More stories

  • in

    Fur and loathing: do America’s ‘childless cat ladies’ hold the key to the US election?

    When writer and artist Alice Maddicott’s beloved rescue cat died, she was understandably bereft. Dylan was a proper character, she says, the kind of gregarious cat that follows you to the pub or for a walk. But mourning him made Alice, who was then in her late 30s and single, feel faintly self-conscious. What if people thought she was a mad cat lady, weeping spinsterish tears for her pet?“If I’d had a dog, there would be no stereotype. But as a single woman approaching 40, it could be seen very differently,” says Maddicott. Curious about the origins of such a kneejerk prejudice, she started digging into its history. The research became a book, Cat Women, reclaiming an insult long used to belittle older women (especially non-compliant ones) or frighten younger women into settling down, lest they end up like the crazy cat lady from The Simpsons: once a high achiever, now a burnt-out drunk.But as Maddicott points out, it’s an objectively ridiculous insult. There’s no such thing as a “crazy cat man” and single hamster owners aren’t considered a threat to the patriarchal order. Only cat ladies touch a nerve, because only cat ladies immediately conjure up the idea of witches.In medieval times, the devil was believed to give cats as gifts to women inducted into witchcraft, Maddicott explains: so strong was the association that at the Bideford witch trials in 17th-century Devon, one woman was accused after a cat was seen slipping in through her window. “Probably an eccentric older woman feeding a stray, but that was used to condemn her.” Single women, unrestrained and also undefended by any man, made dangerously easy scapegoats if sickness came or the crops failed. Thankfully, people no longer believe in witches ruining lives out of spite. Or do they?Three years ago, the then aspiring Republican senator (and now vice-presidential candidate) JD Vance complained on Fox News that America was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” He named then vice-president Kamala Harris, secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg (who is gay) and the young New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as politicians who supposedly had no stake in the future they were legislating for.The idea that if you haven’t given birth, you don’t count, was hurtful to many doting stepmothers (as Harris is) or adoptive parents (like Buttigieg). But most incendiary of all was the idea that not having children renders a person a bitter, vengeful husk, desperate to drag everyone else down with them. Polling this summer, after those comments were dug up and recirculated, found two-thirds of Americans disagreed that not having biological children was a hindrance in a president; even among Republicans, only 15% agreed.View image in fullscreenThough Vance now insists he was merely being sarcastic, for many women on both sides of the Atlantic, those words summed up a strand of politics that seemingly values them mainly for their ability to procreate and views their right to choose with suspicion. Though powerful women have long been shamed for not being mothers – “deliberately barren”, the former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard’s opponents called her – in the current climate, attacks on childless cat ladies have a sharper edge.In both the US and Europe, rightwing parties are weaponising female fertility as a political issue, tapping into a potent mix of misogyny, economic anxiety and overtly racist angst about being “replaced” as the dominant culture if white women don’t start breeding more enthusiastically. Though falling birth rates across the developed world are an undeniable economic headache – shrinking populations mean fewer young workers to fund pensions for the old and, typically, lower growth – populists focus on the way a dwindling workforce leads to more imported labour. Hungary’s populist leader Viktor Orbán has claimed the west is “committing suicide” by not making babies; in Germany, the far right AfD called in its manifesto for “larger families instead of mass immigration”. Elon Musk, the X owner and Donald Trump donor, tweets in apocalyptic terms about impending “population collapse”.Yet still, the baby drought persists. Around one in five British women don’t have children by the end of their fertile years – the Office for National Statistics doesn’t keep equivalent statistics for men – and this year deaths overtook births for the first time (outside a pandemic) since the 1970s. Almost half of Americans under 50, meanwhile, are childless. Or should that be childfree? For this year of shaming women has also been a year of women refusing to be shamed: older women reclaiming witchy insults like “hag” and “crone”, while younger ones resist what they see as a Handmaid’s Tale future of curtailed rights over their own bodies.Like the cat-eared pink hats that anti-Trump marchers wore in 2017, referencing his boasts about grabbing women “by the pussy”, in 2024 a “Childless Cat Lady for Kamala” T-shirt or sticker is now a gleeful statement of defiance. When Taylor Swift identified as one in her Instagram post formally endorsing Harris, it felt like something of a Spartacus moment – arguably even more so when Elon Musk responded with a creepy tweet offering to get her pregnant.What’s different about Swift isn’t merely that she, too, is unmarried, childfree and a cat owner at 34; it’s that she makes it look like a blast. Rich, powerful and taking her pick of trophy boyfriends, she lives closer to what would once have been called a rakish bachelor’s life than a spinster’s – though these days spinsterdom is a story told very differently.In Kate Winslet’s recent feminist biopic Lee, about the pioneering Second World War photographer Lee Miller, there is a scene in which Winslet’s Miller and Vogue magazine editor Audrey Withers ask each other if they’re planning to have children. “God no,” says Withers, cheerfully. “Oh God no,” echoes Winslet’s Miller. It’s a bonding moment in the film which implies neither could have done what they did – in Miller’s case following the US army’s advance across Europe and documenting newly liberated concentration camps; and in Withers’s case battling the censors to publish her images – if they’d had families at home. Though Miller did eventually have a son after the war, the film doesn’t duck the fact their relationship was difficult and ultimately lets her work take centre stage. It’s how great men’s stories are often told, drawing a veil over domestic shortcomings, but more rarely women’s.View image in fullscreenOnce upon a time in Hollywood, childless women could be mad, murderous bunny boilers – in films like Single White Female and Fatal Attraction – or at a push Bridget Jones, terrified of dying “fat and alone”. Now they can be Carrie Bradshaw, reimagined in And Just Like That… as a sexy fiftysomething widow with a fluffy rescue cat, or even Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, the eternally childless doll who (according to her creator Ruth Handler) “always represented the fact that a woman has choices”. Though the film has a darker side, with the Kens’ angry revolt against the Barbie matriarchy echoing a backlash many young women say they’re experiencing in real life, the Barbieland both sides seek to control is a hedonistic land of parties and beach days where nobody is spending their Saturdays bleary-eyed at soft play. The toymaker Mattel has always resisted pleas to give Barbie and Ken children; instead they stayed forever aspirational Dinks, an 80s acronym for Dual Income No Kids now gleefully revived by millennials.