The power in protests, proclamations and performative politics
Back in December I wrote a column on symbolism and substance in politics. At the time, I was especially struck by the problem of what it means to take political rhetoric — the constant, often bizarre social media statements flooding from the White House being a great example — 'seriously but not literally.' As we continue, both in Kansas and across the country, to be caught up in a political environment filled with protests and proclamations that may or may not be meant to be taken seriously, a return to the topic is in order.
Here in Wichita, the largest stand-alone city in Kansas, the biggest controversy of the past two months has been a declaration which our City Council issued in support of Transgender Day of Visibility, a national occasion promoted by LGBTQ organizations. Mayor Lily Wu did not endorse that proclamation, though neither did she prevent the majority of council members who did support it from publicly presenting it. Since the relevant city ordinance seems to stipulate that the mayor must formally read any proclamation issued by the council, her action (or lack thereof) has generated heated debate, including multiple accusations both by and against the mayor.
I brought up this controversy while speaking to a civic group recently, and one participant asked a question that seemed to capture what the majority of that group seemed to be feeling: why are we fighting about entirely symbolic proclamations anyway? It's a fair question.
Like I wrote in my previous column, it's very easy to get frustrated over what might be broadly called 'performative politics.' Often that term is used critically: you, or the church or business or interests you represent, don't have the votes or resources to affect real change, so instead you just 'perform' your demands, grabbing attention, disrupting others with your silly, symbolic claims.
But making statements, carrying signs or organizing on behalf of recognition isn't silly at all. Rather, these kinds of performative actions occupy a range of places within our political life.
At one end, there are those who possess actual administrative or executive authority: a CEO, a mayor, a governor, or the president of the United States. The statements such people make, even if they're legally groundless or substantively empty, still matter, because the authority they possess will invariably influence others to take action, even if there is no basis for doing so.
On the other end, though, are ordinary citizens, possessing no more authority than anyone else. But citizens can nonetheless take up signs to express frustration (as sizable crowds have done almost every week over the past few months in Wichita, Kansas City, Hays, Topeka, Lawrence and elsewhere), and by so doing capture the attention of others. Also, any citizen can petition elected leaders to plead for recognition for the work one does, or the identity one represents. If enough agree, then suddenly a degree of legitimacy — and, crucially, the awareness of others—is granted that didn't exist before, empowering those who made the request.
Over the past decade, as social media has transformed political life, multiple scholars have begun to rethink democratic politics, and the place of performance and spectatorship within it. Today we live in an environment where 'attention' is often the most valuable commodity anyone can possess. Those who can do the work and organize with others and put themselves forward to make sure their cause is seen (and sometimes their opponents triggered or scandalized), may not be a distraction; instead, maybe they're doing politics the way it is fated to be played today.
Russell Arben Fox is a professor of political science at Friends University in Wichita.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Simone Biles rails against ‘sore loser' conservative activist over trans athletes
Olympian gymnast Simone Biles on Friday night clashed with conservative activist Riley Gaines over a transgender athlete's participation on a Minnesota high school's softball team. Gaines railed against a post on social platform X from the Minnesota State High School League that celebrated Champlin Park High School's first softball state championship win. 'Comments off lol,' Gaines wrote, referencing MSHSL's X settings. 'To be expected when your star player is a boy.' The pitcher on Champlin Park's team identifies as transgender and pitched a shutout, delivering a 6-0 win over Bloomington Jefferson High School on Friday. 'You're truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race,' Biles responded to Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer, calling her a 'bully' and a 'straight up sore loser.' Gaines, a student athlete turned political pundit, has become a vocal critic against the participation of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. Her rise on the right came after tying for fifth place in the 2022 NCAA Championships with transgender swimmer and LGBTQ advocate Lia Thomas. 'You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sport,' Biles continued in her thread on Friday. 'Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!! Earlier this year, Gaines joined President Trump at the White House when he signed an executive order barring the participation of trans athletes in sports that align with their gender identity. This order prompted an investigation into the Minnesota high school sports governing body and the state's federal funding, which the North Star State is fighting in court. The former University of Kentucky swimmer responded to the 11-time Olympic medalist's defense of the young athlete, calling her remarks 'disappointing.' 'It's not my job or the job of any woman to figure out how to include men in our spaces,' Gaines wrote on X. 'You can uplift men stealing championships in women's sports with YOUR platform.' 'Men don't belong in women's sports and I say that with my full chest,' she added. Last month, a conservative group on behalf of three softball players sued the North Star State over its 2015 transgender athlete policy, local outlets reported.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Why there's no shame in corporate America boycotting LGBT Pride Month
