Political Science Theater 3000

We live in a surreal time where the media, pundits, and writers endlessly debate and search for meaning in manufactured political narratives rather than engaging with political realities

Image: mutantreviewersmovies.com

You’d be forgiven for thinking something momentous happened in the US over the last few days. Word is, something huge happened politically.

What happened?

Cory Booker, the Democratic senator from New Jersey, spoke in the Senate. But he didn’t just speak. He filibustered. He spoke for 25 hours (25 hours and 5 mins to be precise). He smashed the old filibuster record.

At the moment he broke the record, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority leader, who is most recently famous for breaking ranks with fellow Democrats to vote for Trump’s budget which led him to cancel a planned book tour for his book talking about the explosion of antisemitism in the US—oh, and he also recently said that his “job [was] to keep the Left pro-Israel.”

Where was I? Oh that’s right, at the moment Booker broke the filibuster record, Schumer asked him “Would the senator yield for a question?”

Booker responded “Chuck Schumer, it’s the only time in my life I can tell you no.”

To which Schumer responded “I just wanted to tell you, a question, do you know you have just broken the record? Do you know how proud this caucus is of you? Do you know how proud America is of you?”

America is very proud of Cory Booker. Image: mississippifreepress.org

A Google search for “cory booker filibuster” returns thousands of results. A lot of these are just factual accounts of what happened but there are also a lot that have begun to dissect the meaning of Booker’s act of political theater.

And make no mistake, it was an act of political theater. It’s too early to see what, if anything, will come of it. A Democrat speaking for more than 24 hours about all of the horrors the Trump administration has unleashed in a rapid-fire torrent over just 72 days has an emotional dramatic heft that is made all the more poignant by the fact that it pitted human frailty and endurance against institutional rules that forbade Booker to even sit down. The previous record was held by Strom Thurmond, a racist white senator, while Booker is black. The stakes feel very high. Existential even. One can picture dramatic patriotic music swelling in the background to a crescendo when Booker delivers some of his best lines. No doubt clips of this will be used ad infinitum in Dem fundraising calls for the foreseeable future. Word has it that Booker sent out fundraising texts the minute he sat down from his speech.

Putting aside the fact that during Booker’s 25 hour speech—during which Israel killed at least 42 people and injured 180 in its ongoing genocide—he didn’t mention Palestine once, and that he is one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in his caucus, having been cultivated by and received nearly $1 million from pro-Israel donor groups and voted many times over the years (including today) and spoken in support of Israel and against Palestine, I want to focus on the optics here and what it says about the state of politics in the US and the rest of the world.

Because let’s be clear. Booker’s speech did not accomplish anything in and of itself. It was not technically a filibuster because it was not engaged in an effort to delay or stop the passage of any legislation. It was simply a speech. A very long speech, but a speech nonetheless. In terms of political and material outcomes in the lives of Americans, the speech is meaningless.

Liberal social media seems to think, however, that this was the second coming. People are already saying how “presidential” Booker looked and crowning him the next Democratic presidential candidate. People are acting as if breaking the speaking record of a racist segregationist is somehow by itself a victory for civil rights. It’s not. Let’s not forget that the goal of Thurmond’s filibuster was to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He failed, thankfully. But his speech had a tangible political goal. People are saying that Booker’s speech was the only form of political protest against Trump that has worked so far. But the speech itself was not undertaken with any political goal.

Now, I want to be careful here. Because, as I’ve said, it’s too early to see what, if anything, comes of this. And it’s possible that Booker’s speech will galvanize some kind of movement. Let’s really hope it does. And we should not discount these types of events out of hand but should instead use them to organize.

But man, I’m sure tired of the mainstream liberal media acting like the simple act of making a speech in the absence of any real political action is the be all and end all of American politics. We deserve better than performative gestures from people who will not, for the life of them, actually work to make our lives better when it comes down to it. How many people were arrested by ICE during those 24 hours? How many were fired by DOGE? How many bankrupted by insurance companies or mortgage brokers? How many died due to lack of adequate healthcare? Against the stark reality of the material conditions of so many Americans—and that’s not even considering the impacts of US imperialism globally—Booker’s speech seems pretty inconsequential. But you wouldn’t know that from the prevailing narrative.