“We’re DINKs. Of course we are already planning our European vacation next year,” says TikToker @johnefinance, in a chirpy post last December that racked up over 290,000 likes. “We’re DINKs; we spend our discretionary income on $8 lattes,” his partner giggles. Social media is still awash with #dinkcouple posts bragging about how much more money, sex and sleep they get compared to haggard new parents, recasting childless life as the opposite of sad and empty. Unusually, the trend brings young men’s perspectives into a debate normally (and exhaustingly) focused on women. But it also reflects polling released by the Pew Center thinktank earlier this year showing the most common reason childless Americans under 50 give for not being parents is that they just don’t want to.TikTok’s Dinks are young, and maybe not ruling parenthood out forever. But for now their lives arguably look a lot more fun than being a tradwife, those sourdough-baking, God-fearing, home-schooling mothers of multiple children whose retro social media content is – depending on your view – either a bit of guilty escapist fantasy for tired working women or a sinister attempt to drag women back into the kitchen. This summer a British newspaper interview with uber-tradwife Hannah Neeleman (aka @ballerinafarm), in which the writer wondered how exactly she’d ended up sacrificing a ballet career to have eight children and why her husband kept answering questions for her, triggered days of debate about whether she was being secretly oppressed or whether (as Neeleman’s fans argued) this was a hit piece by a writer who doesn’t have kids.Cut through all the noise, however, and there is one clear signal: neither the tradwife nor the Dink camp seem to think having it all is an option any more. You can’t have kids and a career in ballet; you can’t have a thrilling social life and children. You have to choose, with the implication that either way, something is lost. If there is a sadness to Neeleman talking about giving up on her professional ambitions, there is a faint whiff of financial distress around some of those Dink reels, too; a sense they’re blowing their cash on bucket-list travel destinations because the idea of buying a family home (while paying nursery bills that cost more than a mortgage) seems wildly out of reach.The second most common reason childless Britons aged 35-44 gave for not having children (after thinking they were too old) was a split between “I don’t want the impact on my lifestyle” and “the cost is too high”, according to YouGov. But for those on tight budgets, the two are related. It may be no accident that Britain’s last mini-baby boom was in the early Noughties – fuelled by cheaper childcare, longer maternity leave and rising prosperity – or that it fizzled out with the 2009 recession.On both sides of the Atlantic, women who do want kids some day are tired of being blamed for their childlessness by politicians who seemingly won’t meet them halfway: who instead of building cheap houses for first-time buyers or slashing their nursery bills, suggest (in Vance’s case) that grandparents could help out for free. But for some women, there’s an added worry that politicians cajoling or shaming women into having children may eventually turn to forcing them.For American women under 30, abortion is now the number one election issue, according to an October poll by the health policy researchers KFF. Two years ago, the overturning of Roe v Wade – the landmark ruling underpinning legal abortion in America – left the way open for an all-out assault on reproductive rights. At campaign rally after rally, Harris has hammered away at fears of what a Republican administration might do. She often quotes Project 2025, the infamous leaked wishlist for a second Trump term drawn up by a rightwing thinktank, which argues for giving foetuses legal rights and scrapping funding for contraceptive services.In Europe, too, rightwing governments in Hungary, Italy and Poland have tightened abortion law, though furious female voters helped propel a pro-liberalisation Polish government into power last year.For now, Britain seems to be on a much more progressive path. The prospect of curbs on abortion in this parliament looks at first glance remote, though the Labour MP Stella Creasy – who has been aggressively targeted in her constituency by anti-abortion activists – argues complacency is dangerous. “If the election hadn’t been called, it’s not clear that we wouldn’t have seen the first rollback on rights in 50 years,” she says, pointing to a backbench attempt to reduce the legal time limit from 24 to 22 weeks in the dying months of the last Conservative government.But the Tory MP Miriam Cates – who once argued that dwindling fertility rates are “the one overarching threat” to western society – lost her seat in July, while the Tory leadership favourite Kemi Badenoch says she isn’t convinced governments can make women have babies.America’s fate, however, still hangs by a thread, with a stark divide emerging particularly among the young: women for Harris, angry young men for Trump.Whether she wins or whether she loses in the coming election, it almost certainly won’t be because (along with every other occupant of the Oval Office in history) Kamala Harris hasn’t physically given birth. Most Americans say this election is still about the economy, stupid. But what is clear from months of arguing about childless cat ladies is that being one is just another American story now.When the pollsters Ipsos went looking this summer for female voters with no kids at home, but with a feline companion, the surprise was all the ways in which they were pretty much like everyone else: mostly suburban, disproportionately white, mostly with some college education, no richer or poorer than average – and in almost a third of cases, Republicans. They’re living behind the same white-picket fences as everyone else, shopping at Target, working nine to five, just getting on with life. And the clearer that becomes, the harder it is to pretend that every childless cat lady is a witch.View image in fullscreenFeline friendshipCat lover and author Britt Collins on her furry companionsI never imagined that childless cat ladies would become a political force and a whole new demographic. Over the years, I’ve heard all the snarks: mad, lonely, obsessive – the old witch-hunting slurs that have dogged outlier women forever. Am I miserable by the choices I made? Hell, no. Here’s the thing, cats rock and I don’t have to defend my choices. If I wanted kids, I’d have adopted one.The only time I felt lonely was in the last year of my marriage when I lost my sense of self. I’ve had boyfriends since I was 15, always cat men, and I still adore my two long-term exes with whom I spent my 20s and 30s. I’ve raised dozens of strays with them and had the best of times. However, these days, my ideal man is a gay vet. I’m happy with my mogs, enjoying the deep, uncomplicated love and pure joy of feline friendship.Still, I’ve had strangers tell me that giving up on relationships, as I moved into my 50s, is no way to live. Women and the cats they love have long been maligned, somehow seen as lesser-than or unfulfilled. Carving out my own little universe, I’ve filled it with cats and creativity. I’ve travelled to more than 35 countries, looked after big cats, baboons, bats and various wild orphans, written two books, ghostwritten and edited others, edited and created magazines, run a sell-out cat festival, directed pop videos and completed the screenplay adaption for my book, Strays, that has sparked interest from Hollywood producers. I do what I want, when I want – enjoying the privileges historically afforded to men.Journalist and activist Gloria Steinem, who’s had many felines over the decades, credits them as her teachers ‘when it comes to a strong will and self-authority’. When Steinem was asked how to raise the next generation of feminists, she said: ‘Like cats. They tell you what they’re going to do, and that’s that.’Cats, with their punky attitudes, have taught me defiance and everything else worth knowing. They are sensualists, things of beauty, who’ve inspired artists for centuries. Lennon, McCartney, Bowie, Dylan and many of the greatest rock stars were all crazy-cat ladies. Us cat people of all political stripes may not agree on everything, but we don’t let it get in the way of what matters most.Strays: A Lost Cat, A Homeless Man and Their Journey Across America by Britt Collins is published by Simon & Schuster More

