10) Claire Henry as Joey King

9) Ishmial “Juice” Mitchel as Polo G

8) Lauren Ledbetter as Ellen Pompeo

7) Peter Haynes as Coach Louis Cortes

6) Jaxon McFarland as Robert Pattinson

5) Kylie Phipps as Lil Huddy

4) Mario Magana as Bruno Mars

3) Haleigh Borich as Shailene Woodley

2) Alex Williams as Ernie from Sesame Street

1) Gray Paholke as DaBaby

Kanye dons a MAGA hat, Lebron draws on Malcolm X in an interview – what commonality holds in the conjunction of these two events? As events, of course, either can only be described in terms of radical difference, insofar as an event appears as the fact of its singularity, its existence not as process but as event. Nonetheless these events – irreconcilably separate though they may be – are strung together under a certain process, namely, antiblackness. 

The question is the role of celebrities in politics. Apparently, there would be two answers to this question: that celebrities do, on the one hand, or do not, on the other, merit our political respect. Of course, as with all simple dichotomies, either of these responses would be incorrect.  

Celebrity is itself an obscure category. The New Oxford American Dictionary is helpful: “a famous person.” Then, a definition of famous: “known about by many people.” 

Who are these celebrities – in our society, who is most known? Donald Trump may be the first to come to mind. We quickly encounter a problem. Perhaps the question of celebrities in politics should not, in the first instance, be taken to regard figures like Kanye West and Lebron James, but figures like Donald Trump.

But Donald Trump in what sense? Of course, the man would, likely, have been considered celebrity even before he was the celebrity, i.e. the president. Yet it was not only with the presidency that Donald Trump has exerted political influence. 

Perhaps there is something distinguishing Donald Trump from Kanye West and Lebron James. Indeed, the commonality to be drawn between the three names is precisely the distinguisher: wealth.

Trump’s wealth is of a different kind. Trump’s wealth – as opposed to West’s or James’ – is of a nature that its role in politics was only ever seriously drawn into question after it had already amassed political distinction. Trump’s wealth faces questions of impeachment. On the other hand  – West’s and James’ – questions of desert, of legitimacy.

All three could be said to have obtained their wealth through entertainment. Why, then, is Trump’s wealth so much more potent?

Trump’s wealth is of a distinct character to the others: Trump’s is a wealth that is already political, whereas neither West nor James can claim a similar lineage. 

In fact, in terms of hyper-wealth, neither West nor James can really be said to be in a family lineage. Trump – by which I mean Donald – was born into his name. Both West and James had to somehow obtain theirs. What lineage do West and James claim wealth in?

“Rap Or Go To The League” (2 Chainz, 2019). 

Perhaps the distinction can be drawn out materially with reference to the recent news. Trump – by which I mean political celebrity – is in the position of being able to render the political impediments largely obsolete. In a vacuum – of course, politics never occur in a vacuum – Trump would have in 2017 paid the same in income taxes as someone making $7,500 in the single income tax brackets.

Why not add two more words? Namely, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both of these figures, according to the article linked above, regularly paid more than $100,000 in income taxes. Obama cannot be said to come from a lineage of political celebrity in the same way either Bush or Trump can. Yet neither can Bush and Trump quite be equated; what differentiates the political celebrity of Trump from that of Bush?

Perhaps these two belong in entirely different categories: Bush, a political-celebrity, Trump, political celebrity. The difference of a political-celebrity is twofold. One, the definite article “a” acts upon “political-celebrity” to confer this category descriptively onto the man George. Two, the bar striking political to celebrity operates akin to the bar of the signifier, namely, as the logical coordinates through which a meaning must pass before assuming its meaning as a meaning. 

