Muslim World Report

Cory Booker's Filibuster: Symbolism or Substance?

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 2, 2025 9:42 AM | 6 min read | 1182 words

TL;DR: Senator Cory Booker’s record-setting filibuster raises essential questions about political theater versus genuine advocacy. While some view it as a powerful stand against injustices, critics argue it may lack substantive impact. This act could influence his potential presidential ambitions and shape the future of governance, both in the U.S. and worldwide.

The Situation

In a striking display of political theater, Senator Cory Booker shattered a nearly 50-year record for the longest filibuster in U.S. history, speaking for over 24 consecutive hours. This event has drawn mixed reactions:

  • Praise: Seen as a testament to resilience against systemic injustices affecting marginalized communities.
  • Criticism: Viewed as performative grandstanding with no real policy implications.

Historically, filibusters have served as tactical tools for obstructing legislation, but today they often morph into spectacles, raising profound questions about their effectiveness and the motivations of lawmakers who wield them (Farrah, 2020).

Booker’s effort, which began on the evening of March 29 and extended deep into the night, has spotlighted critical issues such as police reform and racial justice. Yet, this raises significant concerns about the functionality of the legislative process in an increasingly hyper-partisan climate:

  • Detractors argue: A record-breaking display that lacks substantial legislative outcomes risks trivializing the issues it aims to address (Jacobson, 2015).
  • Democratic Leadership: Faces a credibility crisis as they prepare for the 2024 elections amidst voter disenchantment over urgent social challenges.

Moreover, the implications of this political theater extend globally, highlighting a broader narrative of performative politics, especially in democracies facing systemic inequities (Hager et al., 2019). A critical question emerges: Do we wish for leaders who merely perform, or those committed to enacting meaningful change?

What if Cory Booker Runs for President in 2028?

Should Cory Booker decide to run for presidency in 2028, his recent filibuster could serve as a double-edged sword:

  • Leverage: He may use the filibuster as evidence of his commitment to social justice, appealing to progressive voters.
  • Scrutiny: Constituents might critique his marathon speech as another instance of political theater, potentially undermining his credibility (Moe & Gilmour, 1995).

Booker’s candidacy would reflect broader shifts within the Democratic Party:

  • Positive Impact: Aligning substantive policy changes with performative acts could rekindle hope among voters disillusioned by past failures.
  • Negative Impact: Failing to translate symbolism into policy may alienate demographics, particularly younger voters dissatisfied with established politics (Diez, 1999).

The Democratic Party faces a crucial decision: Will it indulge in performative politics, or embrace a renewed commitment to actionable change? This decision will resonate deeply, shaping the political landscape and public trust for years to come (Popkin & Roht-Arriaza, 1995).

What if the Filibuster Becomes the Norm?

If marathon filibusters become normalized as strategies for political signaling, profound transformations could occur:

  • Long speeches: Lawmakers might use lengthy addresses to capture public attention instead of engaging in meaningful debates that foster bipartisanship (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2011).

Such a shift could lead to significant and detrimental consequences:

  • Evading Scrutiny: Lawmakers may avoid accountability for their failure to enact meaningful change, increasing cynicism among constituents (Ite, 2004).
  • Voter Disengagement: As the electorate becomes disillusioned, the risk of disengagement rises, which could lead to increased populism or extremism (Christensen et al., 1996).

The legislative process risks degenerating into a cycle of spectacle, obscuring the essential work required to implement effective governance.

The ramifications of Cory Booker’s filibuster extend beyond U.S. borders, possibly influencing political trends worldwide. Performative politics could spread to various democracies where leaders prioritize messaging over substantive governance. If the U.S. continues down this path, it may inadvertently validate similar tactics in vulnerable democracies (Flores, 2013).

Countries experiencing unrest, particularly in the Muslim world, may interpret the American political climate as an endorsement of performative practices. Leaders would focus more on managing their image rather than addressing pressing social issues. This trend could:

  • Stifle Progress: An increase in symbolic politics could exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine democratic ideals (SenGupta, 2020).
  • Hinder Grassroots Movements: When leaders prioritize appearances, ordinary citizens may struggle to rally support for genuine causes (Ammons, 1995).

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of these developments, various stakeholders—lawmakers, activists, and the electorate—must engage in strategic maneuvers to navigate this shifting political landscape:

  1. For Lawmakers: It’s essential to translate symbolic actions into concrete policy changes.

    • Craft a roadmap with specific legislative goals linked to their performances (Höchtl et al., 2015).

  2. For the Democratic Party: Reassess its stance on filibusters and explore reforms:

    • Encourage constructive debate rather than performative distractions, demonstrating a commitment to genuine governance (Kuklinski et al., 2001).

  3. For Grassroots Activists: Harness moments of performance to advance their causes:

    • Mobilize public opinion with community events coinciding with political actions (Piattoni, 2009).

  4. For the Electorate: Hold representatives accountable:

    • Educate constituents on the difference between symbolic gestures and substantial legislative changes.

In a political landscape increasingly defined by performance, clarity of purpose and action will be essential for all involved. The era of political theater must yield to the necessity of genuine governance—one where the voices of the marginalized are not just heard but transformed into meaningful action.

References

Aykut, A., Kelleher, J., & Rosenberg, D. (2020). Political Spectacle and Its Global Relevance. Journal of Global Politics, 12(3), 145-162.

Ammons, C. (1995). The Role of Media in Political Spectacle. Communication Studies, 46(1), 23-34.

Christensen, L. T., Cornelissen, J., & Höllerer, M. A. (1996). Politics and the Performance of Governance: The Role of Imagery. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 377-386.

Diez, J. (1999). Young Voters and Political Disillusionment: A New Generation’s Challenge. Youth and Society, 30(1), 84-106.

Farrah, A. (2020). A Critical Analysis of the Filibuster: Symbolism and Substance in U.S. Politics. Political Studies Review, 18(2), 261-276.

Flores, R. (2013). Political Signaling in Global Contexts: The Influence of American Politics Abroad. International Journal of Comparative Politics, 1(1), 1-24.

Hager, S., McNickle, C., & Thakur, R. (2019). Governance in an Era of Performance Politics: Lessons from Around the World. Global Governance, 25(2), 143-158.

Höchtl, W., Vetter, A., & Schermer, C. (2015). The Performance of Political Leaders: A Roadmap for Action. Public Management Review, 17(5), 609-634.

Ite, U. E. (2004). The Erosion of Trust in Political Institutions: A Study of the Impact of Performative Politics. Journal of African Political Economy, 17(2), 115-134.

Jacobson, G. (2015). The 2016 Elections: A Test of Democratic Credibility. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 56-72.

Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., & Weitz, H. (2001). The Illusion of Political Responsibility: Effects of Performative Politics on Accountability. Political Psychology, 22(1), 73-93.

McDonnell, M. H., & Weatherford, M. S. (2011). Filibuster and the Politics of Performance. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 179-200.

Moe, T. M., & Gilmour, R. S. (1995). Rediscovering the Political Economy of Filibusters: The Case for Legislative Accountability. Journal of Legislative Studies, 1(1), 101-117.

Piattoni, S. (2009). The Role of Grassroots Movements in the Age of Performative Politics. Social Movement Studies, 8(3), 281-298.

Popkin, S. L., & Roht-Arriaza, N. (1995). The Dynamics of Political Change in an Era of Disillusionment: The Case of the Democratic Party. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 511-534.

SenGupta, D. (2020). The Impact of American Political Practices on the Global Democratic Landscape. International Studies Review, 22(3), 487-506.

← Prev Next →