  • in

    Beyoncé to appear with Kamala Harris in Houston to highlight abortion rights – reports

    Beyoncé will appear with Kamala Harris in Houston on Friday, according to media reports.The star turn will confirm that, following Harris’s endorsement by Taylor Swift last month, the Democratic vice-president and US presidential candidate has the support of the two most popular musicians in the world – a potentially invaluable asset for galvanising young voters.Harris is rallying in Texas, a Republican stronghold, to highlight abortion rights and support Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred, who trails Republican Ted Cruz in opinion polls.Beyoncé, 43, will appear in her home city along with her mother, Tina Knowles, and 91-year-old country music giant Willie Nelson, according to sources cited by the Washington Post newspaper.The event presents an opportunity for Beyoncé to give a live performance of Freedom, a song from her 2016 album Lemonade, which the vice-president has been using as walk-on music at rallies while making freedom a central theme of her campaign.Beyoncé, who has hundreds of millions of followers on social media, sang a cover of Etta James’s At Last at one of President Barack Obama’s inaugural balls in 2009, before singing the national anthem at Obama’s second inauguration ceremony in 2013.She performed Formation at a rally for Democrat Hillary Clinton three days before the presidential election in 2016 and told the crowd: “I want my daughter to grow up seeing a woman leading the country. That’s why I’m with her.”Her backing of Harris is therefore no surprise and fed fevered speculation – and inaccurate reporting – that she would make a dramatic entrance at this summer’s Democratic national convention in Philadelphia.Beyoncé becomes the latest celebrity to bring star power to the Harris campaign. On Thursday, the Democrat is holding a rally in Atlanta, Georgia, with musician Bruce Springsteen, film director Spike Lee, actor Samuel L Jackson and actor and filmmaker Tyler Perry as well as Obama.Other musicians supporting the Democrat include Eminem, Cher, Billie Eilish, Barbra Streisand, Carole King, John Legend and Stevie Wonder. Trump has the backing of Jason Aldean, Lee Greenwood, Kanye West and Kid Rock, while the Republican national convention was shown a video featuring rapper Forgiato Blow and reality TV star Amber Rose. More

