After U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) delivered a 25 hour-long speech to Congress in protest of President Trump’s executive actions, internet users claimed the appearance lacked substance. Some people argued Booker’s speech was a virtue signal that was impractical and accomplished nothing. Others defended the senator, explaining that no other Democrat has taken significant action against the current administration. The anti-Trump coalition’s disagreement over Booker’s speech reveals a debilitating trend: Unnecessarily divisive conversations dominate our online spaces in the name of nuance and complexity.
Calling Booker’s speech performative is intentionally provocative, lacking attention to the crux of the complex issue. Developing a truly nuanced opinion requires long-term reflection that cannot be replaced by “hot takes” on social media feeds.
Antagonistic opinions are often the ones that make waves online. They are ego boosts made for the purpose of appearing enlightened. In the case of Booker, accusations of performativity don’t offer new information or considerations; they’re just clever talking points with viral potential. Splitting hairs over Booker’s speech is itself performative: It makes users feel and appear refined, but it distracts from the tangible significance of Booker’s actions, acting as a book-end instead of a starting point for further research or considerations.
The group that is divided on Booker is largely unified in their discontent with the Trump administration’s most drastic policy actions. As this anti-Trump coalition is ideologically diverse, friction and disagreement are inevitable. But in an attention economy, these discussions take up space, and there must be an end goal in sight to make them worthwhile. Booker should be graded with specific criteria in mind, and “performativity” is trivial at best. In the larger scheme of the executive agenda, the classification of Booker’s speech doesn't matter. What matters is the role it plays in Trump resistance and how it can inform future actions against the President.
Booker should not be immune to criticism, and his record-breaking speech is no exception. However, social media debates have a tendency to lose the plot. And overly-personal, pedantic fuss misses the point of an inherently symbolic act. Being a politician is, to an extent, performative.
As students — and, for many of us, as liberals — we see ourselves on the “good” or “informed” side of political debates by default. It is easy to talk about misinformation and radicalizing internet echo chambers, but we aren’t immune to misguided arguments. Especially when contrarian internet talking points appear complex at face value, it is easy to skip the research and internal reflection and simply adopt someone else’s opinion.
We’re all guilty of saying “I read somewhere…” or “I heard…” rather than admitting that our source is a Tweet. It is easy to pretend that our surface-level comprehension is something impressive, but, in reality, the extent of our knowledge is no greater than the next person.
To truly be politically informed students, voters and citizens, we can’t rely on clickbaity arguments that we see on TikTok. Part of being a diligent student is recognizing the gaps in our own knowledge — politics is no exception. As we navigate a messy political landscape, humility and intention are our greatest strengths. Now more than ever, we have to deconstruct the opinions that we encounter, and critically analyze their purpose.
CJ Lair ’28 can be reached at craig_lair @brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
CJ Lair is a staff columnist at the Brown Daily Herald. He is from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and plans to study Political Science at Brown. This is his first year writing for a publication, and is especially interested in political developments and their impacts on the Brown community.
