On July 22, US president Joe Biden pulled out of the race for re-election. He simultaneously endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the next presidential candidate. In the midst of an outpouring of endorsements for Harris from influential Democratic Party members and celebrities, what stole the show was a post on X (formerly Twitter) by singer Charli xcx: “kamala IS brat.” However, Charli’s album BRAT took over social media with its lime-green cover, easy-to-imitate graphic design, Y2K fashion aesthetic, unapologetic acceptance of personal imperfections, and support of a lifestyle free from pressure to conform to societal norms, transforming the summer of 2024 into “brat summer.” Naturally, the statement “kamala IS brat” resonated powerfully with young voters. It’s undeniable that British artist Charli xcx tapped into something completely overlooked by others, including big names like George Clooney and other pop stars. Harris’ campaign team followed Charli’s account, even updating the background on their page to the “brat” aesthetic. The chances of this having any sway over the US election are slim, but it’s an excellent conversation starter on the relationship between American politics and pop music.

From a Korean perspective, the most notable difference lies in the fact that celebrities can and do speak out publicly about politics. Although political polarization is a global phenomenon—and as such, any mention of politics has the potential to create problems further down the line—there are still differences. In Korea, maintaining a mechanical, almost excessively inscrutable stance is seen as a kind of duty for those with public influence. But the environment in the US is different, where the culture emphasizes individualism and freedom of speech, the market is so vast that you neither can nor should aim for every corner of it, and there’s been a long history of civil rights and anti-war movements from the 1960s onward.

Of all the cultural connections out there, why has music become the nexus of speaking out for social causes? While movies and books receive a lot of attention and come with their own impressive degree of influence, they take a much longer time to create and are therefore less adept at addressing immediately pressing issues. By contrast, one song can be written, recorded, and discussed swiftly, making for a fast response time. Because they have wide audiences, are easy to remember, and they’re quick and easy to access, songs are hugely influential in a way that other media simply can’t touch. In other words, while movies and books often explore past events, referencing what happened back then to touch upon timeless, universal messages, music has the power to send a message we need to hear right now. And social media has only accelerated that potential.

Given their stylistic properties and their context, certain genres of music are more suited to sending a direct message. Political hip hop, a musical offshoot rooted in the 1960s civil rights movement, rose to prominence in the 1980s and has since been an influence on the public’s perception of hip hop as a whole. Country music, which has become increasingly prominent in the public eye, has traditionally reflected the political perspective of rural communities and the working class. The messages in these songs embody a complex interplay of values like conservatism, anti-elitist or populist views, and fighting back against injustices. The genre is particularly well suited to sending a message thanks to the narrative-like quality of a typical country song. For a long time now, notably since Donald Trump was president, country music has developed an association with conservative politics and Republicans in particular. For example, Jason Aldean’s recent 2023 single “Try That in a Small Town” was seen as touching on issues related to gun control and race, inviting both controversy and praise. But there’s a strong case to be made that the genre wasn’t always so closely associated with conservative politics: Its history of taking a stand dates all the way back to the period of US slavery, and has also seen celebrated singers of old like Loretta Lynn writing songs about women’s rights. An interesting case here can be found in Oliver Anthony, whose country song “Rich Men North of Richmond” leans into that longer-established sentiment within the genre, criticizing politicians and the wealthy while the singer has emphasized his own politically neutral stance. The song went viral, climbing to the very top of the Billboard Hot 100 despite the recording coming from a live video rather than in the studio, making it at once unquestionably contemporary and indelibly rooted in historical precedent.

But regardless of what Anthony had intended with his song, Republicans and Democrats alike claimed it upheld their side’s political views and that it sided with their own messaging. It’s reminiscent of an incident in 1984 where then-President Ronald Reagan made a reference to singer Bruce Springsteen’s song “Born in the USA,” claiming it shared in the president’s personal views on the American Dream. For his part, Springsteen objected to Reagan’s claim on the song and a number of Republican presidential candidates after him who tried to use it in their campaigns. Rather than make their own campaign song the way Richard Nixon did, or risk rejection as in the case of “Born in the USA,” in the political landscape of present-day America, politicians are more apt to associate themselves with singers who are of the same political bent and open about their views. And given that the US entertainment industry has traditionally aligned itself with the Democrats, the relationships between increasingly politically polarized artists and particular political parties have become even more pronounced. When former vice president and Republican Mike Pence announced his run for the presidency, he used the song “Born Free” by Kid Rock. The singer then chose music and performed for Trump when the former president was once again chosen as the official candidate of the Party at the Republican National Convention. Similarly, Beyoncé gave her blessing to the Harris campaign to use her song “Freedom,” while Katy Perry and Ariana Grande openly declared their support of the candidate.

Even in the US, reactions to, and analysis of, celebrities taking a political stance are mixed. Some see it in a positive light as a way to encourage young people to be more politically active, while others criticize what they see as an oversimplification of the issues of the day. Another dry perspective says that, although this practice does have the potential to increase voter turnout, it still won’t have an effect on anyone’s political views, and therefore that it does little more than generate a little extra public interest in elections. But if there’s one thing that everyone can agree is important, it’s that popular art forms need to be allowed the opportunity to use their influence in this capacity and speak on behalf of people whose voices might otherwise not be heard. And such an opportunity can never be fostered in a plain, sterile, politically detached place. Freedom of speech must be recognized as a right that everyone is able to enjoy.