  • in

    Ethel Kennedy obituary

    Ethel Kennedy, who has died aged 96, was one of the most active and best-known US political wives of the 20th century. As her husband, Robert F Kennedy, campaigned first for the Senate and then for the presidency, she supported him while also bringing up their children. The 11th and last of them, her daughter Rory, was born after Bobby was assassinated in 1968. From the 1970s onwards, Ethel devoted herself to social causes and was latterly co-chair of the Coalition of Gun Control.Her life had been touched by tragedy earlier, when her parents died in a plane crash in 1955. Her brother-in-law, President John F Kennedy, was assassinated in 1963. Two of her children died prematurely – David of a drug overdose at the age of 28 in 1984 and Michael in a skiing accident in 1997, when he was 39. Her husband was shot at the Ambassador hotel in Los Angeles following his victory in the California primary for the US presidential race.Sustained by a strong Catholic faith, she remained, in the view of writer Hays Gorey, “an incorrigibly cheerful widow”, never permitting gloom to descend on the frenetic lifestyle that had always been found at Hickory Hill, the family home in McLean, Virginia. The place was strewn with footballs and tennis rackets, and no-one was allowed to sit around and mope.Ethel used sport to promote her husband’s legacy and raise money for the wide variety of charities that fell under the umbrella of the Robert Kennedy Foundation, which also administered what is now Robert F Kennedy Human Rights. This led to the creation of a memorial tennis tournament at Forest Hills, New York, a pro-celebrity event that for several years in the 1970s was played on the eve of the US Open.View image in fullscreenBorn in Chicago, Ethel was the sixth of seven children of Ann (nee Brannack), a devout Catholic, and George Skakel, who went from an $8 a week job as a railway clerk to selling coal and founding a company called Great Lakes Coal & Coke. When Ethel was five the family moved east, eventually settling in Connecticut, where she attended Greenwich academy. She became friends with Jean Kennedy, Bobby’s sister, while they were both studying at Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart in New York city. Meanwhile, Bobby – whom Ethel first met on a skiing trip in Quebec in 1945 – was dating Ethel’s sister, Patricia. When they broke up, Ethel began the partnership that would define her life.Ethel campaigned for John F Kennedy when he ran for Congress in Massachusetts in 1946. She married his younger brother in 1950, and the following year their first child, Kathleen, was born.“They had a wonderful relationship, full of banter and repartee,” recalled Donald Dell, a US Davis Cup captain in the 60s, who played tennis with the couple and became a family friend. “Ethel used to needle Bobby all the time and he gave as good as he got. But he was always very protective of her and she fiercely loyal to him.”View image in fullscreenWhen JFK ran for the Senate in 1952, Bobby managed the campaign. Throughout the rest of the 50s, Ethel supported Bobby as he climbed the political ladder, and when JFK went to the White House in 1960, Bobby was appointed attorney general.The assassination of JFK in 1963 changed Bobby and Ethel’s lives abruptly. Bobby continued the Kennedy story by successfully running for the Senate in 1964 and then decided to join the 1968 presidential race himself.Early in the campaign, that March, came the stunning news that President Lyndon B Johnson had decided not to run for a second term. It immediately made Bobby Kennedy a hot favourite to win the Democratic nomination and, in many people’s minds, the presidency. But that dream died after shots were fired in the kitchen of the Los Angeles hotel in June.Dealing steadfastly with her bereavement, Ethel drew on a wide and diverse array of “pals”, as she used to call them, to boost her charitable work. Sidney Poitier, Sammy Davis Jnr and Charlton Heston were among the celebrities who were always available when she called. A friend remembers her phoning Heston, whom she always referred to as Chuckles, in an attempt to get him to persuade Roy Emerson, the Wimbledon champion, to play in her tournament. “In return I’ll take a part in one your movies,” she joked. “But I don’t want a maid’s part – I want some love interest!”There was some speculation about possible “love interest” between Ethel and the singer Andy Williams during the years following her husband’s death. This gossip continued until, citing her Catholic views, she announced a decision never to re-marry.In a later age, a new generation was swept up in the Kennedy lifestyle. Taylor Swift, the country music star, was 23 when she spent some time with the then 84-year-old widow at the family compound at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, in 2012. Swift declined to go swimming because a couple of her friends had not brought their swimsuits. “Being that thoughtful, you’ll run the risk of being boring,” said Ethel. “Go on, get in the water!”“So I jumped in,” said Swift. “I took it as a metaphor for life. You have to jump in; you have to take your chances. Ethel taught me that.”In May 2014, the Benning Road Bridge, which links Washington DC to Anacostia in Maryland, was renamed the Ethel Kennedy Bridge in recognition of the decades of work she had put in to improve the lives of young people living alongside the Anacostia River, reportedly one of the most polluted in America. To kick start the project in 1992, Ethel had waded in to pluck old tyres and debris from the water.The Kennedy most in the news recently has been her son Robert F Kennedy Jr, who abandoned presidential runs first as a Democrat, and then as an independent. Ethel is survived by him, four other sons, Joseph, Christopher, Max and Douglas, and four daughters, Kathleen, Courtney, Kerry and Rory. More

