Election 2024: Should Musicians Use Their Platforms To Influence Politics
Share this article
Get Your Backstage Pass
Well, the presidential election is just 2 days away and we will soon have a new leader in office regardless which way the vote goes. In the past few weeks there has been a wealth of endorsements from various celebrities for one candidate or the other. Musical superstars of past and present have made their opinions known. From Eminem to Beyonce to Taylor Swift to Kanye West to Kid Rock, artists have been injecting themselves directly into the conversation on who should be at the helm of the country’s wheel for the next four years.
Something feels different about the participation of these artists this time around though. While politics and music have always had an irrefutable connection, there is much more direct involvement now. Artists are using their popularity to pack presidential rallies, they’re making speeches at both the DNC and RNC conventions, their social media accounts are saturated with posts lambasting one side of the aisle or the other.
This begs the questions:
What is different about today’s relationship between music and politics and should musicians use their platforms to influence politics?
An Interwoven History
The 1960’s were a time of great turbulence in the United States. The civil rights movement was in full swing while the country was fighting a war in Vietnam that many people rallied against. It was time that We The People held our government in contempt for poor state of affairs the country was in.
Musicians embodied the tone of the country in ways few others could. Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “The Times They Are A-Changin'” captured the spirit of the era, encouraging listeners to question authority and strive for equality. Similarly, Joan Baez’s powerful performances at civil rights rallies and anti-war protests underscored the role of artists in championing progressive causes. The Woodstock Festival of 1969 epitomized the fusion of music and political activism, serving as a cultural milestone for the counterculture movement and anti-establishment sentiments.
In the subsequent decades, musicians continued to leverage their platforms for political influence, albeit with evolving themes and methods. John Lennon’s “Imagine” envisioned a world of peace and unity, challenging listeners to rethink societal norms and envision a harmonious future. Meanwhile, Stevie Wonder’s “Happy Birthday” campaign was instrumental in securing the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a national holiday, showcasing how music could directly impact legislative change.
The 1980s saw artists like Bono of U2 expanding their political activism beyond national borders. Bono’s advocacy for debt relief and AIDS prevention in Africa highlighted the global responsibilities of musicians, emphasizing how their influence could address international humanitarian issues. Bruce Springsteen’s songs, such as “Born in the U.S.A.,” critiqued American socio-economic policies while resonating with the working-class experience, demonstrating the complex relationship between patriotism and political critique in music.
During the 90’s, Rage Against The Machine literally “raged” against racism and police brutality. The band frequently participated in benefit concerts and protests, aligning themselves with organizations that advocated for workers’ rights, anti-globalization, and anti-war efforts. Their performances were not merely concerts but events infused with political significance, often featuring speeches and calls to action that galvanized audiences to participate in activism.
Whichever way you look at it, musicians and artists have always been a huge part of politics. Things won’t change anytime soon. But these individuals have enormous fanbases (some bigger than others ha!) and is it ethical and appropriate for them to use the platform which has been built simply on the popularity of their art to influence the way people think about the world writ-large?
Show Me The Money
While most musicians endorse political candidates based on personal convictions, there have been notable instances where artists received compensation for their involvement in political campaigns. Commonly, this compensation occurs through paid performances at campaign rallies and fundraisers. For example, Bruce Springsteen supported Al Gore in the 2000s by performing at his events, and Beyoncé performed at Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012. Similarly, Bono of U2 and Jay-Z have participated in political events and initiatives, often receiving payment for their high-profile performances or collaborations that support specific causes or candidates.
In addition to performances, some musicians have been involved in creating campaign-specific content, such as custom campaign songs, which typically involve direct financial arrangements. These collaborations allow political campaigns to leverage the artists’ influence and reach broader audiences. However, the intersection of money and political endorsements raises ethical concerns regarding the authenticity of support and the potential for undue influence. Transparency is crucial to ensure that endorsements remain genuine and are not swayed by financial incentives. Overall, while direct payments for endorsements are relatively rare and often kept private, musicians continue to play a significant role in political campaigns through both compensated and voluntary support, blending their professional engagements with personal beliefs.
There’s something nefarious about paying artists for endorsements without making it undeniably clear that they have been so. Money can persuade lots of people to do almost anything, and although many artists make tons of it, they are still susceptible to an easy payday even if they don’t fully believe in message they are sending. It’s essentially the same thing as using a famous actor to sell you some crummy cologne or perfume. The difference is, everyone knows that they are paid to do these ads. Blurring that line with paid political endorsements intentionally undermines the public.
