Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign might have been Hollywood’s greatest political production—complete with star-studded events, soaring celebrity endorsements, and dazzling concerts. Yet, this billion-dollar campaign, backed by cultural icons like Beyoncé and Oprah Winfrey, ended with Harris’s defeat and her campaign drowning in $20 million of debt. What went wrong? The answer lies in the fraught marriage of politics and celebrity culture, which has evolved over a century but now faces significant backlash.

The Hollywood Connection: A Historical Overview

Celebrity endorsements in American politics date back to the 1920s when Warren G. Harding enlisted stars like Mary Pickford to woo women voters. Over the decades, this relationship deepened, with figures like Frank Sinatra and Ronald Reagan turning elections into cultural events. Reagan, a former actor, embodied this trend, leveraging his Hollywood ties to redefine the Republican Party’s image and appeal.

By the 1990s, Bill Clinton elevated this strategy, performing on The Arsenio Hall Show and earning endorsements from cultural icons like Madonna and Robin Williams. His 1992 and 1996 campaigns proved that relatability and pop culture engagement could mobilize younger voters, setting a blueprint for the modern celebrity-driven campaign.

Barack Obama: The Peak of Celebrity Politics

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was the apex of celebrity influence in politics. Oprah Winfrey’s early endorsement gave him credibility against Hillary Clinton, while Beyoncé and George Clooney lent their star power to energize his message of “hope and change.” Viral moments, like Will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” music video, turned his campaign into a cultural movement. For the first time, celebrity endorsements seamlessly integrated with social media, creating an unprecedented sense of civic excitement.

However, this success came with consequences. Obama’s reliance on star power alienated some working-class voters, reinforcing the perception of the Democratic Party as elitist. This disconnect would haunt future campaigns, including Hillary Clinton’s in 2016 and Harris’s in 2024.

Harris’s Campaign: Glamour Without Gravitas

Kamala Harris aimed to recreate Obama’s magic but failed to adapt to a shifting cultural and political landscape. Her campaign poured millions into celebrity events, including a $1 million payment to Oprah’s production company and a concert series featuring Megan Thee Stallion and John Bon Jovi. While these events generated headlines, they often overshadowed policy discussions and alienated key voters.

One glaring example occurred in Atlanta, where Megan Thee Stallion performed explicit tracks that drew criticism. In Dallas, Beyoncé’s surprise appearance attracted a massive crowd, but many attendees left before Harris even took the stage. These moments underscored the superficiality of the campaign’s reliance on celebrity spectacles, which prioritized entertainment over engagement.

Financial mismanagement compounded these issues. The campaign spent $20 million on concerts and celebrity-driven events, diverting resources from grassroots organizing and targeted advertising. This extravagance, juxtaposed against the economic concerns of swing-state voters, furthered the narrative of Democratic elitism.

The Waning Influence of Star Power

Harris’s failure highlights a broader decline in the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. In the post-#MeToo era, scandals involving public figures have eroded trust in celebrities. Voters increasingly view them as out of touch with everyday concerns, diminishing their influence as political surrogates.

Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency exemplifies this shift. Unlike traditional candidates who relied on celebrity endorsements, Trump leveraged his own celebrity status to connect directly with voters. His brash, unfiltered style resonated with those disillusioned by career politicians and the elitist image of Democratic campaigns. Trump’s rallies became media spectacles where he was both the star and the message, bypassing the need for external endorsements.

Lessons for the Future of Politics

The 2024 election revealed the limits of celebrity culture in politics. While star power can amplify a campaign’s visibility, it cannot replace substantive engagement with voters’ concerns. Harris’s campaign failed to address this fundamental reality, prioritizing spectacle over strategy.

Moving forward, political campaigns must reassess the role of celebrity endorsements. Rather than relying on glitz and glamour, candidates need to focus on authenticity, grassroots connections, and addressing the economic and social issues that matter most to voters. As Malcolm X famously critiqued, celebrities often serve as distractions, propped up by the establishment to maintain the status quo. His warning remains relevant: politics should prioritize substance over spectacle.

In an era where trust in institutions and public figures is fragile, the path to political success lies not in star-studded events but in meaningful dialogue with the electorate. The Democratic Party, in particular, must move beyond the playbook of the Obama years and adapt to a changing cultural landscape if it hopes to regain its footing in the years ahead.