  • in

    Chappell Roan isn’t endorsing Kamala Harris. She’s taking a stand for critical thinking instead

    ‘No, I’m not voting for Trump and yes, I will always question those in power,” Chappell Roan said in a recent TikTok video clarifying why she is not stumping for Kamala Harris in the forthcoming US presidential election. As she had explained to the Guardian last week, she doesn’t “feel pressured to endorse anyone” – having previously denounced the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to robustly defend queer rights against hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ bills tabled by Republicans, and their ongoing support for Israel during the assault on Gaza that has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians.She followed up with another video on Wednesday: “Obviously fuck the policies of the right,” she said, while also castigating what she called “some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views”. She said she was voting for Harris, “but I’m not settling for what has been offered … this is not me playing both sides. This is me questioning both sides.”It’s refreshing to hear a pop star talk about politics with conviction and nuance. If only her recent comments had been received that way online. The year’s breakout pop star went viral this weekend when a popular X account that aggregates pop culture titbits cherrypicked a quote from Roan’s Guardian interview in which she said of Democrats and Republicans: “there’s problems on both sides”.While some users supported Roan’s stance, many others called her “cowardly”, criticised her supposedly “neutral” stance, and accused her of being “uneducated”. The backlash suggests that the majority of those pillorying Roan never read the full interview (which wasn’t linked in the original X post), hence Roan hitting out about “being completely taken out of context”.What happened to Roan is emblematic of two things. The first is the parasitic, reductive way that Pop Crave-style news aggregation accounts on X extract quotes from articles in a way that prioritises engagement over substance. Would the outcry have been the same if the account published Roan’s full quote, in which she encourages people to use “critical thinking skills” and “vote for what’s going on in [their] city”, along with her vociferous support for trans rights? I doubt it.The second is that many musicians’ fanbases are now often admirably politically conscious and demand stars speak out against injustice, meaning they will make it known if they are unhappy with an artist’s position. The difficulty comes when those fans expect stars to fit a particular way of performing their politics.Pop stars weren’t always expected to be as politically literate as they are today. The worst of 80s pop was well meaning but wince-inducingly shallow. Later, being political could often be detrimental to mainstream success: in 2003, the Chicks were blacklisted from the country music industry after Natalie Maines said she was ashamed that then-US president George W Bush was from their home state of Texas.But the rise of social media in the early 2010s created an ecosystem of liking, following and sharing, where a user’s tastes reflected back on them and could be used to signal their own political morality. The Tumblr blog “your fave is problematic” documented celebrities’ perceived moral transgressions. Celebrities, particularly pop stars, quickly adapted accordingly.Then came 2016. Hillary Clinton had everyone from LeBron James and Bruce Springsteen to Beyoncé and Kim Kardashian helping her try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president – everyone except Taylor Swift. Swift’s political silence was heavily criticised and conspiracies swirled that she was a Republican. She would later tell the Guardian the pressure she felt “making statements that go out to hundreds of millions of people” and that she worried that her then-maligned reputation (in the wake of beef with Kardashian and Kanye West) might have been “a hindrance” to Clinton.View image in fullscreenShe endorsed Biden in 2020, but more recently, fans have questioned why she has hung out with Brittany Mahomes, a Trump supporter (and wife of a teammate of Swift’s football player boyfriend). Swift backed Harris and Tim Waltz earlier this month – though she explicitly framed her decision to back Harris as triggered by a personal crisis of Trump using AI-falsified images of her appearing to endorse him, rather than leading with a broader social conscience.The furore around both Roan and Swift speaks to the febrile environment dominating US politics. Poll after poll has shown this could be the closest presidential race this century. Women’s right to bodily autonomy is at stake – which is partly why there’s so much more scrutiny on female musicians. The threat of a second Trump presidency, coupled with fears of the far-right activating Project 2025, have made this election feel like a battle for the soul of American democracy. With the race on a knife-edge, leftwing pop fans are grasping at any positive endorsement that might help Harris. It’s not without precedent. Back in 2008, it was estimated that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama translated into one million votes. Swift’s post endorsing Harris led to more than 400,000 people going to voter registration sites. The potential power of these endorsements is also evident from rightwing attempts to debunk them: after Paramore singer Hayley Williams spoke out against a potential Trump “dictatorship” at a festival last week, Elon Musk called her a “puppet of the machine”.But there’s an argument that we shouldn’t look to them for political guidance, given that wealthy musicians live in a world mostly unburdened by the hardships and struggles faced by everyday people and marginalised communities, and they seem as prone as anyone to accepting disinformation. Many fans of Janet Jackson – the artist behind the radical, progressive politics of 1989 album Rhythm Nation 1814 – were crushed this weekend when in a Guardian interview she parroted Trump-propagated misinformation that Harris is “not Black”. Pharrell Williams is also currently in hot water with fans for saying that he doesn’t “really do politics” and gets “annoyed” when celebrities tell people who to vote for.I would argue it’s fair to want celebrity musicians to be politically astute, particularly if, like Jackson, they’re willing to comment on politics in interviews. The key thing is not to simplify complex political stances to fit the narrow bounds of what a hive mind on social media has deemed acceptable. Think of the way Nick Cave has been accused of being “conservative” – though it’s fine to question his beliefs about religion, boycotts and dogma, those beliefs do not neatly map on to that term and it diminishes the debate to suggest they do.What separates Roan’s political interventions from her peers is the way she wants to empower her young fanbase to think smarter and harder about how they can actively engage in politics. She had asked for critical thinking, but the kind of narrow, hardline stance her comments were met with is the antithesis of the tolerance, empathy and self-reflection that should be part of leftwing thought. Roan is right not to tell fans what to do this election. Instead she’s a valuable demonstration of what it means to live your politics. As she clarified on TikTok: “Actions speak louder than words and actions speak louder than an endorsement.” More

