Celebrities In American Politics

Celebrity politician thrive because a certain aspect of their character or style are highlighted and framed by the media in a way that is enticing and alluring to the

In an age were social media sits at the forefront of global connectivity and communication, the political arena has never had been more exposed the unpredictable nature of public engagement and response. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the formality and ceremony of traditional political engagement has, to an extent, been abandoned. Throughout the course of the 2016 US presidential election, celebrities have used their status and personal platform to voice their stance in the debate and name their preferred candidate. This essay will explore: The current trends of celebrity rhetoric in the current campaign and how each respective party compares; how celebrity translates or carries authority and creditability in this arena; and how social media and digital platforms have been employed to share, spread and generate public debate based on this form of rhetoric. Therefore measuring the public response, success and criticism towards current celebrity endorsements.

Television has been influential in United States presidential elections since the 1960’s. But just what is this influence, and how has it affected who is elected? Has it made elections fairer and more accessible, or has it moved candidates from pursuing issues to pursuing image? The media only impacts the American Society, especially for the presidential election as it increases the talks in politics and gives the president a higher role to follow. The television race captures more popularity than what a citizen is actually voting for.

Huey Long never received credit for the government reforms that resulted from his “Share Our Wealth” movement. [4] Although he persisted in trying to end the failing economy, The Great Depression continued for six years after Long’s death. Many of today’s federal programs include ideas brought to light by Long. These include social security, veterans’ benefits, financial aid for colleges and schooling, labor rights, minimum wage and 40-hour work week standards, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps

“Name recognition can help early on, but eventually a celebrity politician will still have to run on a well-articulated agenda and set of policy beliefs, and this is where most end up falling short,” Barreto said in an interview with The Washington Post. “However, some have been able to crack into the political arena, and once they do, they face the reality that nobody can govern alone. They have to meet, negotiate and make compromises with the other members of

Many celebrities publically advocate for the legalization of marijuana. Artists like Snoop Dogg, Justin Timberlake, John legend, and Madonna are just a few of the many in the music industry who advocate for the legalization of marijuana (Schiff 2014). These artists help the movement by maintaining a culture upon which the use of marijuana is “cool”. This promotion of marijuana by such celebrated people creates a sense of collective identity. “Historically, one of the most obvious means through which group identity has been manifested and shared is through language generally, and music specifically” (Danaher & Roscigno:26). Athletes like Michael Phelps, Allen Iverson, and Randy Moss advocate for the use of marijuana. Politicians like former president Bill Clinton, current president Barack Obama, and senator John McCain have all been very vocal about reforming the current marijuana policy. All these public influences help influence cultural outcomes that promote positive images surrounding marijuana. “Media coverage of SMOs is key to both substantiating their claims to represent groups and developing important cultural outcomes” (Goodwin & Jasper:312). Ultimately, public support of marijuana decriminalization from such important characters creates communal support and strengthens NGO campaign support. “To assert the media’s influence requires specifying the structural and instrumental ways in which it can shape collective action across a dispersed population. On the structure end, the introduction of new media may provide opportunities not directly associate with collective action, but which alter the leverage and/or autonomy of subgroups” (Danaher &

As today’s population continues to grow, each day the number of potential voters grows with it. The number of young voters is considered one of today’s most important topics of society. Having the ability to swing the decision of the young, newly registering voters could make or break a shot at the presidency of the United States. There are countless organizations and associations devoted to raising the number of young registered voters. With this negative comedic attitude towards Governor Palin the way these Americans votes’ are swayed could have a great impact on the election, especially considering the many adults and young adults that are tuning into Saturday Night Live. Many of the young and undecided voters who are making up the audience of Saturday Night Live are not also tuned into the campaign. Lauren Feldman, a professor from American University, tells a reporter that, “The power of late night comedy to influence voters really lies among those voters who are currently undecided and are

The growing connection between politics and Hollywood has happened for a number of reasons, in a somewhat cyclical fashion. Politicians need Hollywood stars to support their campaigns because celebrities are useful in fundraising attempts and recognition. They have the advantages of fame, wealth, and can easily command press attention. In return, celebrities endorse candidates whose policies are beneficial to their industry. For example, while Clinton was in office he argued for “industry self-regulation and a television rating system, as opposed to formal government regulation” (Ormand and West 38). For this and other reasons, Hollywood stars donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates in return. In 2000, Hollywood contributed $20 million to Democrats as opposed to the $13 million that was contributed to the less Hollywood-friendly Republican party (Ormand and West 40).

In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama’s presidential election and reelection were two of the most highly popularized campaigns due to the support of many celebrities.

Media is known as the “king maker” for many reasons, such as shaping candidates in audience’s perspective. Television has been a big influence in shaping voters choice and labeling political parties, even though some believe media information can be scant in regards to candidates. Media can be anything from television to social media networks and how many people think that media is a great influence, some also think it can be a problem. “It only takes 140 characters to damage a political campaign” in which Smith is referring to social media as being a problem. (Smith, K. 2011. Pg. 9) At the state and local levels party affiliation remains the most important. “In television age, journalist became the chief influence in the selection of candidates

The Journal that I have read for this paper was about the topic of how various celebrities had impacted young voters. Certain presidential races have already try to draw the attention of young voters, like in 1990 one of the slogans for voting was “rock the vote” but these government controlled slogans never really influenced young voters like celebrities could. How ever celebrities who had put themselves out there for anyone to know there political stand normally drew a lot more attention than anything the government had put out. Two examples from the Journal I have read, Exploring the influences of celebrities in politics: A focus group study of young voters, are Sarah Silverman’s Great Schlep in 2008 and Samuel L. Jackson’s Wake The Fuck

Many have thought the entertainment world should be separate from the world of politics. Some celebrities go on to be involved in politics, such as Ronald Reagan and Sonny Bono, but rarely does an entertainer command a large sphere of influence in the world of entertainment and politics simultaneously. While entertainers can move the masses, their voice is usually discarded among politicians. In addition to this, many have highlighted the negative influence of the entertainment industry, and particularly rock music, on American culture. Often, it is seen as a corrupting force that leads people astray. For many people, rock and roll seems to highlight all that is wrong with American popular culture. These critics fail to take note of

I think Oprah is the perfect example of how likeable public figures can influence voters. Oprah has proven her influence time and again. For example, the books she recommends on-air often experience a huge bump in sales afterwards (Minzesheimer, 2011). If Oprah can influence a massive numbers of readers in her audience, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that she could also influence voters.

Should celebrities use their spotlights to speak their minds about politics and current world issues? Some argue that celebrities are only here to entertain and should not ruin that by voicing their political opinions. Mark Wahlberg for example, stated in an interview with Task and Purpose that celebrities should stay out of politics as they are in their own little “bubble” and have no way of truly understanding the struggles of average people. On the other hand, some celebrities have the exact opposite opinion. In her Golden Globes acceptance speech, Oprah Winfrey denounces silence and encourages everyone to stand up for what is right no matter what their social standing is. To explore this idea, we will use the rhetorical analysis theory

In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.