Influencers now play a major role in American politics. Democratic candidates court Hasan Piker and the Trump administration tries to win over internet posters. Millions of Americans now turn to influencers to learn about what’s going on in the world. If politicians want to reach young audiences, they have to reach out to these agents of the new media environment.
However, influencers cause a lot of headaches for politicians. Piker’s bizarre antics and inflammatory comments provide ample material for the opponents of the candidates he endorses. In spite of the Trump administration’s cultivation, many right-wing influencers have turned on the president and the GOP, with a number of them now calling for their listeners to support the Democrats. Anyone who’s spent time on X knows how insane online political spaces are.
Influencers aren’t the first media pioneers to suddenly have sway over real-world politics. Radio and cable news hosts came to play a massive role in American politics starting in the late 20th century. But influencers are very different from these figures. They’re not like newspaper columnists of old either. They’re far more like reality TV stars.
It doesn’t matter if these influencers have aspirations of being serious political operators or intellectuals. They all have to be like Snooki of Jersey Shore fame to succeed in this chaotic environment. That gets a big audience, but it also handicaps their ability to change politics. Entertainment matters far more to their audiences than getting their preferred candidates elected.
For those who might not remember the early Obama years, Snooki was the most popular reality TV star of her time. The diminutive guidette captured America’s attention through her obnoxious personality, constant feuds with her Jersey Shore co-stars, and never-ending personal drama. The people couldn’t get enough of her antics. Jersey Shore, like most reality TV shows, became popular because it gathered together walking cartoon characters and set them at each other’s throats. These seemingly real people couldn’t stop cheating on each other and having the messiest personal lives imaginable. Their erratic behavior would get them ostracized in normal circles, but it made them celebrities when done for the sake of the camera.
The worse the behavior, the better.
The influencer space has a lot of similarities to reality TV. Petty feuds and aberrant behavior are constants in this sphere. These feuds are ostensibly about political differences, but they’re usually motivated by the same base emotions that fueled reality TV drama. They also descend to the same low-brow realm of Real Housewives’ fights. While both sides may insist the fight is over politics, both sides begin trading personal barbs about the opponent’s sexuality, drug abuse, looks, relationships, and, most importantly, alleged betrayals. Many influencer feuds, like reality TV feuds, are between former friends or associates.
This isn’t how Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly conducted their affairs in their prime. It’s hard to imagine Pat Buchanan or Bill Buckley dedicating their columns to the sex lives of their political opponents. But this is how things play out in the influencer world.
This is what audiences want. The most successful influencers obsess over engagement numbers. They know they’re guaranteed a viewership boost if they dedicate a stream to spilling the beans on a rival influencer or a former associate who “betrayed” them. Audiences can’t get enough of this drama. Many of them care more about this pettiness than about anything going on in the world. Engagement is often higher for many of these influencers when they’re engaged in a bitter feud with another podcaster rather than analyzing some current event. Many podcasts now exclusively devote their time to shit-talking other influencers while ignoring actual issues. It appears the market rewards that content focus.
Candace Owens’s war against Erika Kirk isn’t just a mark of low character. It’s a conscious business decision to increase viewership and attention for Owens. People can’t get enough of her “revelations” against Charlie Kirk’s widow, and Owens continues to deliver what the audiences want. It’s always worth remembering that these influencers are running businesses. They’re not going to engage in content they think will hurt their bottom line.
For many, influencer politics has replaced reality TV as their favorite form of entertainment. Zoomer and millennial men aren’t going to watch the female-oriented reality shows of today, but they will closely follow the drama of their favorite podcasters.
Feuds are just as important to influencers as they were to Snooki. More than anything else, these conflicts shape the politics of influencers. These opinion makers will completely flip their views if a feud demands it. They can be an immigration restrictionist who suddenly decides immigration doesn’t matter, a Christian nationalist who suddenly loves Muslims, or a libertarian who suddenly admires socialism if they think this stance will own their opponent more effectively. This is how so many supposed right-wing extremists cheer on DSA candidates and cry over ICE shootings. What’s important isn’t their ideology, it’s score-settling with some rival right-winger.
