"Celebrities lead from the front and are seen as "role models" but are not necessarily leaders."
I think there is a paradox in this existence which the celebrity involvement in "elections" causes people to have problems with.
If a celebrity can be seen as a "role model" and "lead from the front" without the long term responsibilities that come with "leadership", then they get to have the "influence" of "leaders" without having to worry about their reputations necessarily being harmed...
"Code is law" turned into "It was just a test" because he is a "celebrity" and not a "leader"...
now, I don't have a problem with the latter statement, but the issue now becomes he has completely contradicted himself and seemingly gained credibility along the way...THAT seems to have some negative consequences if this is extrapolated beyond one person...
If people are not responsible for how they use their influence, you might have people investing 160 million into something off a reputation that completely goes belly up over-night...
Wait...
Celebrities are likely to become President in the USA. Trump and Reagan for example were celebrities who became President. I think when it comes to reputation there are different areas or spheres. Someone's personal life doesn't give me any indication on what quality code they can produce or what sort of decisions they can make in their professional life. People often have social problems or personal problems but are geniuses. Celebrity culture puts the personal life front and center.