What role should public figures and corporations play in advocating for social or political causes?
Last year, Laura Ingraham made headlines by urging Lebron James to just “shut up and dribble” in response to his outspoken views on President Trump. Today, people are up-in-arms about a new Gillette razor ad that takes on toxic masculinity within our culture. Neither Lebron James nor Gillette are best known by their political stances. Lebron James plays basketball. Gillette makes razors. But is that all they should be expected to do?
Michael Jordan, one of the world’s most famous people, has consistently taken flack for his unwillingness to partake in the political arena. He is famously quoted as saying, “Republicans buy shoes, too”, in response to his critics who say that he should speak out more when it comes to social issues and causes. Is this something that we should expect (or want) out of our celebrities and corporations? If Jordan’s views were antithetical to your own, would you still want him to speak out?
Celebrities have a range of influence that is much wider than the average citizen. This was true before social media and has been magnified immeasurably since. Social luminaries can share their feelings with millions of people instantly. This is an inherently precarious position to be in. Do you speak your mind and risk alienating part of your fanbase?
Taylor Swift had been notoriously secretive in her political views. That all changed last year when she advocated for Phil Bredesen and Jim Cooper for the Senate and House of Representatives in Tennessee, respectively. She was greeted with equal amounts of praise and disdain, depending on who you asked. Many thought that it could end her career entirely. While it certainly didn’t end her career, her popularity has taken a hit. Now, there are many factors that play into her likability. Are people sick of all of her relationship drama? Is she no longer relatable? Who knows. Point is, celebrities have to take a calculated risk when they advertise their political views.
Given this risk, should celebrities be expected to make their political and social stances public? Not necessarily. Take the Michael Jordan situation; he’s one of the most famous people in the world. He’s made hand over fist in his career, the majority coming from his partnership with Nike. Jordan made the decision to keep his political views private in order to make more money. Plain and simple. The same has been said about Taylor Swift. Six years ago, when she was 22, she was quoted as saying, “I don’t talk about politics because it might influence other people. And I don’t think that I know enough yet in life to be telling people who to vote for.” This is an important point. Espousing your political views to hundreds of millions of people can affect a lot of impressionable minds and shouldn’t be taken lightly. If this was truly Swift’s feeling, then I commend her silence.
Jordan wanted to keep his views private so that it wouldn’t hurt his earning potential. Do I think that’s a good reason to do so? Personally, I don’t. I think there are legitimate reasons why someone would want to keep their political views hidden but that’s not one of them. I fully understand why someone would not want to get involved. In our hyper-critical, troll infested world, it’s not easy to take a constant bombardment of ridicule. People tend to forget that celebrities are human and have feelings. Imagine, you’re Taylor Swift. You have over 100 million Instagram followers. People are looking for any excuse to tear you down. Nasty things are written about you every day. I don’t care who you are, that has to take its toll. We can’t expect celebrities to speak out about their political views if we aren’t willing to do the same. If you don’t want to get involved because you’re worried about making a little less of a fortune, however, I don’t have much sympathy for you.
When it comes to corporations, I see it a little differently. What is Gillette’s mission statement? Let’s just guess and say that its, ‘to make the greatest razors on the planet.’ At the end of the day, they’re in the razor-selling business. They would not have come out with their most recent ad if they did not think it would earn them more sales in the end. I’m sure that they feel threatened by companies like Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s. You may think that this is a cynical take, but it’s the truth. Let’s just say that, hypothetically, this ad ultimately makes Gillette go bankrupt. Do you think that the executives would be saying, “Well, I don’t care that I lost my job and ruined the company. We made an advertisement that made a difference!” No, they wouldn’t.
Which gets me to this point. Making socially sensitive ads are all part of a cost-benefit analysis. Am I more likely to buy a razor from Gillette after watching their ad? No. Personally, I liked the ad but I understand that it was a business decision. They either underestimated the amount of backlash that a seemingly non-controversial ad would receive, or they believed that those who took offense to it would be a small minority. Considering the fact that the ad has over 1,000,000 dislikes and only 550,000 likes on YouTube, they’re clearly not a small minority. If Gillette’s bet doesn’t pay off, their sales will suffer and their future could be in doubt. If it does, they will get what they wanted to begin with, more razor sales.
This is where speaking out as a corporation differs from speaking out as an individual. In comparison, I give individuals much more credit when they are willing to take a stand for what they believe in. Executives who make decisions for their corporations are shielded from ridicule. Their companies may suffer, but their day-to-day lives would remain largely unaffected. Someone like Taylor Swift, on the other hand, will have to deal with people trolling her for the rest of her life.
I encourage and appreciate public figures who are willing to share their political views, yet I don’t expect or demand it. Celebrities are citizens like everyone else. The notion that you need to have some background in politics in order to speak publicly about social issues is ridiculous. Civic engagement is important; I don’t care that Lebron James wasn’t a political science major. He’s well within his rights as an American citizen to be an agent of social change, however he sees fit. Whether it be through social media or some other avenue, public figures should choose the route that suits them best. While I don’t agree with Michael Jordan’s reason for abstaining from the political arena, he is associated with over 15 charities and has donated millions of dollars to worthwhile causes. He deserves credit for that. Surely, he could use his voice to affect change in a larger way, yet so can the rest of us. Rather than asking what other people should be doing, maybe we should look to ourselves first and ask that same question.
Deconstructed Politics 