I will explain this second difference before returning to the first. In the expression of language, a meaning is arrived at only through compounding dimensions of mediation. The first of these mediations is the concrete position of a signifier in relation to other signifiers. If you need an example, look at these words and notice that, prior to your reading and conceptualizing them, they are already arranged in a certain order regarding one another. In the same way, political is the grammar which precedes any meaning to Bush’s celebrity: Bush’s celebrity is always already understood through the logic of the political. George Bush’s role in politics is thus not an object of debate in this discourse. 

The first of the differences, the addition of a definite article before Bush’s category, is less important than the absence it draws attention to. There is no definite article attributing political celebrity a place of identity with Trump. The reason for this is that identity is always already a falsity, whereas Trump truly is the same thing as political celebrity.

This can perhaps be clarified by repeating another point of diversion through this discourse. Trump has, throughout, been meant in at least two senses: as the man Donald and as the concept political celebrity. Although these are first articulated through different signifiers, what I mean by each of them here is exactly the same: Trump is political celebrity, political celebrity is Trump.

Donald Trump is president of the United States Federal Government not in spite of his celebrity but precisely as his celebrity, as the logical endpoint of political money, as the inevitable culmination of a logical structure which far exceeds the man Donald himself. 

Before attempting to name this logical structure, we should trace a few emergences in this discourse. A conception of politics as celebrity. A conception of celebrity as money. A conception of money as politics. Structures of demarcation wherein this triad is rendered increasingly obscure the further removed one is from practical access to the meanings of these terms – i.e. politics, celebrity and money. A general denial of history wherein this triad and the exclusion of access to its effective (and affective) apparatuses are rendered invisible and inevitable.

Yet, these apparatuses of dominion are not inevitable, and thus we return to West. More recently than the MAGA hat, West has tweeted a historical reminiscence of the Haitian slave revolution, the too-often hidden dimension of the French revolutionary years in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. West is, in his assertion of the relevance of the Haitian revolution, in fact in vein with an important trend emerging from the undercommons of this settler society, a vein emerging as well in the act of Lebron James endorsing “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” in an interview.

What trend is this? In a word: remembering. Not simply in the sense of recollection but also in the sense of radical difference. Being recollected here are not the narratives dominating the social discourse of white settler society – recollected here are instead the narratives bracketed out by the dominant discourse. Re-membering: reconceiving the most basic notions of a society.

This Re-membering is an important politics to be endorsed by these celebrities, precisely because these are the celebrities bracketed out from the internal levers of the American political apparatus, for example, the types of engagement through which Donald Trump is able to lower his tax price to $750. Re-membering demonstrates the ways in which a society is only ever meant to work for certain members. Re-membering challenges the very notion of what it means to be a member in a society.

This is particularly important on the so-called American landmass today. The power apparatus which claims hegemony over this land, namely, the United States Federal Government, was founded in genocide. What Re-membering does is evaluate our presupposition that these genocides ever stopped. 

Native folk live primarily in resource-deprived reservations –and we should already question this grammar, i.e. to reserve; who, and by whom? People of Afrikan descent are disproportionately housed in the American concentration camps – the geographic loci of the prison-industrial complex. They are disproportionately murdered by a militarized police force, disproportionately deprived – politically, economically, resourcefully, etc. – by antiblack legislation, for example, redlining laws.

All this amounts to a question of the question. To ask whether celebrities belong in politics is already an antiblack question. The political and the celebrity occur in the same processes, they are cohered in money. It is already a politics of antiblackness that the celebrity and money of Trump confers upon him a relation to the political that it does not confer upon West or James. 

What is really in question here is what in fact underlies every question, namely, the historicity which provides any given question with its conditions of enunciation. The answer to whether celebrities belong in politics is thus a descriptive and not a normative answer: celebrities both do and do not belong in politics. Following the internal logic of settler society, the features of celebrity are conferred upon the epidermal layer of the subject called celebrity. 