What is said about reality is more important than reality

When I was a kid, I would come home from school, let myself into the house (typical latch-key kid) and go and turn the TV on to watch some cartoons. During commercials I’d flip through the channels to try to find something else to watch. Occasionally, I’d come across an unmistakable (and for me, very boring) show. In this show, old movies would play and three commentators (silhouetted against the screen) would make (ostensibly) funny and witty quips about what was being shown on the screen.

It’s an interesting conceit for a show. And it worked to make it a long-running cult favorite. But even more interesting for the present discussion is that what the design of the show ends up doing is setting up a situation where what is happening in the movie is secondary to what is being said about what is happening. No one watches Mystery Science Theater 3000 to watch the movies. They watch it to see what Joel, Tom, and Crow say about the movies.

As I’ve been trying to make sense of US and New Zealand politics over the last little while, it struck me a couple weeks ago that what is happening in our politics is exactly the same thing that happens in Mystery Science Theater 3000. We are constantly fed a media diet about what we should think about what is happening in our politics. And this manufactured narrative supersedes what is actually happening. The narrative becomes the reality, and it gets to the point where we end up debating the pros and cons of different political narratives, rather than trying to make sense of what is actually happening.

I know this is not a new insight. But the disconnect between reality and what people say about it does seem to be heightened these days. It feels surreal at times.

Case in point. Several weeks ago I was debating with a friend of mine about the virtues and vices of the new Trump administration. It became clear, as it always does very quickly, that we are simply not dealing with the same information.

After our discussion, he messaged me and told me that if I wanted to understand what was going on politically I should watch the following clip: “Just putting out there. If you have the courage listen to what these people have to say then you will realize the precarious situation America is in.”

So I watched the clip. And it became very clear to me very quickly (3 mins in) that this was not a clip of people discussing political realities. They were discussing political narratives. In the clip, a venture capitalist (close personal friend of Elon Musk, as if those exist) talks about why he thinks that former Dems have joined the Trump 2.0 coalition. And of course he talks about how it’s because of wokism and socialism and transgenderism and budget deficits and wasteful government spending and illegal immigration and how Dems don’t value American values of business success and entrepreneurship. And the whole time he references statements that Trump and Musk have made as trustworthy sources of facts. Meanwhile Megyn Kelly just nods along, adding her support at points but never questioning the narrative.

I sent a message back to my friend: “Is this supposed to be taken seriously?”

His response was illuminating:

“In all seriousness. To discount what they have to say by what they do is a failure to understand why the left is not in power. Uncomfortable as it might be, understanding how the other side sees the world and what they see as important is the path to winning back the moderates and the reasonable left”

So it doesn’t matter if what is being said here is patently absurd on the face of it, easily debunked, or doesn’t accord with reality. We still need to take it seriously because that is the way the right see the world. In other words, reality doesn’t matter. Only what people say about reality matters.

The narrative reigns supreme

The reality of this situation is made even more frustrating by the fact that a good case can be made that even the people who are crafting the narrative don’t believe what they are saying. The political landscape is full of stories of previously liberal or leftist politicos who have been “red pilled”, seen the light, and become conservative, Candace Owens being one of the most high-profile examples. She started out as a left wing activist, had a falling out with some fellow activists, and started down the conservative pundit path, where she enjoys wealth and status (and preferential treatment by Immigration New Zealand). Tellingly, red-pilling of formerly liberal men often occurs at the same time as credible accusations of sexual assault against them.

Tucker Carlson, a commentator on Fox News for nearly 14 years, including nearly 7 years as a primetime host, was at the center of a slander lawsuit for comments made on his show. During the court proceedings, lawyers for Fox claimed that any reasonable person would know not to trust the things that Carlson said on his show. Fox settled a defamation lawsuit for $787 million out of court with Dominion over claims made on its shows about election fraud. This settlement likely means that Fox would have lost the lawsuit, which would have been required to prove that Fox repeated false claims they knew to be false. The right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was penalized nearly $1 billion for knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school shooting.

So even a lot of the purveyors of the right-wing propaganda machine don’t believe what they are saying, and yet, their political analysis is taken as an accurate statement of social and political reality by millions of Americans and others throughout the world. And we, and the media, get caught in endless loops debating this stuff that is not even believed by the people who say it.

