The Ridiculous Rise of Celebrity Politics

Celebrity political speech is loud, confident, and widely amplified, yet largely detached from consequence or accountability.

Mark Ruffalo (left) with Ramy Youssef at the 2025 Oscar’s, holding a Palestinian pin that celebrates the murder of Jews (Mark Ruffalo/X)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

The moment a celebrity steps up to a microphone and clears their throat to share their political views, I stop listening. Not because I’m offended, and not because I disagree — but because I already know what’s coming. A slogan dressed up as wisdom, moral certainty without cost, applause standing in for argument.

I don’t want to hear what celebrities think about politics. Not because they’re evil, or stupid, or malicious—but because their opinions are structurally unearned, artificially amplified, and fundamentally disconnected from how political consequences are actually lived.

Celebrity culture trains us to confuse visibility with wisdom. If someone can act, sing, dunk a basketball, or command a stage, we treat their opinions as if they arrived pre-validated. Millions of followers become a proxy for credibility. Applause becomes evidence.

But fame is not a credential; it’s an algorithmic accident reinforced by money, branding, and repetition. The fact that someone is exceptional at one narrow skill does not make them a reliable guide through complex moral, historical, or geopolitical terrain.

What’s rarely acknowledged is that celebrity political speech didn’t rise because it was needed; it rose because something else collapsed. In earlier eras, societies looked to people who had earned moral authority through responsibility: religious leaders embedded in communities, labor organizers accountable to workers, thinkers tested by debate, statesmen forced to live with the consequences of their decisions.

As trust in institutions eroded, that authority didn’t disappear; it was replaced. Celebrity stepped into the vacuum. Not because celebrities were wiser, but because they were visible. The substitution was quiet, and profoundly damaging. We didn’t upgrade our moral guides; we lowered the bar.

This matters because most celebrity politics is politics without consequence. The causes most loudly endorsed by cultural elites tend to impose their costs on people who don’t share their insulation. Numerous studies of political behavior in the U.S. show a familiar pattern: “Progressive” activism is most intense among the wealthy, the highly educated, and those clustered in places where policy failure is buffered by money, geography, and exit options. It is easy to demand radical reforms when you can afford private alternatives. It is easy to embrace sweeping moral positions when your life is protected by assets, security, and mobility. When politics costs you nothing, certainty comes cheap.

That cheapness shows up in slogans that sound profound but collapse on contact with reality. “Free Palestine” has been a celebrity favorite since October 7th, precisely because it requires no definition, no accountability, and no confrontation with consequences. It is emotionally charged, morally flattering, and strategically vague — a perfect vehicle for performative certainty.

Free Palestine from whom? From Israel? From Hamas? From the Palestinian Authority? From Iranian sponsorship? From corruption, repression, and the systematic indoctrination of children into martyrdom? The slogan refuses to say. And because it refuses to say, it absolves the speaker of responsibility for what “freedom” would actually entail in practice. Borders, security, governance, minority rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech — none of these fit neatly in a celebrity’s mouth, so none of them are addressed.

For celebrities, the ambiguity is the point. The slogan allows them to project moral concern without taking a position on the hardest questions: What replaces the existing order? Who enforces peace? What happens to Jews in a “freed” Palestine? What happens to Palestinians who dissent from their rulers? These are not theoretical issues; they are the substance of the conflict. Ignoring them makes the stance unserious.

“Free Palestine” persists in celebrity culture for the same reason many slogans do: It feels virtuous without demanding understanding. It signals alignment with suffering while avoiding the uncomfortable reality that some conflicts cannot be resolved through chants alone. In that sense, the slogan is not an expression of moral clarity; it is an admission of moral laziness.

Hollywood types drape themselves in Palestinian paraphernalia — keffiyehs, flags, lapel pins — broadcasting solidarity that is instantly legible and culturally approved. What was striking, however, was not only what was worn, but what was conspicuously absent. The yellow pins symbolizing the Israeli hostages kidnapped into Gaza on October 7th were nowhere to be seen. Not on red carpets. Not at awards shows. Not on social feeds curated to signal moral awareness.

This absence was not accidental. Wearing a hostage pin would have required acknowledging an inconvenient fact: that the conflict did not begin with Israeli retaliation, that civilians were abducted en masse, and that moral clarity is harder to maintain once victims are no longer abstract. Hostages complicated the narrative. They introduced faces, families, timelines, and urgency. They demanded empathy without ideological sorting — and that is precisely what performative activism tries to avoid.

Selective symbolism reveals selective compassion. It is easy to identify with suffering that aligns neatly with a preferred storyline. It is much harder to extend empathy when doing so disrupts the binary of oppressor and oppressed, or forces recognition of brutality committed by the “right” side of the moral ledger. The absence of hostage pins was not neutrality; it was a choice, a quiet decision about which victims count and which are better left unacknowledged.

What makes this especially troubling is that hostage-taking is not a contested policy question; it is a war crime. It is universally condemned in every other context. Yet when confronted with real people — children, women, parents, even grandparents — held in tunnels under Gaza, much of the celebrity class suddenly discovered the value of silence. The same figures who insist that “silence is violence” on other issues found themselves mute when solidarity carried reputational risk.

“No one is illegal on stolen land” is another perfect example. It feels righteous, historically aware, morally elevated. It is also incoherent. All land is stolen land, if we’re to be technical. Every nation, every border, every property regime rests on conquest, displacement, and force. If the slogan were meant seriously rather than performatively, it would invalidate not just immigration law, but property ownership, citizenship, and the modern state itself.

Yet no one chanting it is offering up their home, dissolving borders, or renouncing the legal protections they quietly rely on. The slogan isn’t meant to be applied; it’s meant to signal virtue.

After singer-songwriter Billie Eilish delivered the line “No one is illegal on stolen land” from Sunday’s Grammys awards show stage, the Los Angeles-based Sinai Law Firm jokingly offered to represent the Native American tribe that historically owns the land beneath the singer’s multimillion-dollar mansion, volunteering to help evict her pro bono. The point wasn’t legal realism; it was moral exposure. If the slogan were applied rather than applauded, its implications would not stop at borders or immigration law. They would extend all the way to property rights, ownership, and the comforts of celebrity life itself.

That’s why these declarations so often collapse into farce. A celebrity denounces borders from the stage while living in a multimillion-dollar mansion protected by zoning laws, title deeds, police, and private security — and then acts shocked when someone points out the contradiction. The moment moral theater collides with material reality, the performance is exposed. History isn’t something to be grappled with; it’s a costume to be worn.

Celebrity activism also infantilizes the public. It assumes citizens cannot handle complexity, trade-offs, or uncertainty; that they must be spoon-fed morality in the form of villains and victims, hashtags and chants. Politics becomes a children’s story, not an adult responsibility. This doesn’t empower people; it trains them to feel informed without being informed. Emotional certainty replaces intellectual effort. Outrage substitutes for understanding.

Compounding the problem is the absence of skin in the game. In real politics, legitimacy flows from proximity to consequences. Small business owners feel regulatory mistakes immediately. Parents experience school policy failures firsthand. Soldiers and their families live with the results of foreign policy. Celebrities, by contrast, can be wrong indefinitely without consequence. If a policy fails, they relocate. If a city declines, they leave. If violence rises, they hire protection. There is no feedback loop, no cost for error. In such an environment, moral recklessness is rewarded.

This also explains the selective nature of celebrity outrage. Loudness tracks safety. Celebrities speak passionately where consensus is already established and silence carries reputational risk. They go quiet where facts are uncomfortable, where the moral landscape is messy, or where taking a stand might threaten their standing within elite circles. What they don’t speak about is often more revealing than what they do. Courage, in this ecosystem, is carefully rationed.

There is a final irony in all of this. As award shows and celebrity spectacles draw fewer viewers, the speeches have become more overtly political. Once, winners spoke as if addressing the nation. Now they speak as if addressing a room that already agrees with them. The pretense of persuasion has evaporated. What remains is affirmation: political speech not aimed at changing minds, but at reinforcing status within a shrinking cultural class. The smaller the audience, the louder the sermon.

Then there are the celebrities who don’t just dabble in political outrage, but directly profit from it. Outrage has become a business model: podcasts monetized by grievance, documentaries funded by moral panic, social media followings converted into speaking fees and brand partnerships and cultural relevance.

In this economy, the goal is not to understand an issue but to inflame it — to simplify, polarize, and escalate, because anger converts better than nuance. The more apocalyptic the framing, the higher the engagement; the more absolute the moral claims, the more valuable the brand. Politics becomes less a civic responsibility and more a content vertical, optimized for clicks, applause, and revenue. When outrage pays the bills, there is no incentive for restraint, humility, or accuracy, only for escalation.

Politics filtered through red carpets and acceptance speeches is not politics at all. It only becomes politics when it is grounded in lived experience, informed by history, tested by tradeoffs, and argued by people who cannot escape the consequences of being wrong. A society that confuses fame for wisdom doesn’t become more compassionate or more just; it becomes less capable of governing itself.

That truth was stated more bluntly — and more honestly — than most acceptance speeches ever manage, when comedian Ricky Gervais opened the 2020 Golden Globes with a rare moment of clarity: “If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”

---