For whom to vote in 2024? Some await a 'Swift' decision

It is a sad commentary on presidential elections in this country. A vote cast for the candidate of choice should clearly be exercised by voters after determining which one best represents the interests of our country. It is not a decision to be taken lightly or made based on the thinking of others with celebrity status. Celebrities tend not to do the necessary research on candidate issues indicative of who is most qualified to hold office, tending at times to rely on misinformation in making their choice.

A recent Newsweek poll reveals that a segment of U.S. voters are awaiting a certain celebrity to provide them with a green light as for whom they should vote, without even knowing the celebrity’s political views on a myriad of issues. Perhaps motivated by her Time magazine “Person of the Year” appearance, Taylor Swift has been identified as a celebrity 18% of voters – almost one in five – say that they are “more likely” or “significantly more likely” to heed and vote for the candidate she supports. This percentage represents three of four Americans under age 35 and 4% of voters 65 and over.

With 279 million Instagram followers, Swift – even at 18% – could have an influential impact. It is why presidential candidate Joe Biden is considering what needs to be done to reign in her support, which she gave him in 2020. Hopefully, Swift will not publicize her decision this time around and will adhere to some of her own advice given in 2012: “I don’t talk about politics because it might influence other people. And I don’t think that I know enough yet in life to be telling people who to vote for.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

After first appearing on the Billboard charts in 2006, Swift was reluctant to go public with her political views. That changed in 2018 before the midterm elections when she endorsed two Democratic congressional candidates in Tennessee. She noted then, “I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. …”

As Swift’s popularity grows and the closer we now get to decision time on our 2024 presidential candidates, more of her previous tweets on political issues have come to light. One addresses the overturning by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) of Roe v. Wade – the 1973 case that declared a constitutional right to abortion existed.

Roe v. Wade was reversed by the 2022 case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, stated it had to be done as Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong” and represented “an abuse of judicial authority.” That said, however, and in raising the ire of pro-abortionist women, there appears to be a bit of a disconnect as to what was actually decided. In a tweet Swift sent out after the reversal, she proclaimed, “[A]fter so many decades of people fighting for women’s rights to their own bodies, today’s decision has stripped us of that.”

But, as such, she abandoned her 2012 advice by rendering a political opinion that demonstrated a failure to understand the real reason for overturning Roe v. Wade. It had nothing to do with the legality or illegality itself of the abortion issue – and everything to do with the power of the SCOTUS to address the issue.

In deciding the constitutionality on a matter such as abortion, the SCOTUS had to look within the “four corners” of our Constitution to see what specifically is mandated concerning authority to address issues. Amendment 10 of our Constitution provides that if the power to address an issue is not specifically given to the federal government, then it is reserved to the individual states to do so. Roe v. Wade was reversed because of the fact no specific authority was set forth in the Constitution giving the federal government the right to address the abortion issue. The Court in Roe v. Wade abused its power by applying convoluted reasoning to argue that a power clearly not within the Constitution was!

Alito stipulated, “We hold the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” Thus, any state law on abortion is presumptively valid and “must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought” it was serving “legitimate state interests,” including “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.” Thus, pro-lifers and pro-abortionists have been knocking on the wrong door. Their fight for or against abortion is purely a matter for their states to decide. No one, like Swift suggests, has “stripped” women of a right since it was a right the SCOTUS was without authority to grant.

To put the issue in layman’s terms for Swift to better understand, imagine a political candidate making an online campaign video playing one of her songs. Having decided to use the song without Swift’s permission, the campaign would be in violation of copyright laws for lacking any authority to make a decision to use it. Similarly, the 1973 SCOTUS had no authority to decide Roe v. Wade.

In Swift’s effort to become all things to all liberals, she ignores a contradiction that exists based on her pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ positions above.

While Roe v. Wade’s reversal had Swift wrongly clamoring about women being stripped of rights they did not have, her support for transgender “women” demonstrates an acquiescence to stripping women of a right they do have – to compete with their biological equals. How can she justify the two positions?

It is unfortunate, but some voters will credit celebrities who speak out on political issues as having an expertise in doing so, when they do not. This can well impact on voters putting someone in office who really fails to represent the nation’s best interests. It is odd that while the statements of our politicians are routinely questioned, those of our celebrities are not.

Voters have a tendency to rely too much on experts, whether celebrities or subject matter experts, on an issue so as not to have to undertake research on their own. Take the faulty opinion of 51 so-called “intelligence” experts concerning the contents of a laptop computer alleged to belong to Hunter Biden prior to the 2020 presidential election. They claimed – interestingly without even taking the time to look at it – the computer was the product of Russian disinformation. As Hunter is now suing the computer repairman for invasion of privacy, he is obviously doing it based on his ownership and not doing it at the behest of the Russians. These 51 experts knew or should have known the computer was Hunter’s – a fact they did not want to have revealed lest it undermined father Biden’s campaign.

It is frightening to think we have a young generation of Americans who look to a celebrity like Taylor Swift for leadership in how to cast their votes, perhaps too busy listening to her songs to research the political issues of our time. On the other hand, such celebrities need to recognize the responsibility with which they are entrusted, taking great care to study the candidates and their positions before going public with whom to support. I doubt they will but pray they do.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts