In one of the funniest moments on her latest album, in the bridge of the song “Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me?,” Taylor Swift sings in a quiet, solemn tone, “So tell me everything is not about me…” And then, raising her voice nearly to a shriek, she dramatically adds: “But what if it is?”
Which, in an odd, roundabout way, brings us to the presidential election cycle of 2024, something we can definitively say is not about Taylor Swift.
But what if it is?
Because “will she or won’t she?” has turned into the year’s most nationally absorbing puzzle that does not directly involve a swing state outcome — the question, that is, of whether not the biggest superstar in the pop stratosphere will endorse Kamala Harris. In any other election in history, it would have been inconceivable to train so much attention on the suspense over whether one celebrity in particular will come out to support a candidate. But, as has been said a million times, this is no ordinary election, and (as it’s been said 1.1 million) Swift has a devoted following that is hanging on her every word to an extent arguably unlike any other performer in history. It’s not an inane or even merely academic question at a time when elections can be decided by a margin of votes in a few states that is smaller than the amount of people who buy a Taylor Swift album in its first week on sale.
Mind you, there are some side questions that do count as trivial, but are just as fascinating to the mass populace. Like: Is Trump supporter Brittany Mahomes a Karlie Kloss or an Ice Spice in Swift’s life now? And will this suspicious fraternization — across the political aisle, such as aisles exist in a stadium VIP box — be something that affects Swift’s decision to endorse Harris… and thereby, ultimately, affect the fate of the free world?
I’m being glib about the ridiculous Swift/Mahomes controversy. But I don’t mean to about the larger picture: the one in which it’s not silly or senseless but actually advisable for the artists we trust most to make sense of life for us to extend that to telling us what they think is at stake in decisions that will affect the rest of our lives.
So, to cut to the chase on how I feel about two issues that are roiling these United States: As a close observer and student of Swiftdom since 2006, I absolutely, 100% believe that Taylor will endorse Kamala Harris — when she’s damn good and ready and believes it will have the most critical impact.
And, I also believe Swift should hug whomever TF she wants to at a sporting event. For God’s sake, people, get out of your bubbles, or else resign yourselves to being part of the problem that could throw this election the way you don’t want it to be thrown.
Op-eds on these topics, like the one you’re reading now, are an everyday occurrence, which is maybe something to chuckle about at first but ultimately, I think, a good sign of how seriously we are coming to take these intersections of politics and culture. My Variety colleague Daniel D’Addario published a cautionary column Monday that riled up portions of the Swift-watching world, titled “If Taylor Swift Doesn’t Endorse Kamala Harris, She’d Be Entering a New Era.” Dan and I disagree on some things here: He is inclined to think that her silence on the election so far this year — and on Donald Trump invoking her name in vain — may be an indication that she has gone back on her “Miss Americana” declarations of involvement and will keep her mouth shut the whole year, for any number of possible reasons.
I don’t concur with him that what she’s done so far in 2024 (or, more to his point, what she hasn’t done) is any indicator of what she has in mind for the next two months to come. But I do respect his opinion that she ought to say something, regardless of our different hunches about whether she will. If my colleague doesn’t have complete faith in her courage or convictions, he most assuredly Takes Taylor Swift Seriously. That’s the least or most those of us who are Swifties can ask of those who aren’t quite as in the bag for her as an artist and thinker.
I would contrast Dan’s column with another op-ed that ran this past weekend in the New York Times’ opinion section. Ostensibly a more pro-Swift piece, and one written by an essayist who purports to be a Swiftie, B.D. McClay’s “The Taylor Swift Endorsement Fantasy” was a condescending commentary that evidences absolutely no belief that the superstar is or should be good for anything more than a catchy tune. “When might we expect Ms. Swift’s official endorsement?” writes McClay. “A better question might be: Why should we care? We already know that celebrity endorsements have limited power to sway races,” she notes, pointing toward Larry David’s support for John Kerry and Killer Mike stumping for Bernie Sanders as examples that failed to move the needle. (Note: If you think that Larry David and Taylor Swift are in any way comparable as influencers, you may not actually be a Swiftie.)
There can’t be very many people alive, other than this columnist, who think that the biggest single phenomenon in pop culture since the Beatles has zero possibility of motivating voters in any significant way in a photo-finish election. Yet McClay writes that politicians’ “their task should be to persuade voters that they will improve their lives. If they succeed, they’ll win. If they don’t, they’ll lose. But we should leave celebrity opinions out of it.” Who knew that the New York Times would weigh in in support of the Shut Up and Sing party?
The evidence that Swift herself does not subscribe to that separation-of-entertainment-and-state philosophy is beyond voluminous. The 2020 documentary “Miss Americana” (about which Swift sat for a Variety cover story interview) largely chronicled the awakening in which the formerly publicly apolitical singer made the fateful decision to speak up about a state election, forever disabusing conservative Republicans, anti-abortion advocates, et al. of their previously cherished hope that she was secretly one of them. In a call for voter registration in 2020, she slagged Trump for his “ineffective leadership” and desire “to subvert and destroy our right to vote and vote safely.”
She subsequently said, in October 2020, ““The change we need most is to elect a president who recognizes that people of color deserve to feel safe and represented, that women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that the LGBTQIA+ community deserves to be acknowledged and included. Everyone deserves a government that takes global health risks seriously and puts the lives of its people first. The only way we can begin to make things better is to choose leaders who are willing to face these issues and find ways to work through them… I will proudly vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in this year’s presidential election. Under their leadership, I believe America has a chance to start the healing process it so desperately needs.” She then tweeted, on the day of a vice-presidential debate, “Gonna be watching and supporting Kamala Harris by yelling at the TV a lot. And I also have custom cookies,” she added, posting with a tray of homemade snacks with Biden’s name on them.
