​The Oscar for best campaign goes to...

This past week, both Michelle Kwan and Jason Collins visited Duke University to garner support for democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. They are among a plethora of celebrities who have spoken publicly in favor of either major party candidate. The approach of Election Day merits consideration of the impact the “celebrity factor” has on modern day elections—a topic more relevant this cycle, as one of our candidates is indeed a celebrity himself.

It seems undeniable that celebrities play a major role in political elections. The use of celebrities is attractive, relevant and visceral. A call by a celebrity for their fans to vote can produce net positive effects for candidates—mobilizing voters to support the candidate’s platform and indeed, to vote. Our society values these celebrities highly. It only takes one to look at how highly celebrities are paid to determine this value. Candidates utilize this reverence to gain support for their own campaign, and it can be effective.

However, society’s value of celebrities should not necessarily translate to valuing these individuals’ political opinions. Some celebrities are well versed in political climate and nuance. Kwan, for instance, has worked for the state department and now the Clinton campaign. However, not all celebrities are political experts or have any political experience. Often, they are far removed from the average voter on many salient issues (financial stability being the most readily called to mind). Instead, some celebrities influence voters by making them feel confident about a particular candidate for virtually no good reason besides their own vocalized support. The harm in this is two-fold. First, celebrities often speak on one to two topics in a candidate's campaign, reducing the candidate’s platforms and limiting intellectual discourse. Second, some individuals are allowed to have an extreme role in our nation’s future.

Celebrities may be beneficial to elections. They certainly encourage interest in elections and perhaps engage a larger amount of Americans in our nation’s future. This is commendable. However, “celebrity-ism” has extended beyond celebrities themselves. Today it is necessary for candidates themselves to have personality beyond their positions and a certain celebrity to their veneer. We are eager to know our candidate’s lives, as well as their platforms. Being relatable seems as important as being politically accomplished. Debates have become important for swapping sound bites rather than developing discourse on political issues.

We do not stipulate that the modern day election is entirely different from past elections. Plato criticized democracy for promoting pandering by candidates for public support. Since democracy’s beginnings, candidates have always sought political support and catered to political opinion. Even recognizing this, we are trending to more extreme performance by our candidates. The broad-brushing techniques celebrities employ in their support and the tendency to aim for sound-bites are practices now used by our politicians. Though these tendencies are on trend with modern times, exacerbated by social media outlets, we should demand more of the future leaders of our country.

Celebrity influence on this coming election may, for many, have a net-positive impact. Celebrity support will engage Americans and may increase voter turnout. However, our politicians must caution against mirroring such influence and behaviors. They must call to elevate intellectual discussions and seek to inform our country on their viewpoints, rather than simply be re-elected. Instead of simply dismissing this as idealistic, as a nation, we should rise to the challenge.