But it gets even worse. Because we’ve now reached the point where popular consensus on these manufactured political narratives is so broad that the pundits and commentators—who don’t believe what they are saying—are setting the actual political agenda. A study by Media Matters recently showed that the right wing dominates the most popular political media

This isn’t just disconcerting for those of us who hope to build a real leftist movement. It’s problematic because, as noted above, these are not just political commentators. As observed in an incisive article by Waleed Shahid and Francesca Fiorentini, right-wing media, unlike its counterparts on the left, does not just interpret political news and establishment talking points

Conservative media isn’t just successful because it’s entertaining. It’s successful because it is a parallel political infrastructure—one that fuses ideology, entertainment, donor money and mobilization into a self-reinforcing loop.

Right-wing media does not react to the Republican Party; it defines it. Figures like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk don’t wait for RNC talking points—they create them. They shape the conservative worldview from the outside in, disciplining elected Republicans through relentless pressure while radicalizing audiences against mainstream institutions.

The political power of this media strategy has been evident during the Trump era, where politician after politician has been forced to swear fealty to Trump or face electoral wipeout and political banishment.

Thus, we are stuck in an endless loop where conservatives concoct crazy political narratives, spread them through their media channels, and politicians are left with no choice but to play along with the narrative or face the wrath of their constituents.

Progressives, on the other hand, are often left to play defense (though there have been some wild conspiracy theories surrounding Russian control of US politics), often trying to debunk the litany of lies and conspiracies from the right. This is an impossible task, as the scale and volume of lies continues to grow. Indeed it is a professed strategy, as encapsulated by Steve Bannon’s famous quote, to “flood the zone with shit”, meaning the goal is to make it impossible to debunk or address all of the crazy stuff that is being said and constantly amplified by the internet.

Democrats on the other hand, have their own narratives to set, casting themselves as the defenders of democracy and social justice while failing to do much, if anything, to better the material conditions of their voters. Relying, instead, on vague platitudes and “vibes” campaigns while providing endless money for the military and legislating in favor of their corporate donors. Booker’s stunt is only the latest in a long line of such performative gestures. Meanwhile, Democratic elites chide and chastise their voters for not being more politically active or supporting a party that has very clearly abandoned the American working class. If only they would have voted for Kamala, we would all be basking in so much joy right now.

It really is just a duck

“Are you a duck?”/ “That is a conspiracy theory, but even if I was yellow…” Image: pixabay

Here in Aotearoa, things aren’t quite as hopeless, although they do appear to be trending that way. We have the advantage of having a much smaller country and many fewer politicians to keep track of. But it is still frustrating how often the media and public debate is focused on what politicians say about what they are doing, rather than the facts of what they are actually doing or the very real ties between various legislation and business interests. I won’t bore you with all of the details, but if you care to peruse Mountain Tūī’s Substack you’ll get the point. Nearly everything the current coalition government has done can be tied to business interests or further enriching the wealthy. You can very clearly follow the money trail. It’s really that simple.

But just as in the US, we’ve got our politicos here who feel the need to seek balance between competing narratives. What is very clearly just a cut and dried case of corporate and wealthy interests influencing a political agenda must be analyzed as if it’s just a difference of political opinion. We obviously aren’t going to agree on the best ways to run the country. We may as well give everyone a fair hearing. As if there is something inherently noble about seeking for the good bits of an opposing ideology no matter how harmful it is. As if picking out some factual statements made by an opposing party somehow negates the very real harms their ideology and worldview leads to—well, I don’t agree with everything Hitler says, but he does have a point about there being a lot of rich Jews.

This pursuit of “balance” as an end unto itself leads to what I view as some truly problematic takes, such as this one

Chlöe Isn’t a Saint, David Isn’t a Villain

This person’s whole publication—as evidenced by the title—is an exercise in helping us to be less certain about what we think about politics. I can appreciate the goal of helping people to see the nuances in politics, but Albert’s takes often amount to an explicit discounting of material facts—“My take: I don’t think wealth matters as much as we think it does”—in favor of broad generalizations and vague statements or assertions about how things are more complicated than we think they are. Here’s just one example

Let’s be real—politicians in New Zealand don’t enter politics for power. If power, wealth, or influence were the goal, there are far easier ways to get there. Being a politician is a massive sacrifice. The scrutiny, criticism, and public pressure aren’t worth it unless you genuinely believe in what you’re doing.

