The Nations’ Arena: Performative Politics is Taking Over the Court

 https://stockcake.com/i/spotlight-on-podium_1372815_141870 

Edited by Morgan Pustilnik, Elizabeth Adams, Amelia Cantwell, and Owen Andrews

At the State of the Union Address on February 23rd, Democratic Representative Al Green stood from his seat holding a sign that read “Black People Aren’t Apes” for 27 million viewers to see. This marked the second year in a row that he was removed from the chamber during remarks by President Donald Trump. Green’s sign quickly became the focal point of the media coverage of the event, rather than the reason behind it. The president’s prior social media comments about former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama were widely criticized as inappropriate, but the media focused on the interruption that the sign caused rather than centering on why a sitting congressman felt compelled to hold up the sign in the first place. 

Current press room briefings highlight a similar pattern. Karoline Leavitt, the president’s current press secretary, has become known for sharp exchanges with reporters during briefings. What trends online is rarely the policy information she delivers—the stated purpose of the press briefing—but rather the viral “comebacks” directed at journalists. Her confrontational performances generate more public attention than the content of governance and democratic functions themselves. 

For example, during a recent press briefing, Karoline Leavitt dismissed a reporter’s question about tariffs, responding, “I now regret giving a question to the Associated Press,” before moving on. The exchange quickly became about the comeback and the critique of the reporter, rather than the administration's position on tariffs. Exchanges like this replace substantive answers with performative responses. 

Performative politics is reshaping how Americans consume media centered around governance, a shift that deserves scrutiny. Scholars describe “performative” politics as the “politics of spectacle,” where actions are designed primarily to attract attention rather than contribute to substantive policy discussion. While protest and pushback can be justified, these moments often overshadow the policy debates our democratic institutions are meant to prioritize.

Attention has become the currency of American politics. Dramatic moments are likely to be clipped and shared instantaneously across a variety of social media platforms, bringing them to the forefront of America's attention in a matter of seconds. Information that is expected to be conveyed to the public is always at risk of being hidden behind the dominance of performance. Some argue that both politicians and reporters have a strong desire to get certain information in front of the public eye. Regardless of intent, substantive politics gets displaced. 

Green and Leavitt do not stand alone in their performances. Endless examples of performative politics persist with the rise of the media, including actions from former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Press Secretary Jen Psaki. In 2024, Representative Greene drew attention during a heated oversight hearing by criticizing Representative Jasmine Crockett’s “fake eyelashes,” claiming they prevented Crockett from fully seeing Greene’s point of view—a comment that quickly went viral. Psaki, meanwhile, became known for her sharp press briefing comebacks, often referred to online as “Psaki bombs,” which frequently drew more attention than the policy details she was communicating. In a 2021 briefing about supply chain issues, a reporter raised concerns about delays in everyday deliveries. Psaki interjected, quipping, “The tragedy of the treadmill that’s delayed." This moment circulated online and developed more recognition than the policy details that the press secretary was communicating. 

These moments illustrate a broader pattern: in Congress, the press briefing room, and other political amphitheaters, media coverage amplifies spectacle over substance, diverting public attention from the issues at hand. This is not accidental. Prioritizing spectacle over substance is a fundamental problem of the media business model, motivating the press to grab attention through as little depth as possible. 

Americans should be encouraged to speak out when government actions seem wrong, as disagreement is a foundational principle of democracy. When viral moments are framed by the media to attract the most views and clicks rather than prioritize substance, they can push Americans further away from being motivated to engage with their government. The problem is not the protest, but instead the imbalance of attention between the protest and the policy information the government is attempting to deliver. 

If performance continues to dominate coverage, citizens will become less politically knowledgeable and disengaged. In today's fast-paced media environment, headlines often shape Americans' knowledge about politics. About 6 in 10 Americans will not read past the headline of the news article. Viral moments capture attention but are rarely able to sustain it. These moments are not designed for deep analysis, making it less likely that Americans will understand legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and other government action. Without a clear understanding of these governmental processes, it becomes significantly more difficult for the public to hold leaders accountable. 

Political performances shape what Americans remember about the current state of democracy. As political moments and media coverage of governance continue to be attention wars, Americans must make a choice to be informed participants—not spectators—and give more attention to substance over spectacle. This shift will not happen on its own. Americans, lawmakers, politicians, and advocacy groups must put pressure on media outlets to prioritize depth over clicks alongside more educational investment in media literacy so that the public can stay informed.