In Defense of Boring Politics

This piece is part of a series of articles produced in a special topics class taught by Professor of Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought Lawrence Douglas on the upcoming election. Articles may have been reviewed by Douglas as well as other members of the class prior to submission to The Student.

After the vice presidential debate, one common comment kept on coming up: “That was boring.” Having watched the vice presidential debate from the red room, I myself noticed that as time went on, more and more people left. It makes sense; the debate was a lot less sensational than the debate between Harris and Trump. The truth of the matter is, for most college students, politics has always been sensational. Gone are the days of Obama and Romney; today, oftentimes, politics feels like a reality TV show. While it may be more interesting to follow, I believe that boring politics is the ideal that our country should strive for.

After Trump descended from an escalator in Trump Tower and announced his bid for the presidency, the political landscape of the country was completely changed. Before, the norm was to run toward the center, but Trump went for the most extreme positions and made it incredibly entertaining to watch. Sensationalism certainly isn't new in American politics, and neither is extremism, but this was perhaps the most sensational election in my lifetime. The thing is, the sensationalism that surrounds the way that Trump delivers his policies and his words obfuscates the reality of what the policies will mean for the country. It has also shifted what we see as the limits of acceptable conduct which has also further obfuscated policy implications of his presidency.

That is not to say that there can't be danger in boring politics. Trump's vice presidential pick, JD Vance, certainly holds many incredibly harmful beliefs. The difference is that it is far more clear what those outrageous beliefs are, and it is much easier to target those beliefs because he doesn't have the cult of personality around him and because he doesn't make everything into a spectacle. It makes it easier for the average voter to make an informed choice because there's no smoke and mirrors blinding them to the consequences of their vote.

Some may further argue that the sensationalism that occurred during and after the 2016 election was somewhat beneficial because it greatly increased voter turnout and many people cared about the election. The purpose of a democracy is to represent the people, but the smoke and mirrors is preventing this from happening. It causes people to vote against their own interests in favor of following empty rhetoric. This is an existential threat to our democracy.

The spectacle of politics makes extreme ideas far more palatable because they are framed in a somewhat unserious manner. That framing also makes unacceptable behavior, such as dodging questions or going back on your word, more acceptable to the general public. A good example that comes to mind is the Access Hollywood tape, where there was very little impact on the public because it was almost expected. What before would have been a damning condemnation of a candidate’s character was no longer seen as such. But this should not be the case. All candidates should be held to a high standard of behavior especially when they are going to become president of the United States.

However, it is incredibly hard to solve this problem without mass buy-in from the public, not just on one side but across the aisle. Until we decide that we are going to reject this sort of sensationalism and reject candidates who refuse to back up words with substance, there is nothing we can really do. At the end of the day, if such a strategy works in their favor, politicians always have an incentive to maintain a performative political environment. The American public has, by and large, rejected Donald Trump in the 2020 election but has not shown him that his sensationalist politics are not welcome here. As his cult of personality has grown, so has skepticism of these politics. The question then becomes, which one will win out?