It’s been a week since the surprising result of the 2024 presidential election when Donald Trump trumped Vice President Harris, marking a demonstrative return to the White House. However, the conspicuous silence of Hollywood’s biggest stars, who ardently advocated for Harris, is raising eyebrows. Celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Leonardo DiCaprio, each of whom actively supported Harris, have all gone audibly silent following the election result. The question that arises is: why?
The stars aligned yet fell for Harris. The anticipation leading up to the election was gripping, with numerous celebrities switching from entertainers to active political influencers. Screens illuminated with these stars encouraging fans, imploring them to be involved in the political process, and endorsing Harris explicity. Such impeccable support makes the silence in the wake of the adverse result more than discernible.
According to political and industry experts, these celebrities’ hush stems from a simple yet substantial fear–potentially losing fans. While celebrities are influential in shaping and driving pop culture conversations, when it comes to politics, the situation is trickier. Advocacy for political entities can create a divide among fans, inciting controversy that could impact their popularity or reputation.
Samantha Unger, a Hollywood faux pas expert, explains, “There is a delicate balance celebrities must maintain. They are influential figures, but their influence is largely dependent on their perception by fans. Coming out too strong for a political candidate can alienate a significant portion of their fan base. Their silence now could be seen as their attempt to avoid potential adverse ramifications.”
Further sanctifying this view, studies have shown that celebrities’ political endorsements might not persuade voters as expected. The Pew Research Center documented that 78 percent of U.S adults believe that celebrity endorsements don’t sway voters. This might underlie the reluctance of stars to comment on electoral outcomes, especially if contrary to their endorsement.
Luminaries are careful about the public causes they attach themselves to and understand the delicate line between advocacy and endorsement. While their intentions may aim at encouraging political participation, a hard-sided endorsement can lead to a divide in their fanbase, potentially harming their brand value.
Bruce Springsteen and George Clooney, who have strong political views, are among the celebrities who lent strong words of endorsement to Harris in the pre-election phase. Yet, their silence now brings into focus the precarious balancing act between stars’ personal political beliefs and their public personas.
“Celebrities need to tread carefully in the political sphere,” adds Unger. “While they have every right to voice their opinions, they have to remember that they are brands and businesses in themselves. Their survival, popularity and success depend on their appeal to the masses, and delving too deeply into divisive political discourse could be detrimental to their brand.”
In the aftermath of the 2024 presidential elections, Hollywood’s glitterati’s collective silence serves as a stark reminder of the potential repercussions witnessing when stars cross the precipice from entertainment to political endorsement.
