Politics as Wrestling: Spectacle Over Substance Drives Dangerous Discourse

The "Wrestling-ification" of Politics: How Showmanship Over Substance Creates a Dangerous Spectacle

This conversation with Josephine Riesman, author of "Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America," reveals a disquieting truth: modern politics has adopted the playbook of professional wrestling, prioritizing spectacle and manufactured conflict over genuine policy and governance. The transcript exposes how the concept of "kayfabe"--the suspension of disbelief required to accept wrestling's staged reality--has infiltrated political discourse, enabling a landscape where perceived enemies often collaborate behind the scenes while performing animosity for public consumption. This dynamic, Riesman argues, distracts from tangible harm and erodes the possibility of effective governance. Those who understand this shift gain a critical lens to analyze political theater, recognizing when outrage is manufactured and when genuine issues are obscured by performance. It is essential reading for citizens, journalists, and political strategists alike who seek to navigate--and potentially reclaim--the public square from the grip of performative conflict.

The Illusion of Conflict: Neo-Kayfabe in the Political Arena

The core of Riesman's analysis lies in the concept of "neo-kayfabe," a modern evolution of wrestling's traditional art of deception. Old-school kayfabe demanded a strict adherence to fictional personas, a lie so deeply committed it bordered on truth. The mid-90s saw a shift, driven by deregulation and a need to acknowledge the artificiality of wrestling. Neo-kayfabe, however, operates on a different premise: the audience knows it's not entirely real, but the performance is designed to tease out what might be real, drawing viewers into a secondary ecosystem of rumors and speculation. This is precisely how modern politics functions. Politicians, much like wrestling promoters, manipulate this secondary ecosystem--social media, blogs, word-of-mouth--to create narratives.

"The idea is they, the people putting together wrestling shows, much like the people putting together political talking points, know that there is a secondary ecosystem of like the rumor mill through blogs and social media and word of mouth and group texts, whatever. People are getting other information about whatever the candidate or the show and the point or the the politician, I should say, and the point is to try and manipulate that secondary ecosystem so that people will start getting info that maybe even conflicts with your proclamation that everything that's being seen is fake."

This creates a dangerous feedback loop. When politicians engage in public feuds while privately maintaining collegial relationships, as Riesman notes is seen even on the Supreme Court, it breeds cynicism. The "suck it" catchphrase, once a source of adolescent rebellion, now appears in official political retweets, signaling a descent into performative immaturity. This isn't just about unserious politicians; it's about a systemic shift where the performance of politics--the drama, the feuds, the manufactured outrage--becomes more important than policy outcomes. The immediate gratification of a political "win" or a viral "own" overshadows the long-term consequences of actual governance. This is where conventional wisdom fails: it assumes a rational electorate seeking solutions, not an audience captivated by a wrestling match. The "damage done" by political figures, regardless of their personal motivations or the "reality" of their feuds, becomes secondary to the spectacle. Riesman points to figures like Linda McMahon, whose business acumen in the WWE translated into a political career, as an example of how the operational side of entertainment can directly impact governance, often with a casual disregard for the consequences of dismantling institutions like the Department of Education.

The Spectacle of the "Tweener": Charisma Over Character

The wrestling concept of "heels" (bad guys) and "babyfaces" (good guys) is also a potent lens through which to view political figures. However, Riesman argues that the most compelling political figures today often occupy the space of the "tweener"--a character who blurs the lines between good and evil, behaving antagonistically but resonating with a segment of the audience. Donald Trump, she suggests, is a prime example, akin to Stone Cold Steve Austin. While not a traditional "babyface," his willingness to break norms and act provocatively, even offensively, garners a fervent following that sees him as an anti-hero fighting a corrupt system. This "winning" through spectacle, even if it's not for a greater good, is incredibly effective in an attention economy.

"And Trump is very much like Stone Cold Steve Austin in that he is not exactly a babyface, although there are certainly people in the Republican coalition who see him as some kind of angelic, he can do anything, he's the great leader, blah blah blah. They obviously don't see him as a heel out and out. I think more often than not, they see him as being like Steve Austin in that he's a guy who acts like a heel, but he does it for the greater good, you know."