  • in

    ‘This isn’t the real Oprah’: Trump lashes out at talkshow host over Harris support

    Just over a week ago, it was the pop superstar Taylor Swift. Now Donald Trump is taking aim at Oprah Winfrey over her support of Kamala Harris.Whether or not attacking some of the most popular and powerful entertainment figures in US history will prove a solid campaign strategy is yet to be proven, but the former president has not held back.In a rant on Truth Social, Trump said he “couldn’t help but think this isn’t the real Oprah”.“This isn’t a person that wants millions of people, from prisons and mental institutions, and terrorists, drug dealers, and human traffickers from all over the world pouring into our country,” he wrote.In the post, Trump noted that the TV show host Winfrey had invited him and his family on to her talkshow the final week of the show’s finale.“It was my honor, with my family, to do it,” he wrote.The episode with his family actually aired in February, three months before the series finale in May 2011. At the time, Winfrey’s show billed it as the first Trump family interview with his wife, Melania, who he had married six years earlier.Winfrey hosted a livestreamed interview with Kamala Harris on 19 September that served as a virtual rally with other celebrity guests, including Tracee Ellis Ross, Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Chris Rock and Ben Stiller.“There’s a real feeling of optimism and hope making a comeback … for this new day that is no longer on the horizon but is here,” Winfrey said during the event, which had 400 in-person attendees and 200,000 live viewers.The live stream gave Harris a viral and somewhat controversial clip when Winfrey said she was surprised that the Democratic nominee was a gun owner.“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said, laughing. She immediately brushed off the comment, saying: “Sorry. Probably shouldn’t have said that. But my staff will deal with that later.”Winfrey is just the latest in a slate of high-profile celebrities Trump has slammed in recent months.When George Clooney became the first major celebrity to voice concern over Joe Biden’s age, Trump called Clooney “a fake movie actor who should get out of politics”.Then in September, after the first presidential debate between Harris and Trump, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris. Trump went on to say on his social media site: “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.” More

  • in

    Should we take Elon Musk’s and Taylor Swift’s political endorsements seriously? | Siva Vaidhyanathan