So if you think all politicians are just in it for power, please stop. It’s not true, it’s not helpful, and it’s a lazy way to evaluate politics. I’d rather you say you can’t be bothered with the whole thing than spread misinformation about something that affects all of us.

I just don’t understand this position. Sure, it’s true that maybe all politicians aren’t in it for power, but it’s also the case that if you want to wield power in a society, you can’t really do better than making the laws. So it just isn’t true that there are easier ways to power than politics—except maybe being wealthy—but that power comes through politics as well. And believing in what you are doing doesn’t mean you aren’t still seeking power.

And this typifies Albert’s approach to a lot of the thorny issues she confronts. She makes a statement, doesn’t back it up with any analysis, and then concludes that what she has said is self-evidently true or just leaves it hanging there as an opinion.

Again, this is not to say that people can’t have opinions, but when your opinion contradicts the facts on the ground, it isn’t just an opinion. It’s a bad opinion. When facts lead to one conclusion, there is nothing noble about drumming up uncertainty about the most probable state of affairs. And when people don’t follow the data and therefore have bad opinions, they should not be given the same weight as more evidence-based opinions. And there are just a lot of bad opinions when it comes to politics. And when these bad opinions are taken seriously, they skew the political narrative in harmful ways. There is nothing inherently useful or worthwhile in having an opinion.

The only reason I’m singling Albert out is because she has the habit of trying to justify ACT and the right-wing coalition’s policies by appealing to a more nuanced understanding of politics. And I’ve just been running into her stuff a lot lately. I’m sure there are others out there. But I try to avoid explicitly right-wing apologetics and analyze the more sneaky stuff. Which is why I spend a lot of time addressing the work of the New Zealand Initiative. And I think that Albert comes across as a sneaky apologist for the right here in New Zealand. She is very critical of left wing parties and politics, and very favorable towards right-wing agendas (this becomes even more clear in her comments sections). In fact, she comes across often as auditioning for a spot on ACT’s MP role.

I have nothing against her personally, and I’m sure we have fundamentally different worldviews. But I am up front about my views, while to me, she and others like her come across as providing cover for a destructive right-wing libertarian agenda here in New Zealand. And I can’t tell if it’s by design, but it worries me. And anyone who cares to can easily trace the influence of corporate actors in the current government’s political agenda. She, however, dismisses the verified ties between ACT, Seymour, and other members of the coalition government and domestic and international corporate actors as being too simplistic or lazy as explanations for their actions.

Simple yes. Simplistic no. There is an implicit assumption here that simple explanations are just not as good as more complex nuanced ones. This assumption leads to people discounting the evidence in front of them and looking for something more complicated as an explanation.

We are helped in this doubt about the probable state of reality by analyses by right-wing apologists or media who are always willing to humanize politicians with puff pieces or discount corporate ties. For example, when the ties between the right wing here in New Zealand and the Atlas Network were starting to be uncovered, Chris Trotter wrote a post about how we shouldn’t worry about David Seymour’s ties to the Atlas Network because, after all, where else would any self-respecting libertarian cut their political teeth?

Right Chris, working for think tanks with ties to tobacco and fossil fuel companies or people who want to privatize public goods and services isn’t suspect at all. And the fact that these think tanks don’t disclose their funding shouldn’t set off any alarm bells. We’re just all supposed to believe that these people are all just regular old politicians who just happened to work for a global chain of libertarian think tanks with clearly established ties to business interests and reactionary organizations and movements. Nothing to see here.

This kind of apologetics clears the way for political actors to lie, discount, dissemble, change the subject, or feign outrage whenever someone calls them out for their clear ties to special interests, claiming some breach of decorum or political correctness. Or they can package their policies in euphemistic language that hides their true agenda. Meanwhile, the media analysis rarely moves past an analysis of what is being said about a given situation. It sure looks like this is what’s going on, but Seymour denied it so we have to spend a lot of ink litigating what he says in the media.

But as the old saying goes, “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”

The ducks in the US are quacking loudly enough that a growing number of people are recognizing them for what they are. We’ve got a lot of ducks here in Aotearoa. It’s time we start labeling them as ducks and not getting sidetracked by those who would like to discuss the color of the feathers.