top of page
Writer's pictureAriba A
Nov 94 min read

Twerk, Fund, Repeat: A Populist Guide to U.S. Election Theatre

Every American election season unfolds like a Broadway production, with star players and choreographed narratives designed to hook viewers. This year, with figures like Elon Musk and powerful organizations like AIPAC, playing visible and significant roles, the scene feels less like democracy in action and more like a high-stakes game of influence where money, media, and identity politics dominate. How do these forces impact the results, and what do their roles reveal about the integrity of American elections?


The Political Theatre of Billionaires


Elon Musk, a name synonymous with tech and market disruption, increasingly casts himself as a political influencer. His involvement in Twitter/X and various right-wing podcast appearances subtly guides public perception. Musk’s presence reveals an unsettling truth: billionaires can now shape public opinion not through policy but through carefully managed personas and media channels, manipulating voter sentiments to serve their interests. His endorsement—or even just veiled approval—carries weight, influencing those who may see him as a self-made maverick untainted by traditional politics. Musk’s role exemplifies the issue of having financial power translate into political influence without any elected mandate, as he actively shapes American populism and subtly redefines ‘free speech’ for millions.


The irony? Musk's impact isn't a progressive push towards more voices in the system; rather, it’s an appeal to a populism built on distrust and disinformation. Musk’s financial prowess and his ventures into media show how personal agendas and profit motives undercut democratic ideals, building influence through selective amplification of populist rhetoric.


The AIPAC Agenda


AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has a well-documented and robust influence on American politics, directing significant funds towards candidates who align with its pro-Israel stance. Yet, the recent elections saw an intensification in its direct funding and lobbying, especially toward conservative candidates. Figures like Hakeem Jeffries, while maintaining progressive fronts, receive AIPAC backing, showcasing how bipartisan the reach of AIPAC’s financial influence is. Politicians backed by AIPAC are rewarded handsomely, with funding and media support, while opponents face strategic isolation.


AIPAC’s influence doesn’t merely represent lobbying; it represents a deeper issue within American politics. When funding comes attached with strict ideological alignment, how can the electorate expect authentic representation? AIPAC's involvement in elections epitomizes the commodification of foreign policy stances, and it cements a level of policy inflexibility that makes progressive criticism of Israel’s human rights violations nearly impossible. By financially sidelining dissenters, AIPAC maintains an unwavering grip on U.S.-Israel discourse, making voters mere pawns in the broader game of geopolitics.


Faux Solidarity and the Capitalisation of Black Identity


In this election, identity politics became both a tool and a crutch. Democratic strategies leaned heavily into performative solidarity—particularly with Black voters. Figures like Kamala Harris attempt to resonate with Black voters through curated solidarity campaigns, often reducing serious social issues to catchy slogans or pop-culture references. The Democratic Party’s frequent pandering, replete with callouts to “support Black women” or “stand with the community,” turned into a circus act, far removed from the actual needs and voices within Black communities.


Harris’s rhetoric on Black empowerment felt hollow, particularly as the Democrats lacked substantial policy plans to back their slogans. Worse, they’ve indulged in visuals that objectify Black culture. Examples like Harris participating in events where Black women are reduced to “twerking” caricatures as a political statement under the guise of empowerment highlight the superficiality of these gestures. In truth, they’re not celebrating Black culture—they’re capitalizing on it for votes. These tactics are designed to appeal to the optics of allyship without disrupting the structural inequities that affect Black communities.


Democrats: “Woke” Branding and the Cash Pipeline


Faux activism from the Democrats provides a safe harbor for affluent backers who seek tax breaks, corporate protections, and strategic inaction on progressive reforms. While the Democratic establishment leans heavily on the “woke” agenda, it sidesteps meaningful change. One needs to look no further than their corporate donor list, full of tech and finance magnates who support identity-based causes in public yet lobby for tax benefits and deregulation behind closed doors.


This duality allows the Democratic Party to present itself as the bastion of progressive values while remaining firmly entrenched within the establishment. Through gestures of solidarity, the Democrats package and sell an image of inclusivity that fits well with the corporate-funded agenda. For example, when corporations like Amazon or Starbucks make public statements in support of Black Lives Matter, the Democrats gain credibility without any concrete policy commitments. This symbiotic relationship between “woke” branding and Democratic funding mechanisms reveals the hollow nature of performative politics.


Post-Election: The New Face of Populist Politics?


Now that the election is over, it’s clear that external influences—money, media power, and performative activism—are increasingly integral to American elections. Yet, the outcomes raise a troubling question: when corporate titans and ideological groups hold so much sway, are American elections anything more than transactional exchanges? While Musk and AIPAC represent different spectrums of influence, both underscore a reality in which financial and ideological allegiances transcend the electorate’s needs. This external funding war turns politicians into brand managers, catering to financial backers rather than voters.


The Democrats’ alliance with performative gestures and the Republicans’ entrenchment with corporate power leave little room for a genuine democratic process. Today’s political arena resembles a marketplace, not a democracy. It’s a system where slogans take precedence over substance, and where the players—Musk, AIPAC, and the Democratic faux activists—are driven by profit and preservation rather than public service.


In critiquing this landscape, we must ask ourselves if this model of democracy, fed by external money and media-savvy figures, offers any real power to the people. The U.S. election is increasingly an exercise in branding, with identity and activism serving as its products. For those of us watching, it’s a reminder to question the authenticity of “solidarity” when it’s coming from the top down. As for the future, this stage-managed theatre will continue unless structural reforms are made to curtail external influences and return power to the actual voters.



Photo Credit: Canva

Sources:


Comments

bottom of page