In the ever-changing political landscape, it seems something new has emerged: the Era of Antics. There was a time in American history when our representatives were meant to be the best of us. Founding Father James Madison expressed his belief in Federalist No. 10 that U.S. representatives’ “wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country” and that their “patriotism and love of justice” makes them least likely to betray their fellow countrymen’s interests. If Madison were alive today to see what has become of our officials, I imagine he would be highly dissatisfied. So, what went wrong? When I speak of the Era of Antics, I’m referring to a time in the American story when politicians are incentivized to engage in behavior that is over-the-top, absurd, or otherwise counterproductive to the political process. These behaviors are dangerous because they overshadow the merits of substantive political dialogue, compromise, and progress. From prolonged filibustering to outlandish policy proposals to toxic social media culture, the integrity of our political process is crumbling to the ground. What was once a bastion of democracy has been reduced to one of Trumpian golden eyesore sneakers and Dark Brandon laser beam coffee mugs.
There’s a clip out there from 2013, which is really quite a fun watch, of Ted Cruz reciting a classic Dr. Seuss book titled Green Eggs and Ham. It got over 270,000 hits on The Associated Press’ YouTube channel, though it would shock me if millions haven’t seen it somewhere or another. He stood up in front of the Senate for over 21 hours that day in an attempt to stall and prevent the passage of a budget. Filibusters are lengthy speeches delivered by politicians for the sole purpose of obstructing the legislative process; in the Senate this could technically go on indefinitely, so long as the senator remains standing, talking, and isn’t voted offstage by a supermajority vote of 60-40.
While not a contemporary phenomenon, the filibuster was in some ways a precursor to the Era of Antics. The longest filibuster in American history took place in 1957 when Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours in an effort to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which aimed to prevent the infringement of African American voting rights. The problem with these sorts of behaviors is that they feel inherently detached from the pursuit of democratic principles. These methods slow down political progress and contribute to legislative gridlock, consequently costing valuable taxpayer dollars and giving rise to American dissatisfaction with government idleness. Similarly, a study published in the scholarly journal Economic Inquiry by Mixon, Hobson, and Upadhyaya found that the televising of the House of Representatives increased sessions by 88-250 hours and that Senate sessions were increased by 252-431 hours. While C-SPAN has done wonders for political accountability, an unintended consequence seems to be that politicians now have significantly more incentive to perform stunts in the chamber, make unnecessary points, and yap to kingdom come. Televised politics essentially act as a free advertisement for your elected officials. Now, politicians are extrinsically motivated to deliver a show to their audience back home and across the nation.
In January 2024, Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey proposed House Bill 3084. This bill bars furries, a community of people with an interest in anthropomorphized animals, from engaging with school curricula and activities in K-12 education. Upon enforcement, the students would have their parents called on them, and if the parents don’t show then animal control would be called instead. Humphrey has also previously proposed creating a hunting season for the legendary Bigfoot. The absurdity of Humphrey’s propositions is so blatant that it’s perhaps comedic. But odds are, unless you’re an Oklahoman or you’ve read into his antics, you probably haven’t ever even heard of Justin Humphrey. Politicians require name recognition to be re-elected; think of all the yard signs put up around election time that spell out the candidate’s name and nothing more. The expense of these signs is justified by the fact that name recognition alone has proven to be highly impactful. A study in the American Journal of Political Science by Kam and Zechmeister utilized a phenomenon called subliminal messaging, when words that are not consciously read are still processed in the mind, to display this. They made up two hypothetical candidates (Williams and Griffin), randomly assigned subjects into two groups, displayed videos of letter strings to each group, and then had them decide which candidate to vote for. The catch is, the experimental group in the study had “GRIFFIN” embedded within the letter string that was shown to them. While only 33% of the control group voted to elect Griffin, 46% of the experimental group did, and the difference is statistically significant. The reason this study is so important is that it shows the immense value of name recognition to politicians. The more that politicians are in the news, capturing the media’s attention, the more their names become implicitly recognized in our minds. Especially for relatively unknown politicians, such as state representatives, name recognition is so important for election prospects because local politics are grossly undercovered in our modern discourse. Just one or two stories in the news turn a local representative into a celebrity compared to their peers in office. And this behavior isn’t localized to Oklahoma: it’s right in WashU’s backyard. Missouri State Rep. Nick Schroer, who represents the St. Charles area, recently proposed legislation that would allow state senators to challenge one another to a duel at high noon. These ridiculous stories make for great headlines, and that is exactly why these elected officials are so willing to make a mockery of themselves. To be elected, people must know your name.
And what better way for politicians to get their names out there than social media? The prevalence of social media sites such as Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok are likely the biggest drivers in ushering us into the Era of Antics. Everything that happens in the contemporary political scene has the potential to spread like wildfire over the internet to eyes whose attention would have otherwise never been captured. I remember laughing hysterically when the notification on my phone during COVID popped up – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had decided to play hit video game Among Us with popular Twitch streamers on-air. While I don’t have any major qualms with this, I think it speaks excellently to the situation at hand. Donald Trump also played a major role in the proliferation of social media usage among politicians, having a formerly prominent and controversial profile. It feels as if politicians are incentivized now more than ever to make bold claims and engage in short-form content creation over the internet. These posts spread fast, getting their name out and constructing an engaging internet persona around their otherwise relatively lukewarm life. As funny as it sounds, your elected officials have become social media influencers – slaves to the algorithm – if they wish to stay competitive with their rivals. Posts spread especially fast, contrary to the public interest, when they contain political animosity. A study conducted by Rathje, Bavel, and Linden in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found after analyzing millions of political posts by news organizations and members of congress that the odds of a post being shared or retweeted by each reader roughly doubled when it was about the “political out-group” as opposed to the “political in-group.” In other words, if an account that leans Democrat posts about Republicans it will have on average about twice as many shares or retweets as if the post was about Democrats (and vice versa). Furthermore, they state, “out-group language consistently emerged as the strongest predictor of shares and retweets.” We live in a world where the best way for a politician to get their ideas heard is by expressing animosity toward their political opponents. I’d rather live in a world where politicians express their policy positions and debate them rationally among skeptics and dissenters. They shouldn’t be penalized for looking inward and expressing their beliefs, and they certainly shouldn’t be rewarded for casting blame for every issue on ‘the other guy’. All this behavior does is promote the seemingly irreconcilable ideological divide in our country.
The Era of Antics is here, but the curious thing about time is that it passes. As it goes on, we can build up our defenses and whittle away the dangers of this era until we find ourselves somewhere new. We should start by increasing emphasis on civic education and media literacy, so people are less susceptible to the political grandstanding that’s so rampant in the present world. It is through education and open discussion that we and our fellow compatriots move forward, striving closer and closer to the democratic ideal. At the legislative level, things become more complicated. While I don’t pretend to have the answers, we should certainly examine the notion of filibuster regulation. We have reduced the vote requirement to end a filibuster in the past from 67 to 60 votes, meaning there’s nothing that would stop a future congress from reducing that number again. Additionally, imposing term limits could reduce theatrical behavior because any official in their last term naturally loses much of the incentive to keep their name in the news, as they can no longer seek re-election. Today, the line between substance and spectacle has never been more blurred, but I hold faith that one day we will learn to see it again.
Josef Westberg ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.r.westberg@wustl.edu.