    What should we make of the fact that the richest person in the world has joined forces with Donald Trump and promises now to serve the United States as some sort of czar of government “efficiency”? And what should we make of the world’s biggest pop star endorsing Kamala Harris for president?Why should it matter that these mega-celebrities tell us what they want from politics and government?The morning after Taylor Swift endorsed Harris for president, Elon Musk defended his new buddy, Trump, in the most disturbing and bizarre fashion, referring to the Republican obsession with women who have chosen not to have children and have cats. “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk, who has impregnated at least one of his employees and has reportedly propositioned others, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.Swift, in contrast, has declared over the past four years that she cares deeply about women’s issues and has motivated her followers around the world to register to vote and get active in politics. Her engagement has been serious and sincere. Swift, more than any other celebrity, has the opportunity to assume the role of the champion of democracy in America. She writes and sings about the personal yet connects the personal to the political through the descriptions of power and mistreatment in relationships. To many, the connections between power imbalances and mistreatment in personal relationships and those in society at large are strong yet implicit. Swift has moved in recent years to make them explicit.So Swift’s endorsement is not so much about swaying undecided voters through her charisma. That’s a myth. Rather her endorsement is about harnessing all the activist energy she has been building over the years and focusing it on getting young people registered to vote and willing to volunteer for a cause. She is expanding the electorate and infusing it with optimism and purpose. That’s a blessing to anyone who cares about the fate of democracy in the United States.In stark contrast, the other billionaire in this spat has done everything he can to undermine belief in government by the people and for the people. His long hostility to safety and securities regulation makes sense, given his role as a corporate leader. His deep-seated racism and sexism have become even more vocal since he found common cause with Trump and other Republicans. Musk wants a smaller set of political actors in the world. They should be his buddies, all men, and all who assume they know what’s best for the world. It does not help that he is neither smart nor serious about policy nor politics.Yet the nominee of one of the two major American political parties has declared he wants Musk to assume a powerful role in the next government. We could approach this question by examining Musk’s record as a corporate leader, which is spotty at best. We could address Musk’s habits of exaggeration and prevarication, which are significant. We could wonder how a person who is supposed to be running five companies already might have the time to also head up a major government initiative.Or we could just conclude that neither Musk nor Trump are serious people with any idea how to execute policy, let alone devote time, energy and thought to the process. That’s not a reason to suspend concern about this partnership. Musk’s threats to the United States go far beyond any potential office he might hold in the future.Policy is not for amateurs. We learned this the hard way during the first Trump administration, when the few veteran policymakers who were willing to keep the government operating were one by one pushed out of power by Trump or his cronies.To change the way any federal government office operates, one must generate a feasible proposal and seek affirmation and criticism from stakeholders. Those stakeholders might include corporations and their lobbyists, unions and their lobbyists, and public interest groups that range from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club. They also include elements of the executive branch who might have to implement that policy. And, of course, plenty of lawyers and economists must weigh in. Often, if generated by an office of the executive branch, the public must be invited to submit comments on a draft of a policy statement.And, once all of that happens, policy changes are subject to court scrutiny if an interested party decides to sue over it. In other words, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to change even small things that the government does. It takes skill, knowledge, diligence and a whole lot of patience to enact policy.It’s not work appropriate for the flippant, unserious or easily distracted.Now, that’s how it’s done in normal times. We can assume that normal times would come to a permanent end in the United States if 78-year-old Donald Trump takes the oath of office again on 20 January 2025. He has promised radical change in the basic workings of government, down to promising to ignore or “terminate” the constitution if he does not get his way.How he would do this is unclear. We can assume that he would have some elements willing to use force to wrest control of the government away from processes and the limits of law. And we know that Trump has managed to turn the federal courts into instruments of his own interests. All of that would take work, of course. The only thing that saved the government from complete breakdown during Trump’s term in office was his inability to focus and follow through on his indignation and ambition. The friction of bureaucracy turned out to be one of the last bastions holding up the fragile republic.The best Trump can hope to accomplish is chaos and breakdown along with massive corruption that would flow as the failsafes of oversight and accountability collapse.That’s what makes the whole Musk partnership so absurd. Assume for a moment that Musk were a serious, committed, competent leader and manager. Under the Trump style of administration, what possibility would there be for him to discipline a sprawling federal agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Defense?It would not matter. Again, it’s folly to take this effort seriously as an effort to do what Trump or Musk say it would do. Musk, like Trump, is only interested in how any effort could smooth the way for his own benefit. Over the past decade or more, Musk has found his various companies, especially Tesla, entangled with regulators over issues ranging from safety to securities violations.His leadership of SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink, which provides satellite internet access to many millions of people around the world including essential elements of the military and government of Ukraine, has come under scrutiny as Musk has grown closer to the Russian view of the invasion of Ukraine. SpaceX is a major defense contractor. The United States government already depends on SpaceX way too much, and SpaceX depends on the United States government for much of its revenue.Having Musk involved at the highest levels of a government that is supposed to be curbing his excesses and protecting the public interest from the worst externalities of his companies is beyond a conflict of interest. It’s naked corruption. And that is the point. It’s positively Putinesque.Musk is, of course, unlikely to even assume such an office or hold a meeting if he did. He does not have the ability to focus these days. His incessant tweeting at all hours is increasingly unhinged from reality. His drug use, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, has reached a concerning level at which investors in Tesla are worried about his ability to protect their interests. He seems not to be putting in the time to do his current jobs well, even the one at Tesla that supplies him with most of his wealth.Musk’s closeness to Trump is itself a cause for concern. Even without Musk in office, Trump would probably order his cronies to suspend regulatory scrutiny of SpaceX and Tesla. Musk depends on the goodwill of the Xi regime in China to keep parts flowing for Tesla and to keep China open as a market for the cars. Musk needs the new extremely rightwing government of Argentina to remain friendly to the United States to maintain access to new lithium mines for Tesla batteries. And Musk infamously owes the Saudi royal family for funding his disastrous purchase of Twitter.This level of entanglement with troublesome and oppressive foreign governments makes Musk a security risk to the United States whether inside or outside government, whether Trump or Harris runs the government.The choice for America’s future could not be starker, especially when we contrast the roles, goals and personalities of the two highest-profile celebrities active this fall. Swift offers a serious and sincere opportunity for engagement. Musk offers snark and selfishness. Yet for some reason, too many people consider Musk, with his wealth, worthy of pontification on matters of public policy. Maybe it’s time we took Swift and her followers more seriously. The future is theirs.