'Private companies can do whatever they want,' leftists once snorted in defense of companies like Facebook banning conservative speech. But now the tables have turned, and LGBTQ activists have found themselves in a state between panicked and sulky as their fair-weather friends in corporate America are pulling sponsorships of Pride celebrations this month. As a result, Pride events across the nation are facing budget shortfalls, and activists are blaming everyone but themselves. Advertisement 8 LGBT Pride events across America have seen millions of dollars in sponsorship deals dry up since President Trump returned to the White House, according to reports. lazyllama – At least 14 companies — including Pepsi, Citi, MasterCard, Nissan, Garnier, and US defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. — have dropped or greatly scaled back their financial contributions to annual Pride events nationwide. Anheuser-Busch, makers of Bud Light, has also backtracked on Pride sponsorship — and for good reason. The company lost an estimated $395 million after its botched partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney led to a nationwide boycott in 2023. Advertisement Ever since, Bud Light has struggled to reposition itself as the good ol' boys, God 'n' guns beverage, to lukewarm reception. The numbers are grim: Heritage of Pride, organizers of New York City's festivities, by far the largest in the nation, faces a $750,000 shortfall this year after nearly a quarter of corporate donations dried up. This follows years of operating at a loss: In 2022, the group was $2.7 million in the hole, and another $1.2 million the following year. 8 At least 14 companies, including MasterCard, have scaled back on their financial contributions to annual Pride events nationwide. 8 Pepsi has also decreased its financial contributions to Pride events around the country. Advertisement 8 Nissan is also including in the group of companies that have either scaled back or dropped their contributions for national Pride events. Christopher Sadowski In California, longtime corporate donors ran for the hills when San Francisco Pride executive director Suzanne Ford reached out begging for money. Twin Cities Pride has seen longtime corporate sponsors in Minnesota shift into retreat mode, and now the group is scrambling to meet a $200,000 goal. Organizers in Washington, DC, Milwaukee, and St. Louis all have reported being ghosted by big companies they once relied upon. All of this is occurring at a time when a dozen companies have withdrawn participation from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, a shakedown scheme used by the LGBT nonprofit behemoth to enforce woke capitalism. For LGBTQAI2S+ activists, the reason for all this is simple: It's Trump's fault. Advertisement 8 Trans-influencer Dylan Mulvaney set off a billion-dollar backlash against her 2023 sponsorship program with Bud Light Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/MEGA 8 'There's a lot of fear of repercussions for aligning with our festival,' Wes Shaver, president of Milwaukee Pride, said. Wes Shaver 'There's a lot of fear of repercussions for aligning with our festival,' Wes Shaver, president of Milwaukee Pride, told The New York Times, joining others who believe companies fear they may be penalized by the White House if they donate to Pride events, citing the administration's effort to curtail DEI initiatives. (When asked about this, the White House didn't respond to multiple requests for comment from The Post.) What's equally likely is that everyone just has gay fatigue — a collective eye roll at the oversaturation of LGBT themes in culture, combined with all the negative connotations now associated with Pride. Once a niche event of subculture fun and revelry, it's devolved into a mainstream, month-long orgy of far-leftism that looks more like a tent revival beckoning an impending open-borders transgender race war. Rage-hungry conservative influencers have latched on to videos of public nudity and shameless parents forcing Pride spectacles onto their children. Transgender insanity has swallowed the entire movement and, in doing so, repelled middle-of-the-road Americans. Simply put, it's exhausting. Advertisement And what company, in its right mind, wants to be tied to all that? While activists say companies are afraid of Trump, the same could have been true about Biden. Businesses certainly felt the Democrat gun in their back to start coughing up their woke bona fides during his term. Overall, the corporate retreat from Pride is a good thing for everyone, and it ought to continue. The grotesque parade of political and corporate pandering that's defined Pride over the last two decades is embarrassing, as any honest gay person will admit. 8 Trump has set his sights on banning identity-based initiatives and organizations, according to reports. AP After all, who wants their sex life validated by junk food companies and bomb-makers? Advertisement It's also alienated plenty of old-timers. 'The cold corporations are more important to the rotating Heritage of Pride than the actual surviving Stonewall veterans. Plenty are still alive and kicking,' former New York City Pride Grand Marshall Williamson Henderson, of the Stonewall Veterans Association, and who participated in the original Stonewall rebellion in June 1969 (the reason Pride Month exists), told The Post. 8 NYC Pride alone has seen nearly a million dollars in funding losses. Some community observers, however, suggest the Pride event has become over-commercialized. Getty Images Corporate America is a shallow and skittish place, and only the most destructive HR managers want their businesses butting in on the culture wars. Advertisement Rather than blaming Republicans for a long-deserved pushback against Rainbow Totalitarianism, LGBT activists ought to do a better job policing themselves, embark on a little soul searching as to how they became so toxic, and maybe even re-examine their unbridled love of money. That last one might be a tough sell. Free Love? Not anymore. It's just about free stuff.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