Does this sound like a woman who is going to be frightened — or cowed by the possible loss of Brittany Mahomes’ friendship! — into silence in 2024?
This doesn’t mean we have to pretend that all of Swift’s circumstances are exactly as they were four years ago. Her audience has grown exponentially even since the level of stardom she enjoyed then, and many Republicans have somehow magically developed amnesia that she is a Democrat in the intervening period, requiring convincing all over again. (Apparently Jack Antonoff was able to subliminally embed neuralyzer wavelengths in “Cruel Summer.”) She has become America’s sweetheart as a booster at NFL games, and no doubt the prospect of being booed by some football fans if she speaks up against Trump during the season is something no one would welcome. There are still nine U.S. Eras Tour dates to come in October and November, and maybe a few of those ticketholders will be a millimeter less manic if they’re reminded of something they already well know: that Swift has contempt for Trump and supports gay and reproductive rights.
None of these factors, however possibly intimidating they may seem — let’s call them the voice of Papa Swift, circa Octoberr 2020 — are likely to cause Taylor to reverse course on a pattern of speaking up that has remained the same for the last six years.
So if she’s probably going to endorse, why hasn’t she?
Swift is eternally full of surprises but also a creature of habit in some ways. Remember that her first six albums were all released in either the last two weeks of October or the first two weeks of November; she’s mixed it up more since then, but three of her most recent album releases have still fallen within that window. Does it have to do with optimal placement for Christmas-season buying? Probably, or maybe it’s to do with concentrated autumnal listening — but for whatever reason, the woman has time-frame preferences. And this is no insult to you, dear reader, but Taylor Swift is probably better at timing than you are.
In 2018, she spoke up politically in October. In 2020, again, she made her declaration about passionately supporting the Biden-Harris ticket in October. There’s little reason to think she would break that pattern now, even if obviously there are cases to be made for thumping tubs for a candidate early and often to increase momentum. Swift, though, is a headliner. She knows (if all this theorizing holds true) that her endorsement will have even greater value if she comes in as the ultimate turbo boost, more so than if she is lighting matches to get this party started. It’s the value of politics’ early October surprise, except no one should be surprised. There is a reason the phrase “the August surprise” has never come into coinage.
She also knows that her fans are not stupid, and that they already know who and what she supports — hence, the Swifties 4 Kamala Zoom call being a real thing and Swifties for Trump being almost entirely an AI trick. Even if Swift were to stay quiet and not endorse this year (and hence I lose my fortune in an ill-considered wager), supporters know where her values lie — she’s told them “over and over and over again.” (Please hum that to the tune of “I Did Something Bad.”)
I’m brought back to something else that irritated me about that New York Times column saying she should just stay out. The NYT commentator writes: “As individuals and as citizens, celebrities should feel free to speak out publicly about issues they care about, just as they should feel free to organize, volunteer where possible and donate their money. But their voices, in practical terms, should count for just as much or as little as any other individual’s voice. We shouldn’t look to them to solve politics for the rest of us — and it’s for the best that they can’t.”
It would be sad, to me, if I didn’t or couldn’t put any stock in the political opinions of the artists whose work I respect most… as if none of those values had ever affected the art I’d come to love. It’s always deeply hilarious when Jason Isbell makes a political comment on Twitter, or simply shows up to sing at the DNC, and is inevitably greeted by cries of “I’m throwing all your records away” — as if they could have ever owned any in the first place if any of this could have come as a shock.
Swift writes more about love and less about culture. But if you’re more than a casual fan and are also consider yourself truly a JD Vance person, how much of her work, her persona and her obvious philosophies would you have to set aside, to reconcile the Project 2025 agenda with the philosophies set out by the woman who is pretty much the poster girl for women flowering and flourishing in 2024?
It’s a cognitive dissonance I imagine many of Swift’s red-state fans struggling with on a regular basis — but at least they have to take it into consideration, even if they have a Times columnist telling them there shouldn’t be any correlation.
One last word about the Brittany Holmes kerfuffle consuming pockets of social media. In a truly classic example of “damned if you do…,” Swift was first accused of giving a cold shoulder to the wife of Patrick Holmes, the Trump-tweet-liking teammate of Travis Kelce, by sitting in a different suite. When she was subsequently photographed hugging Brittany — performatively, came the accusation — it was Swift signaling that she is OK with being party to MAGA misogyny. Sources in the Swift camp have said that Swift and Ms. Holmes have agreed not to talk about politics. But even sharing airspace is anathema to tweeters like the ones I found writing things like: “If Taylor Swift continues to platform Brittany Mahomes, then she is also platforming Brittany Mahomes’ political views.”
I’m trying to imagine the world some people might live in that leads them to believe all segments of society should be separated by political beliefs, including not just rooting sections at sporting events but presumably office parties and family events. There are good reasons for divisiveness in 2024, but to give up on aquaintances and loved ones is not going to get the more progressive party across any finish lines. If Swift can model that as a friendship — real, mandated by her boyfriend’s work, or both — and then say what it’s hoped she will say, it will be to everyone’s benefit.
In other words, Mahomes haters: You need to calm down. In time for all of us to come back together and wake up.
