigo responded to and I did not succeed.4 But one thing I did notice while irreparably poisoning my Instagram algorithm is… you would expect the views on these videos to be a lot higher, wouldn’t you? I mean I follow an Instagram account for bears with less than half of ICE’s followers and it can pull comparable numbers sometimes.
ICE’s social media presence grabs attention when it courts mass disgust. The Trump media strategy in general is to cultivate negative emotions. Using celebrities—and in particular, celebrity outrage—is an easy way to do that. I think you can expect the White House to keep trying this strategy out with different celebrities to see who gets them attention. And I think celebrities should just not take the bait.
Though you can’t really blame them if they do. I would be pissed too.5
Of course I don’t know what Taylor Swift herself thinks or feels or why she does or does not say anything. I don’t know her! I’m not making an argument about why she does what she does. You can certainly feel disgusted with her for not saying things and believe it’s for craven and / or evil reasons. I am saying that celebrities cannot solve politics. They do not provide a way of getting around politics. They cannot neutralize politics. Every piece of attention that goes toward trying to pressure them is being wasted on something that will not even accomplish what people think it will.
There are plenty of things I’d love to see Taylor do. But… she should do them because she thinks that they are the right things to do and that they will help her to accomplish her political goals, not to make me feel better.
What a phrase.
My comments here also apply to Charli but she could probably do something pretty funny with “I think I’m gonna die in this house” if she were so inclined.
Swifties like to say that Taylor can’t say stuff for security reasons, which I think is true if you’re talking about “a terrorist attack in Vienna” but… not true otherwise.
ETA: That was because it was not ICE… it was the Department of Homeland Security.
JRR Tolkien keeps applying to be allowed out of Heaven to be a vengeful ghost over “Palantir” but they just won’t let him leave the Beatific Vision.…
The issue with Taylor not responding is that it ties into the 'Taylor is MAGA' theory. Tom Petty's family said don't use his music, as did Springsteen and others (of course Trump never pays the royalty fees, which is the last of the concerns, but still). She's dammed if she does, dammed if she doesn't. But I can't help thinking that she's now thinking of the Chiefs fanbase as well...