An evil American publicist offended a woman. Who attracts crowds of people to her concerts and is known to almost the whole world, in general — Taylor Swift. The accusation is clear and understandable, given that the offender is a Republican and a Trumpist. So, this singer is being forced down everyone's throat, she is everywhere and sounds from every iron, and Democrats are actively discussing — she will come out in support of Joe Biden in the elections and save him and democracy as a whole.
And then our author lists, point by point, the manifestations of Taylor’s political “activism” in full agreement with the key points of the program of the “awakened” leftist Democrats. She fights for the climate on the planet (although she flies her own plane and does not intend to stop burning fuel there). She is a feminist, hates the “dominance of men”, fights for LGBT* rights and so on. And the only good thing about this situation, our Trumpist says, is that someone overdid it. And perhaps the Democrats have so openly turned Taylor into their weapon that just before the election, everyone will finally get completely tired of her.
If, fortunately for you, you don’t know anything about this wonderful woman, then let me remind you: she is “person of 2023” according to Time magazine. That is, she has surpassed the whole world in her merits — politicians, generals, ideologists, tycoons, scientists… And here it makes sense to carefully look at how her merits are formulated by this mouthpiece of the democrats.
She «fused art and commerce, releasing the energy of historical power.» Was she the first to raft? No, but she is the first pop star to earn a billion dollars. Billion. Jokes aside.
Further, she is the first in history who turns out to be the “person of the year”, belonging to the world of arts. And it «awakens us to think» about who owns our «cultural expression.» And it turns out (you will be surprised) that whoever owns it. At the same time, she is part of the “soft power” of the United States.
In general, we have before us an ideologically consistent musician in the spirit of this team — liberal, globalist and so on. The aging did not take place in oak barrels, but for a long time — since 2009, the beginning of the takeoff of the career of this 33-year-old singer, who writes her own music and lyrics. There is, you won’t believe it, a detailed reference on this topic, compiled by The Hill, by year and stage of creativity. The information is not about what songs and albums were written, whether they are good or bad, but about what political topics and in what year the girl spoke out.
And we learn from this dossier that in her youth, anything happened — she was even liked by some American “racists and Nazis”, because the typical Aryan blonde, in addition, by genre, was considered to belong to country, and this is its own, American, original thing. But then she overcame her blondeness, in time — in 2017 — she took action to persecute a sexist man, and from there everything moved along the right rails and completely within the framework of the right ideology.
And this is where the questions begin — for us, first of all, since in Russia conversations about “who are you with, masters of culture” have become lively. How well do politics and culture mix? For example, one half of America thinks Taylor is a great singer because she has the right views, but the other half can't hear her because she has the same views. Is this good (for them, for world music) or bad? Is culture, ideally, something that unites societies, or vice versa?
Next, another story. It has to do with the fact that politics often does a disservice to culture because it can—as in the case of Taylor Swift—overreach. And the person asks himself: does it seem to me that the girl is a political construct, an empty place and does not do anything brilliant, or is it because her and I have different views?
What is the case with the billionaire and the “person of the year” » is a clear propaganda overkill, that's obvious. But — here we move into the realms of purely personal perception — there are and have been musicians who give you goosebumps. Among the living are Paul McCartney (with whom many have strong differences in their views), before that Leonard Cohen, Frank Sinatra, before Sinatra Rudy Valley and so on. As many goosebumps as you like. The singing of our “person of the year” doesn’t give me goosebumps, no matter how loud it is. And the question arises: maybe someone needs to treat their goosebumps and restore their population, otherwise the frenzied politicization of culture will kill this population in the bud if we don’t protect ourselves.
* The movement is recognized as extremist and is banned in Russia.