Specifically, of white celebrities, their position in politics is not often brought into question until after they have shown themselves to be intractably corrupt, and even then, Donald Trump is still in office. For a black celebrity – i.e. a widely known person whose skin is codified in the dominant discourse as black – access to political power is overwhelmingly already foreclosed. The logic of antiblackness demarcates certain bodies as outside the historical narrative of who belongs, i.e. whose life it is worthwhile to address. 

Trump would not have become president were he black. The question we should be asking under conditions of settler colonialism is not whether celebrities belong in politics but precisely whether politics belong. Prior to evaluating the dichotomy of Trump-Biden, we should mercilessly interrogate the triad of Politics-Celebrity-Money – specifically the ways that this triad represents a unity of possibility in whiteness but a series of foreclosures in blackness, and the ideological mystification that renders this system of antiblackness natural. 
Our first question of an institution built on the genocidal exploitation of the nonwhite other should always be this: why does this institution still exist?

It seems like COVID-19 is the only thing people can talk about these days. It’s taken over everything in our lives to the point that reading anything in the news that isn’t related to COVID-19 is strange and alien. It feels as though there’s nothing else going on in the world – and that’s simply because there isn’t. Television shows have halted production, sports aren’t happening anymore and everyone has barricaded themselves in their homes. With morale so low, people are looking to influencers and celebrities for entertainment and guidance. This is both a blessing and a curse.

On one hand, you have very supportive celebrities. YouTube personalities like The Try Guys and SMOSH are posting videos from quarantine that offer ideas of things to do while stuck at home. The band AJR is offering free virtual concerts from their home, and multiple influencers have upped production of their content. There are examples of celebrities who have shown support and solidarity while also reminding people that they need to stay home. It isn’t anything huge, but their actions, however small, have helped by spreading the word about how to stay safe as well as offering entertainment.

There are also celebrities that are spending large amounts of money, whether that be to donate to a good cause or to support their own. Leonardo DiCaprio is on a mission to raise $15 million to donate to America’s Food Fund, Lady Gaga raised $35 million for the World Health Organization and Elton John pumped an extra $1 million into his AIDS foundation in order to continue providing treatment and testing for individuals living with HIV and AIDS. These celebrities are promoting foundations that are in dire need of money to continue functioning and providing help in these troubling times.

There are also some celebrities who have contracted COVID-19 speaking out about their experiences while also offering advice. Some of these celebrities include P!NK, Sara Bareilles, Idris Elba and Tom Hanks. They show us that anyone can get the virus while urging everyone to practice social distancing.

However, not everything celebrities have done has been helpful. The biggest thing that comes to mind is the “Imagine” video, which features celebrities singing the song “Imagine” by John Lennon. Some of the celebrities in this video include Jimmy Fallon, Natalie Portman and Will Ferrell. The song features lyrics like “Imagine no possessions” and “no need for greed or hunger.” 

The original video of these celebrities entitled “25 celebrities sing ‘Imagine’ in isolation, creating a moving montage” published on YouTube by CBS News has racked up 5,700 likes – compared to 47,000 dislikes. Some of the comments are: “So much cringe packed into one video,” “…trust me, half of us don’t have to imagine [having no possessions]” and “‘Imagine’ being that outta touch with society.” 

While many understand the intent of these celebrities was to unite everyone under such dire circumstances, they certainly picked the wrong song to do it. After all, these are people with more money than they know what to do with. They can live comfortably without a job for a long amount of time. However, their audience of average Americans have lost their jobs due to the crisis and are struggling to make ends meet. Celebrities singing about having “no possessions” while still being financially stable is incredibly insensitive in a time when some people literally don’t have any possessions. 

There are also plenty of celebrities who have continued to find themselves in controversy despite the pandemic – James Charles and Trisha Paytas, to name a few – but perhaps that’s just a way of regaining normalcy. After all, those two celebrities in particular are not ones to shy away from drama, even during a global pandemic.

All things considered, the pandemic has brought out the personalities and actions of numerous celebrities, allowing fans to see their true colors. Some have been helpful, but some have clearly not. 

