Why We Need to Stop Idolizing Politicians
By Aarna Dixit
In recent years, the influence of politicians has expanded outside of the political spectrum, into pop culture and pretty much everything else. Basically, politicians have become somewhat celebrities. From the fan following of AOC to the memes of Bernie, politicians have become bigger, more influential public figures. With the growing influence and popularity of politicians, people have started asking the question repeatedly: Is it okay to idolize and put politicians on pedestals? The short answer: no.
Politicians and Social Media
One of the main ways that politicians’ influence has grown is due to their use of social media. Politicians have started leveraging social media platforms to reach younger audiences, which is a great thing and crucial for mobilizing young people politically. But this has had an unintended consequence; when young people see public figures on social media who reflect their values and opinions, they are more likely to idolize them. This idolization of politicians can be detrimental as it stops us from holding our politicians accountable.
Furthermore, politicians' influence on social media affect young people’s opinions on politics because our generation is constantly online and that is often where we get the majority of our news and information from. While it sounds ideal that young people are getting involved in politics, this media influence can be dangerous, as it may lead to people idolizing politicians after seeing only one side of them, and not holding them accountable for their negative aspects.
The Pew Research Center found that roughly 20% of social media users have changed their minds about a political candidate or a social issue because of material they encountered on social media. On the other hand, 37% of all social media users feel worn out by political content, as they believe that other users are too aggressive with their beliefs.
One example of idolizing a politician is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. RBG has been praised, and idolized, for her rulings on inequality and women’s rights. I myself have seen her as a role model in the past. However, she shouldn’t be pictured as a perfect, untouchable figure. In the past, Ginsburg made controversial decisions in Supreme Court cases, such as clearing the Appalachian Trail for a pipeline despite environmental activists’ protests that it would harm wildlife and forests. But when we idolize RBG for her feminism, we fail to recognize her racism toward Indigenous communities.
Parasocial Relationships with Politicians
Parasocial relationships, initially coined by Horton and Wohl in 1956, reference one-sided psychological relationships in mass media where the audience feels they know television personalities as friends, applying to politicians in this case. Supporters of a specific nominee invest considerable time, energy and interest into their candidate. However, according to an article by Howard University Doctoral Students, candidates generally remain unaware of the supporter’s existence.
We have begun forming parasocial relationships with our politicians, and have started treating them as celebrities, rather than government officials who should be held accountable. Celebrity worship makes it more difficult to hold people accountable or to view them in an objective light. It’s easier for us to forgive celebrities-–and by extension, politicians— for their wrongdoings because these figures now have loyal fanbases. When people idolize politicians like they do celebrities, they refuse to believe that their favorite politician would act a certain way or do certain things, and thus choose to remain blind to politicians’ faults.
Take Obama for example: He is viewed by many Democrats and neo-liberals as the model president, the perfect politician. His likeness has been used in countless memes and novelty t-shirts. While I do believe Obama’s presidency had the best impact on our country, Obama has a lot to be held accountable for, such as his various war crimes in the Middle East.
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “[Obama oversaw] more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries.”
Parasocial relationships with politicians have only increased since Trump’s 2020 campaign. While there has always been a consistent market for political merchandise, during Trump’s campaign, the use of a flag to show support for him became prevalent. In the past, flags have typically represented pride, territory and identity, with yard signs typically reserved for spreading awareness about candidates. By using the same colors as the U.S. flag—a national symbol which intends to promote freedom and justice—Trump assigned his campaign flag an alternate meaning consistent with his warped view of an ideal USAmerica. Flags denote territory, and by creating his own flag merchandise, Trump claimed USAmerica as his own. As such, he equated himself to the nation of USAmerica and urged his supporters to idolize them as they do this country, in the most nationalist way possible.
Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper went around Trump rallies and asking Trump supporters questions. Their answers show how many Trump supporters know little about his policies or the impact he has on various communities; rather, they latch onto a singular value of his that they relate to and support him relentlessly.
While this parasocial relationship is evident in Trump’s cult-like following, this is not just an issue among Republicans. There are many liberal and Democratic politicians who have also been idolized. “The squad,” composed of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “AOC” (D-NY), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), are progressive congresswomen of color who began their terms in 2018. These women have been hailed as some of the most progressive and diverse politicians. AOC herself coined this title for her and her colleagues. However, this term and this status that these politicians hold do have unintended harmful consequences. Although “the squad” highlights the dire need for greater racial and gender representation in Congress, while also promoting a sisterhood of underrepresented women, it has an unintended consequence.
Ocasio-Cortez’s term “the squad” portrays her and her colleagues as a clique the average person yearns to be included in. They position themselves as a group of women inspiring the next generation of girls, specifically nonwhite youth, to pursue political careers and advocate for social justice. However, using the term “the squad” reduces them to a social media image, a popular trend to emulate. As such, they aren't viewed as accomplished female politicians (with their faults) but a “squad” for people to fangirl over. Thus, they have attained a fan base that shouldn't be ascribed to politicians.
Nevertheless, it is important to recognize how amazing these women are. When the politicians we elect achieve important goals like co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, combatting the House’s 181-year ban on headwear (including hijabs), advocating for sexual assault and abortion rights as AOC, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib, respectively, have accomplished, it is difficult not to idolize them. However, there is a fine line between encouraging politicians to do the right thing and idolizing them relentlessly for the thing they should've been doing anyways. Instead of idolizing politicians and putting them on pedestals, we should value them as members of Congress who act on behalf of the people, simply as they are supposed to. These women, and their fellow politicians, aren’t celebrities; they are employees doing a job, a job that involves protecting and advocating for human rights.
We shouldn't be idolizing those whose job it is to secure basic human rights when they do exactly that. Of course, the societal context of this is all more complex. Rarely do we ever have U.S. politicians that protect global human rights. So when there are politicians who do so, we jump to support them. However, it's important that we always look at politicians objectively and hold them accountable for all their actions, not just the ones that appeal to us.
There is no perfect politician, and no politician should be treated like one
The bottom line is, there is no perfect politician. Our society is continuously revolving, and so are our politicians. It's important to hold our politicians accountable and always encourage them to do better. There is always more politicians can do, there is always more to be done to secure the rights of marginalized communities.
How do we stop idolizing politicians?
It's definitely not easy to stop idoling our politicians. When we're passionate about political and social justice, and we find someone who reflects our values and opinions, it's hard not to give them our full support. Especially when there are many more politicians who are hell-bent on eradicating human rights.
Nevertheless, it's important that we try our hardest not to idolize politicians. It's important that we make a conscious effort to hold our elected officials accountable, and to view them through an objective lens.
Header photo via Gayatri Malhotra / Unsplash
