Spectacular resistance: the billionaires for Bush and the art of political culture jamming *.

Political theorists and pundits often attribute the malaise that they argue hangs over U.S. politics to the omnipresence of political spectacle, where participants are reduced to spectator-voters rather than engaged as active citizens in the political process. The result, many conclude, is widespread cynicism that stymies collective action. We argue, however, that "spectacle" is not necessarily opposed to political participation, and indeed that the "actor-audience" dichotomy so often employed by political theorists is much too simplistic to describe political activism. In fact, groups such as the Billionaires for Bush use spectacle to advance their message(s) and to inspire political change. These groups have much in common with what media scholars call "culture jammers," activists who deliberately subvert spectacular images in order to reclaim them. In this paper, we explore how groups we label political culture jammers combat cynicism by replacing the dominant images of politics with provocative counter-images. Through their use of ironic self-presentation and humor, political culture jammers offer an appealing alternative means of invigorating political praxis by complicating the citizen/spectator binary that so many critics invoke.

Keywords spectacle; participation; irony; protest; political culture jamming; Billionaires for Bush

doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300104

... What shape does an engaged politics assume in an empire of signs? (1) --Mark Derry

**********

Numerous commentators have bemoaned what they diagnose as a perpetual malaise that hangs over U.S. politics. Political theorists and popular pundits alike can recite a litany of problems; scandals, corruption, attack ads, and partisan vitriol all contribute to a political culture that at best alienates people from--and at worst actively discourages participation in--political life. Declining rates of voter turnout, political awareness, and trust in government are frequently cited to demonstrate citizens' growing frustration with a political process that does not address their needs or speak to their hopes for the future. By any measure, it would seem difficult to say that democracy is thriving. (2)

There are many causes for our political ennui, but one of the most often cited in political science literature is the ascension of political spectacle. For many critics, spectacle is the antithesis to authentic political action. Spectacle robs citizens of their individual and collective agency, dampens their political efficacy, and transforms them into a passive audience for the histrionic dramas that are staged for them by political elites. Moreover, some critics charge, the steady stream of political spectacle, especially as it is made available through the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, leads not only to apathy but also to a deadening cynicism that can eviscerate a democratic polity.