Why social media constrains, not democratizes, political engagement

“Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil…”

Former President Trump’s October 1st Instagram post caught my attention: I thought I was dreaming. Having spent six months managing the Democrats Abroad Instagram page, I knew the feeling well. You glance at a post, do a double take, and think: “There’s no way this is real.” And this happens with both candidates.

While Vice President Harris and Former President Trump certainly sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum, their social media strategies do not. In fact, they reflect a more concerning shift in US politics: nowadays, campaigning pivots around provocation, not truth. Social media runs on emotional antagonism and anger. Thus, these platforms promote a shallow, reactionary engagement with politics that undermines candidates’ ability to run on genuine platforms. This threatens US democratic institutions as a whole.

Freedom of speech on social media platforms may not be the issue, but instead, the freedom of emotional manipulation. That is, there is a big difference between lying with words and lying through highly effective video montages that leverage people’s emotional triggers. By allowing politics to have such a free presence on social media platforms, we usher in an era of “pathos politics” that discourages candidates from using policy-based strategies.

For instance, open Donald Trump’s Instagram. His recent feed exhibits video montages of ‘everyday Americans’ struggling to pay for goods whose prices have doubled or tripled since 2020. These statistics are untrue, and certainly unrepresentative of many other factors at play in inflation since 2020. And yet, they are highly effective.

Candidates should not be allowed to post all the manipulative content they desire: if campaigns are built on lies, then policy solutions will be founded on non-existent issues as well.

Moreover, people criticize the professionalization of politics – I would argue that it’s better to address their memeification. Memeifying the political arena since the advent of social media has come to the detriment of our political systems’ smooth functioning, especially in the US.

This stance may seem elitist. I agree that politics becomes more accessible when we address forums to all demographics, especially youth. However, maintaining a minimum amount of professionalism in Washington means that candidates are selected based on competence, not charisma. Elected officials should not be those with the most Gen-Z interns reappropriating TikTok trends. They should be those with policy plans and a vision for the future.

While it is fun that Vice President Harris can gain traction using coconut tree memes and over-exploiting Charli XCX’s comment “kamala IS brat”, overdosing on humor in a social media campaign decredibilizes the entire platform. By overindulging in humor in July, Harris became the hype candidate. But, that enthusiasm quickly ran out after her nomination at the Democratic National Convention. She has since shifted her campaign strategy to a much more serious focus, but had she not, voters would not be voting for a credible politician. Countries are not run with memes.

Overall, social media strategy will not determine the election, and certainly not among older voters. However, their effects last beyond elections, normalizing fear or humor-based politics while stigmatizing the thorough policy content that the US desperately needs.