People often mistakenly believe that totalitarian societies bar citizens from participating in politics. The opposite, of course, is true. Totalitarians — communists, fascists, it doesn’t really make a difference — compel citizens to place politics at the center of their lives. Culture, sports, literature, faith, and science are all subjugated to prevailing ideological orthodoxy. Voting isn’t banned in these places, it’s mandatory.
Now, I’m not saying we live in a totalitarian state or anything resembling one — at least, not yet. For some unfathomable reason, we’ve chosen to impose the bleak, corrupt, intolerant, immoral, graceless tyranny of politics on our everyday lives.
Now, none of this is Taylor Swift’s fault. She’s just the portent, like the black horse rider of the Apocalypse. Though with 284 million followers on Instagram, Swift has far more adherents than any religious denomination these days. Indeed, her social media following is larger than the entire voting-age population of the United States — even if we counted all the illegal immigrants.
Last week, the superstar let her fans know she would be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). “I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice,” she assured her fans. “Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make.” Which is mighty gracious of her. No doubt, millions of Swifties immediately took deep dives into the policy positions of the 2024 iteration of Harris.
After they’re done, maybe they can explain her positions to the rest of us.
Celebrity loyalty oaths are annoying because, well, who cares? In this case, it’s also a contrived act of faux bravery. In January 2020, Swift released a trailer for a forthcoming documentary, Miss Americana. In it, the star is pretending to wrestle with the decision of making an endorsement — as if opposing Donald Trump is going to threaten her career. Then, Swift, utters some of the most horrifying words in political discourse: “I need to be on the right side of history.”
Oh, Swift is on the wrong side. Not because she’s endorsed a candidate. Not that she’s never shown any special wisdom on any serious issue. No, it’s because now every vapid actor and insipid teenybopper is going to weigh in on the optimal tax rate. For that, there is no forgiveness.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s already bad enough. Just this week, Kevin Bacon implored me to go out and vote. He wants “my voice to be heard.” Though Billie Elish helpfully reminded me to check on my voting status first. And, dear lord, the ceaseless prodding to get us to register to vote is likely the most insufferable campaign of all. Yes, we see your ‘I Voted’ sticker. It’s probably not as impressive as you think, considering any imbecile can do it.
Vote. Protest. Be engaged. Be heard.
Walk down the hallways of a contemporary public school, and you’ll quickly realize that children are taught to conflate activism with good citizenship. In contemporary America, “public service” — not mastering a vocation, getting married, raising a bunch of kids, and paying your taxes — is the highest form of patriotism. Really, the world needs another teenage activist like it needs another podcast.
Indeed, badgering everyone to publicly proclaim their political allegiances is predicated on the false notion that an “engaged” citizenry makes for a healthier “democracy.” This idea is debunked by even a cursory reading of history. Citizenries consumed by politics turn to authoritarianism, join cults of personality, and make mind-blowingly terrible decisions all the time.
Swift’s popularity, in fact, offers a perfect metaphor for the perils of democracy: Just because lots of people like something doesn’t mean it’s good.
The U.S. was created so that civil society could flourish without obsessing over the government. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the lack of authority over the self-governed American function and lamented that the French “spirit of the government” was driving them “into the abyss.”
Our abyss is a midwit late-night talk show host prattling on about immigration policy.
The less the average person is thinking about the government, ideology, or culture wars, the better the country is doing. But in contemporary America, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to escape.
At the 2020 Golden Globe Awards, Ricky Gervais delivered a brilliantly scathing speech, imploring celebrities to stay in their lane. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything,” the British comedian said. “You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”
Judging from this year’s Oscars, no one took his advice.
Ben & Jerry’s has an ice cream flavor named “The Resistance.”
Teen Vogue is one of the leading Marxist journals in the country.
One day, a person picks up a Bon Appetit to get tips on making tapas and instead finds a piece about transitioning, headlined, “Over Fried Fish, I Said Goodbye to My Wife — And to a Version of Myself.”
One day, a person picks up a Scientific American to read about wormholes but instead finds an article titled, “Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past.”
Last week, for the second time in its 179-year existence, Scientific American announced that it endorsed a presidential candidate. Reading the statement, one might have been under the impression that the once-esteemed scientific journal supported James Blaine over Grover Cleveland in 1884 and now, despite its cautious nature, felt compelled to finally dip back into politics. But the magazine backed Joe Biden and Harris in 2020, so endorsements aren’t really historical as much as policy change.
It would be one thing if the magazine had endorsed Harris over her lifetime of championing scientific inquiry. The case for her presidency, however, has as much to do with the wonders of the natural world as Swift’s had to do with music.
Then again, the Scientific American mission statement warns us that the magazine is “committed to sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice.” Which is akin to a car magazine committing to sharing reviews of the latest SUVs, while also advancing the precepts of Objectivism.
Totalitarian societies, incidentally, don’t ignore science, either. They appropriate and bend it to their ideological will. We are doing the same. When the scientific fact that life begins at conception becomes inconvenient, “science” tells us life can start whenever we choose. Though science might tell us sex is an immutable characteristic, if chromosomes are standing in the way of your lifestyle choices, “science” says you can choose.
Me? I just want to watch a nature show without being lectured about climate change. Because whenever the word “science” pops up these days, guaranteed, I’m in for a lecture.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
In many respects, we’re living in a peaceful one-party state. Virtually every major institution is now controlled by the proselytizing left. From the people who hand out scientific grants to the people who write our movies and TV shows and commercials, to the people who run higher education, to the billionaires who force investors to live under progressive environmental, social, and governance regimes, to the commissioners of major sports leagues, to rent-seeking CEOs who build cars we drive. Normies are constantly rejecting progressive orthodoxy, but it never stops them from badgering you. Even if you don’t care about politics, it’s going to care about you.
Perhaps the receding roles of religion, localism, and American idealism have created an environment that allows this obsession with politics to bloom. One thing is for sure: A place where everything is politicized is a place headed in a bad direction.