To endorse or not to endorse, that is the question

We are all familiar with product endorsement by well-known people. We know they don’t necessarily buy, use or even value the product themselves, but are prepared to pretend otherwise via a paid endorsement.

When the UK Labour party chose Keir Starmer as leader, it wasn’t a majority expressing a collective belief that Starmer was the best possible leader. It was an endorsement, likely to be temporary and only for the duration of the current political situation whatever that may turn out to be. 

Numerous people in the public arena endorse, but do not necessarily believe a range of progressive political ideas. Profitable or merely fashionable and socially approved endorsement may come with the public role even if belief doesn’t.

As we know, celebrities commonly endorse environmental politics although this tends to be portrayed as an expression of personal belief. Yet celebrities, pundits and orthodox climate scientists do not necessarily believe what they endorse. Circumstances could change, but as things stand, they endorse because there would be some disadvantage to not endorsing.

Endorsement of ideas and political trends can be forthright, vehement and even angry, but alternatively it may be low-key, ambiguous or limited. If circumstances change endorsement may change too and if the change is negative enough, then endorsement fades away into social history.

The point to be made is that it is often useful to frame public debate in terms of endorsement rather than expressions of belief. This dispenses with the presumed depth suggested by belief and brings out the link between personal endorsement and personal advantage.

In certain prominent public debates we might also choose to frame scepticism as a principled refusal to endorse, whatever the financial, political or social advantages which must be turned down.