7 minute read
FROM PUBLIC SERVANT TO PUBLIC FIGURE
Politicians’ fanbases shield them from criticism, creating an idol who can do no wrong, as influencer culture permeates politics.
WORDS BY LAUREN SKYE LAWSON | DESIGN BY LILA JOHNSON
Advertisement
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more than a politician. She feels like a celebrity and a best friend at the same time. She’s AOC. Whether it’s opening up Instagram to watch live as she sips wine and talks politics, watching her Vogue makeup routine on YouTube, or joining her Among Us Twitch stream, she knows how to draw a crowd. Those watching extended far past potential voters in her district; they were fans of all ages and locations. The fundraising and political messaging appear secondary to her casual rapport.
Being a successful politician today relies heavily on this balance between celebrity and friend. Direct access and relatability come first, ensuring that donations and voters do not fall far behind. It is not enough to hold rallies and enact legislation; politicians must have a fan base, one that will repost, defend, attack, and reimagine. Instead of looking for voters, candidates are securing “stans.”
The social media generation is used to immediacy and access. Their relationship with politics is no different, expecting direct communication and mainlined information at all hours. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are reminiscent of a high school lunchroom—organized by group, filled with a cacophony of chaos, gossip, jokes, and updates.
It hasn’t always been this way, though. In the past, American citizens would have to grab the newspaper or gather around their radio to hear the president’s weekly address. Information moved slowly. Even during the television era there was a lag; news of President Kennedy’s death broke on television half an hour following his death.
Today, it’s an information buffet—or information overload, depending on one’s point of view. Everything is instant. Everything is social. Viewers tune into presidential addresses at their own convenience on any online platform, add comments and jokes on a whim, and share photos of who’s best dressed. Even those not watching the event can follow along in real time, through updates from their social media of choice. Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration was lacking in real-life attendees this year due to COVID-19, but there was no shortage of virtual audiences. Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris, and Jill Biden’s fashion choices filled feeds the moment they emerged. Bernie Sanders’ signature coat and mittened hands became a viral meme, selling stickers, shirts, and other memorabilia within days.
With the rising digital presence of politicians comes rising attention paid to political figures online. Constituents can interact with politicians, and vice versa, as well as get immediate updates on the goings-on of the political world. This increased engagement has resulted in a unique phenomenon, particularly with young people. Admiring a politician, respecting them or supporting them, is typical. However, with the general culture of social media and the increasing connectivity between users and politicians, idolatry has further emerged out of support, with politicians appearing more and more as celebrities, rather than public servants. There, of course, have been politicians in the past with this idol status, but advancing technology has allowed for it to happen quickly, more frequently, and in a new way.
“I don’t think it would be possible without technology, at least not to the same level,” said Dr. Daniel Ponder, L.E. Meador professor of political science at Drury University. “People idolized Reagan, they idolized Kennedy … it is not an entirely new phenomenon, but it’s gone up over time with technology.”
All that open communication comes with a downside, though. As the cost of campaigning has increased, so has the need for available cash. That means politicians are also fundraising—often on those very platforms that allow for all that open communication. Ponder calls it the permanent campaign. “[It] has been a real foundation of modern American politics,” Ponder said. [TECHNOLOGY] HAS MADE IT EASIER TO DO THE PERMANENT “ “[Technology] has CAMPAIGN, TO made it easier to do the permanent campaign, SUSTAIN IT AND BE to sustain it and be SUCCESSFUL AT IT successful at it.” DR. DANIEL PONDER, L.E. MEADOR PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
In 2003, presidential hopeful Howard Dean broke records by raising about $14 million in a quarter. Due to the ability to fundraise on a large and convenient scale online today, that would not appear a success story. Obama was one of the first to utilize social media for his campaign efforts, signaling to others how important the internet can be.
“Because of the internet and the ease with which Obama was able to reach his potential constituents, he was raising $60 million in a month,” Ponder said.
Many politicians, particularly Democrats and younger candidates, use the nature of these platforms to their advantage. Fundraising and the attention economy, which is basically just fundraising for popularity, are made more accessible. Witty tweets to argue with an opposing political figure, pop culture references, and Among Us live streams are prime examples of politicians adopting the trends of online platforms to generate attention and support.
Even when not intended by the politicians themselves, their support base often takes to social media to defend or advertise their political idol of choice. Heated arguments between so-called Bernie Bros and other supporters, such as Kamala Harris’s KHive, illuminate the passion behind political involvement in a way that is unique to the present day. Growing polarization and “the ease with which people can communicate, unfiltered” contribute to this voter behavior, according to Ponder.
Politics are not immune from the influencer and cancel culture of the social media age. Various online users latch on to the candidate they prefer and, at times, begin viewing other candidates as the enemy. Additionally, an online mishap circulates quickly and widely, impossible to delete from the public eye, leading some unhappy individuals to declare that politician ‘cancelled.’ For that politician’s staunch supporters, though, many will be quick to take up the torch, defending that politician regardless of the situation.
Ponder identified two primary downsides to this political stan culture.
“Not only do they run the risk of not seeing some of the issues or foibles with the person they idolize, but that creates a blind spot from seeing the good in somebody else that might be on the same side and hold a lot of the same policy issues,” Ponder said.
Near the end of the 2020 Democratic primaries, it was clear that Elizabeth Warren would not win. However, her supporters (or fans) remained loyal. As other former-candidates threw their support behind Biden or Sanders, Warren remained silent, to the dismay of Sanders’ supporters. Warren’s base was quick to defend her, with many claiming that she does not owe anyone anything, especially her male opponents. This serves as an example of the unwavering loyalty and idolatry of many politicians today. The notion that politicians, who are public servants, do not owe the public anything, is a dangerous pedestal upon which to place them.
These firm loyalties, and the consequential divisions, can lead to high expectations and a disdain for compromise. Ponder expressed that those political stans may have the limited view of their preferred politicians as saviors, people single-handedly capable of curing the ails of the world. Alongside this confidence in their candidates comes distrust of others, and an expectation of ideological purity is set.
“It makes for a disdain for any sort of compromise, even if it is the only way to get something done,” Ponder said.
Despite the downfalls, the shift in politics due to the rise in social media has increased connectivity and engagement in an entirely new way. Politicians can now easily communicate with constituents, fundraise, and campaign. Even after winning their races, the permanent campaign continues online regardless of their ability to appear inperson. This, of course, benefits the politicians. However, if done right, it benefits average citizens as well. Transparency and accountability for elected officials increases due to the direct access for their constituents. Interest in politics for often uninvolved voters, or potential voters, may also be a benefit.
Ponder said, “An upside is that I think it gets people into politics that otherwise might not have been interested before. [But] I think there’s something of a risk of them becoming AN UPSIDE IS THAT I THINK IT GETS PEOPLE INTO POLITICS THAT “ disenchanted or OTHERWISE MIGHT disillusioned with NOT HAVE BEEN politics if something were to happen.” INTERESTED BEFORE
