Taylor Swift switches to PC virtue-signaling

I was once a Taylor Swift fanboy.  She was young, blonde, beautiful, and tall and even wrote her own songs.  A Taylor Swift poster, I'll admit to two, adorned the walls of my teenage bedroom.  She rose to prominence in country music and once proudly represented Flyover Country. 

Something happened to our blue-eyed American girl, though, around the release of her 2014 album 1989.  The statuesque beauty packed her bags and left red-state Tennessee for New York City.  Somewhere between then and today, the Old Taylor died.

Along the way, she must have undergone the requisite celebrity indoctrination to earn her big-city credentials.  Recently, the newly minted, focus group–tested, mainstream pop star came out as a full-on progressive, voicing support for federal legislation that would create another class of protected persons.

Old Taylor dropped hints of her transformation here and there, her move to NYC being the biggest.  She called herself a feminist, snapped a stylish social media photo on Election Day 2016 (gee, I wonder whom she voted for), and dropped lines in her music that hinted at her political shift (see the line in "Welcome to New York").

The New Taylor isn't exactly leading the vanguard for the progressive movement, coming out in promotion of same-sex legislation some four full years after Obergefell v. Hodges.  Indeed, she preceded even the risk-averse leaders of corporate America in her activism, evidenced by its full-on embrace of  Pride Month.

One has to wonder the extent of the pop star's conviction, as her political outspokenness comes at a time of relative stagnation in the artist's career.  What better way is maintain cultural relevancy than advocating focus group–tested MSNBC talking points from the epicenter of The Resistance?

For those with a short memory, focus group–tested Taylor came out in support of a Democratic senatorial candidate in deep red Tennessee prior to the 2018 election (an odd choice, questioning her awareness of national politics).  Then Rep. Blackburn, now Sen. Blackburn, won election by over 10 percentage points.

New Taylor is a walking embodiment of the NPC meme that accurately captures the essence of blasé celebrity activism that has swept over America's great media hubs.  It will earn her praise among fellow upper-class political elites as she takes a brave stand for America's marginalized communities (although it is unclear who exactly threatens these communities in 2019 America).

Instead of stroking the collective ego of fellow progressive allies, perhaps New Taylor should use her immense wealth to fight against anti-gay legislation in Middle Eastern countries (you know, where homosexuality can be a death sentence & gays are being thrown off roofs).  We might have to wait — a very long time — for the Saudi Supreme Court to discover a constitutional right before she courageously leads that charge.

Let's briefly analyze the piece of legislation Ms. Swift has decided to throw her support behind: the legislation would expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation — a noble goal, indeed.

This would effectively give private individuals a cause of action to file suit in federal court should he or she (I tread lightly on the use of such pronouns) believe a private actor to have violated the rights protected by this legislation.

It would throw the weight of the federal government behind litigants' lawsuits to compel private companies to conform to the federal government's definition of "sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation."  Who better to define such terms — which touch on issues ranging from morality, biology, and social science — than federal judges or private litigants with fringe views?

The Trump administration's response to the legislation was spot-on, affirming the administration's opposition to discrimination and unequal treatment of persons but recognizing the legislation as a "poison pill" that would undermine religious liberty.

Similarly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (hardly a bastion of conservatism in the era of Pope Francis) came out against the legislation on the grounds that the legislation would undermine religious liberty.  Such reasoned opposition is unlikely to sway the feelgoodery of progressive celebrities (like Ms. Swift and others) who believe that legislation passed in the spirit of so-called equality must be advanced regardless of details.

The irony is most celebrities who voice support for such legislation live in areas of the country where such discrimination is extraordinarily rare.  One can imagine Ms. Swift and others sitting in Manhattan derisively mocking Trump voters in red states where such discrimination, according to them, is rampant.

Such a portrait of the United States is nothing but a progressive fantasy designed for celebrities, like Ms. Swift, to virtue-signal to a dedicated segment of her fan base, while earning the praise of progressive publications.  One could mistake this virtue-signaling for genuine activism, but her decade-late activism makes such a mistake unreasonable.

Photo credit: Glenn Francis of www.PacificProDigital.com.