By and large, celebrities are outliers. Making up less than half a percent of the U.S. population, their interests are narrow and do not generally align with those of the common people. Though not all celebrities will be completely disconnected with the plight of the general public, as plenty come from humble beginnings, the status of celebrity indicates a position, usually both economically and socially, that is more privileged. This personal disposition will taint proceedings in office.

Socioeconomic status affecting proceedings in office is not unique to celebrities. Any common person who assumes office will also, consciously or subconsciously, influence proceedings with their respective status, but the word “common” makes all the difference. A common person’s attitudes and desires are more like that of his or her constituents, meaning he or she can both understand and provide for them.

To be clear, I don’t necessarily think all celebrities wouldn’t fare well in public office. Rather, I fear that a precedent could be set in which celebrities are encouraged to go into office. As people who have significant public reach, they would be the only ones with enough publicity and financial bearing to be elected. Already, wealthy people have an advantage in political influence because they can bear exorbitant campaign costs or fund interests and initiatives with genuine political efficacy. The normalization of celebrity transition to public office would maximize campaign expenditures, making representative political participation extremely inaccessible for those who don’t have comparable funds. The common person would eventually be forced out of the running, replaced by those who are already equipped with the kind of wealth and prominence that make winning much more likely.

At that point, elections would be a competition of publicity rather than policy. Personality would be valued more than integrity, intellect or strategy. Most celebrities lack experience in key areas like politics, international relations, economics and ethics. Their resumes may be filled with albums or movie credits but not with the substance that matters in the political realm. Yet this doesn’t scare some people. They see celebrities as a welcome alternative to career politicians.

For the most part, people hate career politicians because they’re seen as corrupt and ineffective. I don’t entirely disagree with this. Especially among Congresspeople, corruption is rampant. Many officeholders support legislation and initiatives not in accordance with their constituents but rather their personal interests. Furthermore, a lack of term limits in Congress essentially ensures incumbency since congressional races are decided more by name recognition than any other factor. Secure in their re-elections, incumbents can pursue personal interests as long as this is obfuscated by some effort for constituents.

When it comes down to it, people hate career politicians because they’re out of touch with the public and protect only their niche interests. Would celebrities be any different?

A danger distinct to the election of celebrities is the risk of conflation of entertainment and policy. A line should be drawn that distinguishes the two to preserve political affairs from distracting theatrics. This is not meant to disregard versatility of talent. I’d be pleased to see a celebrity who could draw a strong line between entertainment and politics and show aptitude in both. President Ronald Reagan, a former actor, did this well, severing his public life in entertainment from his more serious political life. Still, even though Reagan’s celebrity may not have influenced his presidency, an assumption that any other celebrity would be fit for office is unwise. Many celebrities interested in office have not shown strong ideological positions and may very well be looking at office simply as a result of delusions of ego or as a publicity boost.

It seems to make more sense to choose a corrupt career politician who knows political strategy over a self-interested celebrity who lacks political education. In extreme cases when life and death are at stake or a major policy initiative requires an officeholder’s approval, I would much prefer expertise to entertainment value.

In a perfect world, every politician would be an honest, selfless statesperson. But this is reality, and that’s not the case, though that does not mean that the American public should settle. Rather, we should collectively become more involved with politics at every level. Instead of relying on soundbites from biased news sources or voting for the person whose name we recognize or backing our favorite celebrities’ bids for office simply based on likability, we should stay as informed about candidates and political affairs as possible. We should get to know candidates’ policy proposals, preparedness for office and potential conflicts of interests like outlying socioeconomic statuses. We should demand candidates that can sympathize with the plight of the common person and make an effort to fix it. Though anyone should have the ability to run for office, it is up to us to make a prudent choice in selecting representatives who have the common interest at heart and the knowledge to achieve it. We should not sell ourselves short by electing people based on superficial factors.

Photo courtesy of Yahoo.