Reality TV stars are notorious for their legal and behavioral problems. It’s not surprising that people who wish for their daily lives to be shown to the world would have issues. But these problems don’t diminish their star power. If anything, their indefensible behavior increases their popularity. More messiness means more drama.
We see the same thing play out with influencers. It’s insane what political influencers get away with. Hasan Piker proudly boasts of how he zaps his dog. A tiny fraction of the dirt on liberal streamer Destiny would’ve buried a political columnist 20 years ago. The same is true for right-wing influencers. Revelations of secret homosexuality, a transgender phase, drug addiction, spousal abuse, work with left-wing reporters, dependence on AI, and other tawdry behavior don’t diminish influencers’ popularity at all. As stated above, the worse the behavior, the better.
Both reality TV stars and influencers need a complete lack of shame. There’s no way someone with shame could air their dirty laundry every day to the entire world. It doesn’t matter what people think of you as long as they’re paying attention. Whatever achieves that goal is good, no matter how abhorrent the action is.
One difference between reality TV stars and influencers is that no one takes the former for role models. We expect them to be messed-up caricatures of real people. There aren’t cults formed around them.
Influencers are a different story. One could argue that the cults of the 21st century are the fandoms surrounding influencers. It doesn’t matter if these figures change their opinions every week and lack any moral compass. Their followers look to them as messiahs.
No one saw Snooki as prophet.
The reality TV model for influencer politics provides a large audience for these figures, but it certainly limits their ability to shape offline politics. While Hasan can boost youth interest in a left-wing candidate, he’s also a liability in both the primary and the general election. If Abdul El-Sayed loses in Michigan, you will see even DSA candidates keep their distance from Piker. Influencers on the Right don’t even seem to benefit Republican candidates who directly associate with them. Thomas Massie recruited a large number of influencers to campaign for him in Kentucky. He ended up losing his primary by 10 points. James Fishback got unprecedented levels of influencer support in a primary filled with weak candidates. He received a mere 10 percent of the vote.
The Snooki model of influencer politics is important to understand, especially when these commentators promise an independent movement that will take over American politics. This sphere is far too fucked up to ever conquer electoral politics in such a manner. It’s about as serious as the Jersey Shore cast, at the height of their popularity, forming a third party. America would die of laughter from that proposal. When influencers begin promising their own third party, we should treat it with the same level of seriousness.
Influencers aren’t going away anytime soon. The new media environment makes them an even more important presence on our timelines. They can shape the politics of young people and energize campaigns. This happened with Trump in ‘24 and is happening with DSA candidates in the midterms. But the influencers don’t present a sustainable model for real-world political engagement. You can’t base a movement around reality TV antics and petty feuds. You need people who will put these aside to focus on affecting actual change.
This may be tougher for the Right than it is for the Left, as more of our movers and shakers operate as if we’re a market rather than a movement. Whatever is good for business, even if it blackpills your audience into never voting, is a virtue. That’s why they stick to the Snooki model.
It’s great for attracting viewers and attention, and that’s all that matters.
Order Scott Greer’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” from this link.
I feel like this all has come to head relatively recently, probably after the murder of Charlie Kirk. Not only was he the great unifier, bringing together different wings of the Right, but Kirk avoided Snooki-behavior and proved to be a pretty good role model. I doubt Candace, Tucker, Megyn Kelly, or some of these others would go off the rails like the did if Charlie were around.
And, like you say, this is all just business. The Left has its patrons or they are independently wealthy like Piker. Those on the Right have to hustle and channel their inner Snooki to make a name for themselves. It'd be nice for some rich guys to fund some smart charismatic people and let them set the standard for discourse about policy. Just a thought.
Or, better yet, we can all take to reading and not bother with the influencer stop content.
Isn't everyone who presumes to speak for millions, or wants to be famous, a Snooki though? The late, great Z-man called them "carnies". This includes Rush and Bill O'Reilly and Bill Buckley. Rush and the Bills were more civilized for sure, but they were carnies, just for more civilized men. The people you mention - Hasan and Candace - are carnies for a less civilized time, but also primarily for people who are under 35, the people who are the most swayed by carnies.
At some point Scott you should stop paying attention to this youth carnie slop because it makes me wonder if you're feeding off the drama as much as you're "critiquing" it from 10,000 feet.