I was once a Taylor Swift fanboy.  She was young, blonde, beautiful, and tall and even wrote her own songs.  A Taylor Swift poster, I'll admit to two, adorned the walls of my teenage bedroom.  She rose to prominence in country music and once proudly represented Flyover Country. 

Something happened to our blue-eyed American girl, though, around the release of her 2014 album 1989.  The statuesque beauty packed her bags and left red-state Tennessee for New York City.  Somewhere between then and today, the Old Taylor died.

Along the way, she must have undergone the requisite celebrity indoctrination to earn her big-city credentials.  Recently, the newly minted, focus group–tested, mainstream pop star came out as a full-on progressive, voicing support for federal legislation that would create another class of protected persons.

Old Taylor dropped hints of her transformation here and there, her move to NYC being the biggest.  She called herself a feminist, snapped a stylish social media photo on Election Day 2016 (gee, I wonder whom she voted for), and dropped lines in her music that hinted at her political shift (see the line in "Welcome to New York").

The New Taylor isn't exactly leading the vanguard for the progressive movement, coming out in promotion of same-sex legislation some four full years after Obergefell v. Hodges.  Indeed, she preceded even the risk-averse leaders of corporate America in her activism, evidenced by its full-on embrace of  Pride Month.

One has to wonder the extent of the pop star's conviction, as her political outspokenness comes at a time of relative stagnation in the artist's career.  What better way is maintain cultural relevancy than advocating focus group–tested MSNBC talking points from the epicenter of The Resistance?

For those with a short memory, focus group–tested Taylor came out in support of a Democratic senatorial candidate in deep red Tennessee prior to the 2018 election (an odd choice, questioning her awareness of national politics).  Then Rep. Blackburn, now Sen. Blackburn, won election by over 10 percentage points.

New Taylor is a walking embodiment of the NPC meme that accurately captures the essence of blasé celebrity activism that has swept over America's great media hubs.  It will earn her praise among fellow upper-class political elites as she takes a brave stand for America's marginalized communities (although it is unclear who exactly threatens these communities in 2019 America).

Instead of stroking the collective ego of fellow progressive allies, perhaps New Taylor should use her immense wealth to fight against anti-gay legislation in Middle Eastern countries (you know, where homosexuality can be a death sentence & gays are being thrown off roofs).  We might have to wait — a very long time — for the Saudi Supreme Court to discover a constitutional right before she courageously leads that charge.

Let's briefly analyze the piece of legislation Ms. Swift has decided to throw her support behind: the legislation would expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation — a noble goal, indeed.

This would effectively give private individuals a cause of action to file suit in federal court should he or she (I tread lightly on the use of such pronouns) believe a private actor to have violated the rights protected by this legislation.

It would throw the weight of the federal government behind litigants' lawsuits to compel private companies to conform to the federal government's definition of "sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation."  Who better to define such terms — which touch on issues ranging from morality, biology, and social science — than federal judges or private litigants with fringe views?

The Trump administration's response to the legislation was spot-on, affirming the administration's opposition to discrimination and unequal treatment of persons but recognizing the legislation as a "poison pill" that would undermine religious liberty.

Similarly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (hardly a bastion of conservatism in the era of Pope Francis) came out against the legislation on the grounds that the legislation would undermine religious liberty.  Such reasoned opposition is unlikely to sway the feelgoodery of progressive celebrities (like Ms. Swift and others) who believe that legislation passed in the spirit of so-called equality must be advanced regardless of details.

The irony is most celebrities who voice support for such legislation live in areas of the country where such discrimination is extraordinarily rare.  One can imagine Ms. Swift and others sitting in Manhattan derisively mocking Trump voters in red states where such discrimination, according to them, is rampant.

Such a portrait of the United States is nothing but a progressive fantasy designed for celebrities, like Ms. Swift, to virtue-signal to a dedicated segment of her fan base, while earning the praise of progressive publications.  One could mistake this virtue-signaling for genuine activism, but her decade-late activism makes such a mistake unreasonable.

Photo credit: Glenn Francis of www.PacificProDigital.com.