Culture, Politics, and Modern Media
A recent debate between Adam Mockler and Hasan Piker that largely focused on Hasan's recent statement that he'd vote third party over Gavin Newsom left me uncomfortable. I watched the whole discussion and I think they both went at it in good faith, but I just felt irritation at both of them for most of the video and it took me a while to figure out why. Fundamentally, both of them are toxic in their own way, even if I also think that they are both a net positive. But in both cases, their toxicity is a direct consequence of what they do for a living. Hasan streams eight hours a day and to keep people engaged he needs to be over the top. Adam is a debate bro, and that tends to mean he will prefer being technically correct as opposed to generally right. They both have a role to play, but I think that the way many view them creates a situation that is bad for all of us. The meta-analysis running through my head the whole time centered not so much on what they said, but how I knew their fans would respond.
Idolizing public figures is something I have thought a lot about recently, and the more time I spend with the idea, the more upset it makes me. Part of my ire is that this allows people to get to a correct position without understanding why it is correct, they just blindly accept what their favorite figurehead says and that is that. Still, an even bigger source of ire is that people aren't media literate enough to understand that these people are playing roles carefully constructed to maximize engagement. I touched on this above, but Hasan being over the top, hyperbolic, and loud is part of what has drawn an audience to him, his streams are a spectacle. Part of what made Adam famous is that he is spectacularly good at keeping his cool while intellectually humbling someone who isn't prepared to speak very precisely. But that is just the Democrat version of owning the libs.
This all kind of dovetails into the recent Crockett v Talarico debacle, where Talarico got a massive boost from a Colbert episode that was pushed to YouTube only, after CBS did some shenanigans. Crockett and Talarico have very similar policy positions, with Talarico running somewhat to her left. Both camps quickly devolved into attacking each other, with neither really being intellectually honest about it. Neither of them has taken AIPAC money, but both are accused of it time and time again. Neither of them has a good stance on Israel, let's be clear about it, they both support Israel to some degree, they have both made statements denouncing the genocide (my word, neither of them has called it a genocide to my knowledge.) The meaningful differences come down to style, she is a fighter through and through, he is taking the Mr. Rogers lane.
I suspect that both camps would readily call MAGA a cult of personality, but neither would accept that they are engaging in the exact same type of politics. This kind of behavior permeates our political landscape, and it is fucking killing us. Mayo Pete, a man who has never won an election above the local level, who has no consistent policy platform across his career, who has recently signaled that he is willing to cede ground on trans rights issues, despite being a gay man himself, is the front-runner in polls asking who people want as POTUS in 28. Ignoring how useless a poll is this far out, I can't see any reason to put him in that slot based on anything but name recognition and some celebrity worship.
Then the comments about electability come in, and I think this is a nuanced discussion to be had, but it has been weaponized for so long that I am entirely unwilling to entertain it coming from some rando. Centrists use this to bludgeon progressives constantly, calling them extreme and unpopular, despite all data pointing to the exact opposite conclusion. Or that it comes down to race and gender, because two historically bad female candidates lost to Trump. Sure, HRC and Kamala are both women, but they are also both establishment Dems who wanted to maintain the status quo at times when the average American was completely disillusioned with the way things were going. Why then are we boiling it down to race and gender? It feels bigoted to my eyes. The same arguments were used against Obama, but he performed historically well on election day. The difference? He promised change. He promised progress, he didn't really deliver, but he spoke to the problems we have as a society. Trump does the same thing, he correctly identifies pain points within the population and exploits those to great effect. Now, I am not advocating for politicians to be deceptive in the messaging, I think that people are too hungry for authenticity to risk that, but it does work.
I am not pretending charisma and messaging are, or even should be, meaningless, but everything in our political sphere is performative at this point. Even when putting forth earnestly held beliefs, public figures put on a show first and foremost in the majority of cases. I can't even be mad at the public figures, because the people reward it with donations, with engagement, with adoration, and most terrifyingly, loyalty. I don't really have a call to action, or even a point in writing this beyond needing to get it off my chest, but I truly worry for our future when this is how we treat one of the single most serious aspects of our lives.