We may be 200 miles away, but New York City’s mayoral race has been a dominating topic of GW’s campus discourse. As a highly politically active school, many students follow influential elections around the country closely, especially on social media. Clips from mayoral race debates and interviews have been showing up on my TikTok feed over the last few weeks, often showcasing the stark contrast between the candidates’ personalities. This reflects a broader trend across politics as candidates at various levels of government turn to social media to attract people to their campaigns by branding themselves with distinct personalities. This can be taken as a promising way to get a younger audience involved in politics, but I’ve also noticed that many aspects of this reliance on social media in U.S. politics are representative of the emerging trend of performative politics. Today’s politicians rely more on performance than policy to get elected. As a politically engaged student body, we must look past performance when considering candidates, and students who intend to have a career in politics should practice encouraging their classmates to focus on policy nuances. 

Three candidates are vying to win the Nov. 4 election and be New York’s next mayor: Democrat Zohran Mamdani, Republican Curtis Sliwa and independent candidate Andrew Cuomo. This campaign cycle has been marked by heated debates, extensive spending and candidates’ social media clips littered with exaggerated insults and a lack of substance. All these factors have contributed to making this election one that prioritized candidates’ performances and personalities over specific policy. 

The candidates are actually proposing very different policies, but that fact is underdiscussed in media coverage. Front-runner Mamdani has capitalized on his young age to appear more down-to-earth and especially in touch with other social media users. He has done this through posts aimed at appealing to “meme culture” and appearances with influencers and comedians. Cuomo regularly cites his more extensive political experience to tell the comeback story of a wise politician. He dramatically flaunts this at the expense of his opponents, like claiming that despite being a state representative, Mamdani has “never had a job.”  Most of the viral soundbites from the mayoral debates and interviews have come from Sliwa, who makes seemingly outlandish statements, like when he brought up testosterone levels in the debate room or referenced ‘Braveheart’, to convey a street-tough persona. These soundbites have brought attention to Sliwa without clarifying the specifics of his platform.

While personality and charisma have always played a role in politics, there has been an outsized focus on it over the last few election cycles both state level and national, taking away from the development and understanding of specific policy. Anyone following this race on social media is likely to know these curated identities but not specific details about how these candidates plan to address housing, transportation or employment. One way for voters to avoid electing representatives without knowing their associated policies is by turning away from social media to get information about the election. Traditional news sources can provide more comprehensive information about viewpoints and policy than a 30-second social media clip can. Information from outside media is also likely to be more accurate because it is not coming directly from the candidate as a form of political propaganda. 

Not only is the emphasis on performance coming from the candidates themselves, but the broader political sphere also encourages it. In the NYC race, moderators have repeatedly asked questions aimed at generating clickable soundbites over policy-focused discussion. During the first mayoral debate on Oct. 16, one moderator asked the candidates, “Have you ever purchased anything in a cannabis shop?” Instead of directly asking the candidates about their policies relating to the legalization and distribution of marijuana, the moderators focused on their own personal decisions, likely as a tactic to personalize the candidates and draw in more support and viewership. Another such question was “What’s your go-to breakfast order at the bodega?” With these questions, there is less of an incentive for candidates to spend time and effort developing comprehensive policy proposals. This means voters may not know exactly what they are voting for, and candidates may not have fully formed plans to implement their ideas. I have observed a lack of understanding of candidates’ policies on campus, as some students form their opinions entirely based on their personalities and social media presence, like liking Sliwa because of his humorous statements rather than any specific viewpoint. 

It is particularly troubling to see a heightened focus on performative politics among a student body that claims to be politically educated and engaged. Many GW students plan to enter the world of politics, meaning their current adherence to performative politics will have widespread impacts. As a community, we must prioritize understanding and furthering conversations about political decisions and policies. It is essential for future lawmakers to practice grounding their decision-making in facts. 

This pattern of performance-based politics extends beyond the NYC mayoral race and onto the national level. In the most recent presidential election, performances played a huge role in the campaign strategy of both major candidates, as many voters felt information about the policies being proposed was unclear. On the Democratic side, former Vice President Kamala Harris ran a campaign that relied heavily on a post from pop star Charli XCX declaring that “Kamala IS brat,” a reference to her Summer 2024 Brat album. The Harris campaign team capitalized on this by rebranding their social media to resemble the album cover and posting performative videos and memes that had nothing to do with the candidate’s platform. Among the younger generations, including GW students, this became an identifiable feature of her campaign, often overshadowing her policy proposals. 

On the Republican side, President Donald Trump also played the role of a performer. In an effort to appeal to the working class, Trump staged a photo op at McDonald’s, where he put on an apron and handed out fries to staged customers. This moment in the campaign did not clarify his stance on raising the minimum wage or other economic policies, but was rather a performance aimed at getting a group of people to identify with him. Political performances like these make elections more divisive, as focusing on personality often makes voters’ allegiance to politicians more unwavering, regardless of policy or other factors. 

It is evident that the sanctity of political debate is declining as candidates prioritize viral soundbites and conveying crafted personalities over detailed policy discussions. This should raise the alarm for voters due to the importance of political debate in developing robust policies that best serve constituents. Debates are a way for politicians to be held accountable in the process of developing a clear platform and for constituents to better understand their arguments. Furthermore, the forum of a debate allows voters to compare the details of two platforms in real time, making policy discussion essential for informed decision-making. 

If debates continue to stray away from discussion of policy, voters will increasingly rely on personality to make their decisions and won’t truly know how a candidate will impact the lives of constituents. Political performances reduce politics to identity and emotion, eroding the deliberative foundation that successful policy development depends on. It is particularly concerning to see this play out on GW’s politically active campus, where we should be at the forefront of complex political discussions. The issue is even more relevant for the large population of GW students studying political science and other related fields, as their future careers may give them the opportunity to promote policy-centered discussions rather than elaborate performances. As engaged citizens and future politicians, GW students must be aware of the pattern of performance-based politics and how it puts true political debate in danger. To combat this, we should focus on identifying and understanding specific policies, even if it requires more individual effort.