Should Celebrities Be Involved in Politics?

Ian Caffarel, Staff Writer

This past fall, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick made headlines for protesting the National Anthem at games, to protest treatment of blacks across the nation. He was followed by many other NFL players, with others taking a stand, one way or another. However, the irony is that Kaepernick takes a knee to start the game, while his opposite number, more often than not, takes a knee to finish the game, as the 49ers’ 1-12 record shows. Now, here lies an important question: Should celebrities discuss political issues? Many people think yes, but in reality, they shouldn’t, at least not publicly. Why shouldn’t they? The reasons are varied. But there are some that are rather important.

First, there’s the criticism. Since Kaep started declaring that America’s “racist,” he hasn’t won lots of fans. He also isn’t registered to vote. George Carlin, the famous actor, once said, “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” (For the record, I voted, so if things didn’t go my way, I could complain all I wanted.) In addition to that, the amounts of people saying that what he does is “anti-American” are endless. And as if that isn’t enough, he’s even spoken in praise of recently deceased Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Rapper Snoop Dogg chimed in on the situation, saying Kaepernick needs to “choose between playing football or being a revolutionary.


“He’s sort of kind of hypocritical in so many words because he’s pushing this, but at the same time he’s giving credit for this and this is the same abuse that [Cubans] been taking,” the rapper said in an interview on Fox Sports 1.

Snoop Dogg also said, “In the beginning, I understood it thoroughly because I’m one who’s had situations with police, and I deal with it and I understand where he was coming from.”

“But at the same time, it’s like you have to really stand for it and I don’t believe he can do that and play football at the same time because there’s too many rules and regulations and things that he has to deal with as opposed to being a revolutionary,” he added.

The fact of the matter is this: in light of his controversial stances, and declining play, Kaepernick now faces the prospect of becoming a free agent in 2017. According to FOX Sports, he even put his Bay Area home up for sale. (If you have $3 million lying around somewhere, the place can be yours.)

Now, back to the original question: Should celebrities become involved in politics? The answer is no. Why? Well, we might understand their way of life, of the gigantic homes and bank accounts, but they hardly understand ours, of small, cramped apartments or houses, and gigantic piles of bills that need to be paid. Mark Wahlberg best said it himself. According to Business Insider:

“A lot of celebrities did, do, and shouldn’t [talk politics],” he told the magazine, explaining that A-listers aren’t on the same playing field as the common voter. “They might buy your CD or watch your movie, but you don’t put food on their table. You don’t pay their bills. A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble. They’re pretty out of touch with the common person, the everyday guy out there providing for their family.”

Unlike most celebrities, he considers himself to be in touch with the everyday common man, adding:

“Me, I’m very aware of the real world. I come from the real world, and I exist in the real world,” he said. “And although I can navigate Hollywood, and I love the business and the opportunities it’s afforded me, I also understand what it’s like not to have all that.”


Now, to be fair, there are times when some celebrities became active in politics and used it for good effects, such as Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

If a celebrity wants to be in politics, those two are examples to emulate.

And if you want to get political, then become an activist or politician.

Otherwise, they should just do what they do to get paid money. Politics has a place of its own.