    Siva Vaidhyanathan is a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy More

  • in

    Trump says he hates Taylor Swift after she endorses Kamala Harris

    Donald Trump has addressed Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in November’s presidential race by announcing his hatred of the pop star.The former president and Republican nominee wrote on Sunday on his Truth Social platform: “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”Swift five days earlier announced her endorsement of Harris and running mate Tim Walz shortly after the vice-president debated Trump.In an Instagram post, the 34-year-old singer wrote, “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 presidential election,” adding, “I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”Ex-congresswoman and frequent Trump political opponent Liz Cheney summed up the typical reaction to Sunday’s post, invoking the title of a Swift song and writing on X: “Says the smallest man who ever lived.”Meanwhile, Swift on Wednesday evening urged her fans to vote during her acceptance of the Video of the Year award at MTV’s Video Music Awards ceremony in Elmont, New York.“If you are over 18, please register to vote for something else that’s very important … [the] presidential election,” she said.Though Trump now says he hates Swift, it wasn’t that long ago that he apparently coveted her endorsement. He posted images generated by artificial intelligence that suggested Swift had endorsed Trump for president in August.One image showed Swift dressed as Uncle Sam, accompanied with the words, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.”The former president also posted deepfakes of young women wearing “Swifties for Trump” shirts on his Truth Social Account, writing, “I accept!”Swift said Trump’s posts influenced her decision to announce her endorsement.“It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation,” she wrote on her Instagram. “It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter.” More

  • in

    Taylor Swift’s Harris endorsement has thrilled fans – but will it move the election needle?

    Addy Al-Saigh had already gone to bed on Tuesday night when her phone woke her up with a notification: Taylor Swift had added a post on Instagram.The pop star had endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Al-Saigh was thrilled.“She has this impact on such a large amount of people that it is super important that she uses her voice, which I’m so glad she did,” said Al-Saigh, a 19-year-old college student who lives in Virginia. “I am hopeful, definitely hopeful, that this will help push voter registration and push more people to get out and speak up and use their voice.”Perhaps no celebrity endorsement has ever been as hotly anticipated as Swift’s – and she delivered in Miss Americana style on Tuesday, voicing her support for Harris and Tim Walz just minutes after the presidential debate between Harris and Donald Trump concluded.“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos,” Swift wrote of Harris. “I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate Tim Walz,” who Swift tagged, “who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF and a woman’s right to her own body for decades”.The question on many minds is: does it matter? Although it’s difficult to measure the impact of celebrity endorsements, they can move the needle in elections, especially by energizing voters who may otherwise sit on the sidelines. After Swift encouraged her fans to vote in 2023, Vote.org recorded more than 35,000 registrations in a single day. Al-Saigh first registered to vote because Swift had posted a voter registration link in her Instagram Stories.In January, polling conducted for Newsweek found that 18% of voters say they are “more likely” or “significantly more likely” to vote for a Swift-backed candidate, while 17% say they are less likely. Swift’s endorsement is likely to hold particular sway among Americans under 35, since about 30% of that group say they are more likely to vote for someone Swift supports. More than half of Swift’s most avid fans already identify as Democrats, a 2023 Morning Consult poll found. The other half of her fanbase is split evenly between Republicans and independents.Swifties for Kamala, which is working to mobilize fans of Swift and has raised more than $150,000 for the Harris campaign, celebrated the endorsement. “We knew she would speak when the time was right and are so excited to keep up the fight,” Irene Kim, the organization’s co-founder and executive director, said in a statement. “Swifties are a diverse group – it’s what strengthens our connections to one another and shapes our shared values.”Trump, meanwhile, dismissed Swift’s endorsement. “She’ll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace,” he said Wednesday on Fox & Friends. Matt Gaetz, the Republican congressman from Florida, said that although he liked Swift’s music, he wanted “to live in a world where liberals make my art and conservatives make my laws”.Jasmine Amussen, a 35-year-old Democrat in the swing state of Georgia who previously responded to a Guardian survey about Swift’s political power, was particularly struck by the musician’s mention of how Trump had used AI-generated images of the pop star to falsely suggest that Swift had endorsed him.“It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation,” Swift wrote in her Instagram post.“I think young people, especially young women, are, like, really grossed out and horrified by things like that,” said Amussen, who said her vote was not personally affected by Swift’s endorsement. “For people who have spent their whole life online and who have experienced a lot of really negative things about being online, like revenge porn and the Nudify websites and things like that, I think it really meant something that she said it like that.”Swift signed off her endorsement as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” – a reference to comments by Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, denigrating women who do not have children. Shortly afterward, Elon Musk, a Trump supporter, responded with a tweet that drew widespread condemnation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life,” Musk tweeted.“I found it disgusting,” Jared Quigg, a 22-year-old Swift fan in Indiana, said of Musk’s post. “I despise that man.”Still, Quigg doesn’t think that Swift’s post will motivate many voters. “If she were to speak up on specific issues, I think that would move the needle on things. But as far as her endorsement, she didn’t really delve too much into issues,” said Quigg, who plans to vote for Harris even though he doesn’t “really like her much at all”.“Now, if she were to speak up about fracking or Palestine, issues that might be considered more important to progressives, perhaps that could have an impact on the party”, Quigg added.Al-Saigh, for her part, wants to get her Virginia college’s Swift fan club to do work around the election, such as helping register people to vote, now that the musician has made her views clear.“Taylor Swift is such a global sensation that if she cares about something, it’s important,” Al-Saigh said. “That’s the way I feel, and that’s the way I think a lot of other people feel too.” More