Politics as Game

Our relationship with politics is confirmed and contradicted by the way politics is presented to us. While formal organizations – like ABC News for the latest US Presidential debate – play a role in shaping this representation, it is often informal institutions like civic culture that dictate the rules for how politicians act on the big screen. I say this because the presidential debate on September 10th felt more like watching a football match than watching candidates compete for the most powerful office position in the world. Why is that? 

Part I - A conceptual dissection 

In this essay I propose the notion of Politics as Game, as a loose expansion of James Der Derian’s concept of War as Game. In his work, Der Derian argues that advancements in military technology have created such physical detachment between the operators of weapons of war and their victims, so the psychological effect of such jobs amounts to playing a game. Drawing from the same set of assumptions, I transfer this concept to politics using the Trump-Harris debate as proof of concept. 

My argument is that the cultural attitudes associated with late-stage capitalism, heavily emphasizing consumption and commodification, have created a political climate in which a successful politician is perceived as the one able to entertain and cradle attention spans best, rather than offer the best policy proposals. It follows that misinformation and spinning the truth are extremely common in the rhetoric that this culture encourages, where the politicized blame for the problem matters more than the solution. In the US, this is embodied in the causes attributed to deep structural issues like systemic poverty, ranging from unrefined economic policy to scapegoated immigrants. The result is that politics is perceived less as a competition between policy plans and more as a game of truth-assertion where candidates fight to the death for the victory of their paradigms. 

So what’s the big deal if politicians have different narratives, and try to be entertaining? Does this strategy not outdate late-stage capitalism? 

It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine a politician’s role without imagining their ability to entertain as a celebrity

While the aforementioned features of political decorum have always been present, I argue that the current climate has solidified them in our perception of what political reality is. It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine a politician’s role without imagining their ability to entertain as a celebrity. Rather importantly, I do not argue that Politics as Game is a rigid phenomenon, but that we are still in the process of a shift in its favor. As populists overtake technocrats, and strongmen overtake bureaucrats, and celebrities overtake politics, games overtake politics. 

I clarify that while the US might be an extreme example of this, I perceive this trend to be global. I’d also like to clarify that I am not neutral – while I dislike both US presidential candidates, I do not dislike them in equal amounts. So, as a Marxist and a proponent of direct democracy, this article is does not propose reforms, but rather an analysis of a trend in political narrative that I (and others) have noticed.

Part II - The game on the silver screen 

The debate has many glaring features that, when viewed through the lens of game, lunge at the eyes. The visual features are almost comedic. The split-screen makes Trump and Harris look like multiplayer characters. The big green timers make each policy discussion (on issues that affect millions to billions of people) feel like a mini-challenge on reality TV. The lack of an audience makes the two look like they spawned as NPC’s to deliver a message to a main character in a video game. They might as well have added dialogue boxes at the bottom like in Animal Crossing (which either way would’ve been way better for accessibility). These visual features create a psychological subtext of battle wrapped in a detached playfulness. It’s as unserious as serious can get. Is this really the right context for a debate about policy? 

Candidates focus most of their time on attacking the other rather than addressing the questions about policy with proposals

More importantly, the rhetorical features provide even more subtext to digest. First of all, the candidates focus most of their time on attacking the other rather than addressing the questions about policy with proposals. While the dynamic is not uniform, Harris allocating more time to proposals, both take time to attack the other’s failures in regards to every issue they are asked about. This dumbs down the debate into a contest of wit, insult, and character. The game is no longer “what is your political agenda” but “what do you have to say about this Tweet where you contradict yourself?” 

Moreover, the stubborn regurgitation of slogans and buzzwords does not help the case. For example, when asked if she would support any restrictions on reproductive rights, Harris said, “I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade,” going on to repeat this multiple times. She does not address her stance on abortion itself, rather hops around the question. This game of filling as much time as possible by answering a question without answering it normalizes a caricature of the politician as one-sided videogame character with an infinite collection of catchphrases. Here we return to the notion of truth, as each side draws from their pocket a vocabulary of retaliation. Trump calls her a Marxist. She calls herself the voice of America. He scapegoats illegal aliens. She addresses small businesses. And on and on, each catchphrase becomes a weapon in their inventory to gain XP and snatch health points for the next showdown. Because of this principle of attack in which the truth claims of one are annihilated and turned on their head by the other – dozens and dozens of times – two things occur: 
1. The buzzwords create certainty for the average joe, who latches onto them as the foundation of their support (sometimes without actually understanding what they mean) 
2. The entertainment value of the exchange becomes crucial for voters to form opinions about who is more fit to run. Public speaking and PR skills are valued over professionalism and political competence. You end up paying more attention to their ability to disarm the opponent, rather than the ability to address and present oneself as president. 

By putting all these cues together, it is easy to see how electoral politics is both intentionally and unintentionally gamified.

Part III - Back to level 1 

I hope the picture I have painted is clear. The game I have analyzed in this article slots itself into the wider political game, composed of myriad interactions defined by the same logic as the debate. Cult of personality is stronger than ever in the US. However, politics as game grounds this cult almost exclusively in sensationalism, shock and drama. This is the cornerstone to a politician’s ability to win the game. The more this is expected of them, the more they will deliver it, the more the media will emphasize this in their presentation and representation of politicians (as we saw with ABC News), and the more the hamster will spin inside the wheel. Just look at the debates of 20 years ago, when presidents would congratulate one another on their engagements. The debates of today sound like playground talk in comparison. 

While this article focuses on the effects rather than the causes, it would be unfair to ignore the role social media has to play. An online discourse in which algorithms favor dogma, buzzwords, and personal attacks is also one in which framing politics as a game is both profitable for the shareholders of these companies and entertaining for the attention of those glued to their screens. The more power is channeled into the game, the more 4K and high-resolution the game appears, so crystal clear that reality feels obsolete. Hence, rather than stay a game, it becomes the world. Because it is expected, it is no longer perceived as a game. Populism also plays a similar role, as it valorizes anti-professionalism as a form of authenticity. Trump’s appeal to his voter base is grounded in the distinction he makes between himself and the “political elite,” largely through his language. It is because of this that war as game does not exist in a bubble. It is a consequence of systems that enable it, not just in the US but beyond. The politics of politics is becoming silent, as people pay more attention to how they say something than what they say. 

Games are fun, but politics is not. It can be creative and enthralling, but the dopamine rush ends the second the ballots are counted. Politics is a practice built on communication. It’s time to scale down, not level up.