Whether or not we agree with it, many artists and musicians are looked at as idols and role models for younger generations. If they say to vote one way or another, that has a big impact. When I was kid growing up in Pittsburgh, Mario Lemieux was my sports hero. When I turned 18 if he told me to vote for Snake Plissken I probably would have done it. Aside from the fact that Snake Plissken is a fictional character, he probably also would not be a good choice for holding political office. Musicians constantly preach messages like “being true to yourself” and “having a voice” – being paid to sponsor a politician or political movement is the antithesis of that.
Musicians Are People With Opinions
As deceitful as it may be for artists to quietly take money in exchange for being a political megaphone, I believe it’s incredibly important for musicians to be able to freely express their opinions and views unadulterated by a government paycheck. The essence of artistry lies in the ability to convey genuine emotions, ideas, and beliefs, and this authenticity is paramount in fostering a meaningful connection between musicians and their audience.
When musicians are free to express their political views without financial constraints or obligations, their messages carry a deeper sense of sincerity and passion. This unfiltered expression allows artists to address pressing social issues, advocate for change, and inspire their listeners without the fear of repercussions or the need to align with specific agendas for financial gain. The authenticity of their advocacy not only strengthens their credibility but also empowers their audience to engage more deeply with the causes being presented.
Moreover, the freedom to express diverse opinions enriches the cultural and political discourse. Musicians often serve as the conscience of society, highlighting injustices, celebrating victories, and prompting critical conversations. When artists are unencumbered by financial ties to political entities, they can explore a broader spectrum of ideas and perspectives, contributing to a more nuanced and inclusive dialogue. If Eddie Vedder wants to stand on stage (and he did) and scream “F$*& George Bush!” he’s damn well entitled to do so. If Kanye West wants to call Joe Biden names, he has that right too. Everyone has the right to say what they think and everyone has the right to agree or disagree with those sentiments.
Allowing musicians to speak freely without financial pressure fosters a more vibrant and dynamic artistic community. Artists who feel empowered to share their true beliefs are more likely to produce work that resonates on a profound level, driving cultural and societal progress. This creative freedom not only benefits the artists themselves but also enriches their audiences, who benefit from authentic and thought-provoking content that challenges them to think critically and act conscientiously.
The independence of musicians from financial endorsements ensures that their influence remains a force for genuine change. When artists endorse political candidates or movements out of personal conviction rather than financial incentive, their support can mobilize fans and communities more effectively. Authentic endorsements carry weight because they reflect a true alignment of values, inspiring trust and action among their followers. This genuine support is crucial for driving long-term societal improvements and fostering a more engaged and informed electorate.
In essence, the ability of musicians to freely express their political views without the influence of financial incentives is vital for maintaining the integrity and impact of their advocacy. It ensures that their messages are driven by passion and conviction, rather than by financial gain, thereby preserving the trust and respect of their audience. By upholding this freedom, musicians can continue to play a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, inspiring activism, and contributing to a more just and equitable society.
Ultimately, the power of music lies not only in its ability to entertain but also in its capacity to inspire and effect change. Protecting the freedom of musicians to voice their opinions without financial interference is essential for harnessing this potential, ensuring that their contributions to political and social discourse remain authentic, impactful, and transformative.
Make Your Own Choices
But they could be… they could be wrong for you, they could be wrong for me. It’s easy to stand with the crowd and chant and rage. It’s much more difficult to put in the work and form your own opinions, have a perspective on how the world works, and stand on an island defending it. Wrong or right, no one should speak for you. Not politicians, not actors and musical artists, not your older brother or sister. We are all entitled to our own thoughts and above everything else we should be grateful for that and respect that in everyone around us.
We all have our favorite artists and movie stars and sports heroes. We cherish them for the entertainment and inspiration they give us. As a result we sometimes glorify them. We like to say “I love him/her!” as if we know them at a personal level and they can do no wrong and we are so disappointed when they stray from our predetermined mold of their character. But we don’t know them. They are just as fallible as the rest of us.
Take them for what they are. Enjoy their music. Enjoy their art. Enjoy their talent. Respect their opinions and make your own.