This highlights a critical downstream effect: the demand for charisma and spectacle can sideline candidates with more nuanced policy proposals. The Democratic Party, Riesman implies, has struggled with this, often favoring a more traditional, less theatrical approach. The focus on "hope" and idealized figures like Obama, while appealing, fails to meet the current political moment, which demands counter-theater. The "wrestling-ification" means that a candidate's ability to deliver compelling, almost confrontational, messages--akin to a wrestling promo--is paramount. The failure to recognize this, and the continued reliance on consultants who don't grasp the theatrical demands of modern politics, leaves the Democratic side vulnerable. This creates a competitive advantage for those who embrace the spectacle, as they can capture the energy of disaffected voters seeking a figurehead to rally behind, even if that figurehead's actions are detrimental. The potential rise of figures like Logan Paul into political spheres, as Riesman chillingly speculates, underscores the terrifying possibility that pure performance, divorced from substance, could become the primary qualification for leadership.

The Fandom Economy: Exploiting Grievance for Engagement

The audience's role in this "wrestling-ified" political landscape is not passive; it's integral. Riesman observes that successful political figures, much like successful entertainers, tap into and cultivate dedicated "fandom communities." This involves identifying a core base of highly enthusiastic supporters and working that niche relentlessly. Donald Trump's enduring appeal, for instance, is attributed to his ability to secure the unwavering loyalty of 30-40% of voters who will back him "on anything." This fandom is often fueled by a shared sense of grievance and a constant need for something to be angry about.

"It means that the smart people in politics have figured out that you need to access these kind of fandom communities that wrestling has figured out how to target for a long time. You need to, and this is true in entertainment as well, which is functionally the same as politics in the attention economy. You just need to find a base that is extremely enthusiastic about your candidate, product, service, whatever, and you need to work that niche base as hard as you can."

This creates a powerful incentive structure: stoking anger and outrage is rewarded with engagement, donations, and media attention. The "entertainment" value of political conflict ensures that even negative attention translates into a form of success. This dynamic makes it incredibly difficult for politicians focused on collaborative problem-solving or long-term policy to gain traction. Their efforts, lacking the immediate emotional payoff of manufactured conflict, are easily drowned out. The consequence is a political system that prioritizes the sensational over the substantive, where the ability to generate outrage becomes a more valuable currency than the ability to govern effectively. The "ships waiting to be launched" are essentially grievances, and the "wars" are the constant stream of manufactured conflicts that keep the audience engaged. This is a system where the audience's desire for a clear "versus" narrative is exploited, leading to a political landscape that feels more like a perpetual wrestling match than a functioning democracy.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Action (0-3 months):
  • Deconstruct Political Messaging: Actively identify and analyze political rhetoric for elements of "neo-kayfabe" -- manufactured conflict, performative outrage, and appeals to fandom over policy.
  • Identify "Tweeners": Recognize political figures who operate as "tweeners," blurring lines between antagonism and appeal, and understand the underlying dynamics of their support.
  • Diversify News Consumption: Seek out media sources that offer analytical perspectives beyond the 24-hour news cycle's performative debates.
• Short-Term Investment (3-9 months):
  • Prioritize Substance Over Spectacle: When evaluating candidates or policies, consciously look beyond charismatic delivery and focus on tangible plans and their potential downstream effects.
  • Support Nuanced Journalism: Advocate for and consume media that prioritizes in-depth reporting and analysis over sensationalism.
  • Engage with Local Politics: Focus on local issues where the impact of governance is more direct and the performative aspects of national politics may be less dominant.
• Longer-Term Investment (9-18 months):
  • Cultivate Critical Media Literacy: Develop and share frameworks for understanding the "wrestling-ification" of politics, educating others on how to discern performance from genuine policy.
  • Advocate for Political Reform: Support initiatives that aim to reduce the influence of money in politics and promote transparency, thereby diminishing the incentives for performative conflict.
  • Champion Candidates Focused on Governance: Actively support and promote political figures who demonstrate a commitment to policy, collaboration, and long-term solutions, even if they lack mainstream "star power."