As the Winter Olympics reach their climax, a fascinating competition is unfolding in U.S. Democratic politics. From Eric Swalwell to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, candidates are testing the proposition that they can win gold solely on style alone.
Unlike free-style skating, where competitors must accomplish technical elements like jumps and spins, American politics has become only a competition of style as politicians vie to outdo each other in rage rhetoric or superficial gestures.
That was most evident in Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor of California. One of the least accomplished members of Congress, Swalwell is running for the state’s highest office despite missing 95 votes in 2025. He was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025.
It does not matter that Swalwell expects California voters to give him a new job after blowing off his old one. Why? Because he feeds a rage addiction on the left.
Rep. Eric Swalwell has promised, if elected governor, he will take away the driver’s licenses of ICE officers, bar them from employment, and hound them incessantly to thrill irate lawyers.
It does not matter that he could not deliver on these pledges. He is not trying to make the jump; he is just trying to get the style points.
Then there is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), who reportedly has aspirations for either the White House or the Senate. Ocasio-Cortez went to Munich to discuss foreign relations. Used to a fawning American press that repeats soundbites, Ocasio-Cortez had a meltdown when asked a predictable question on Taiwan. She immediately disassembled into a stream of incomprehensible babble: “Um, you know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a um — this is, of course, a, um, very long-standing, um, policy of the United States. And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation — and for that question to even arise.”
It did not matter. Many on the left immediately defended her. Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright praised her and declared “she sticks her head up. They cannot find an answer or solution to her.” Actually, few could find any answer from her.
Basil Smikle, a strategist who served as the executive director of the New York State Democratic Party, suggested that it does not matter if no one could understand her: “AOC is playing for a different generation, for a younger generation of Democrat, the younger generation of politicians.”
In other words, turn the sound off and count the style points.
Then there is California Gavin Newsom, who also appeared in Munich to advance his campaign for president. Newsom wants to be president after running his state into the ground, with towering debt and an exodus of taxpayers. Newsom has perfected style over substance.
Recently, Newsom posted a bizarre video boasting of the great success of his infamous high-speed “train to nowhere.” Despite not laying a single yard of track after burning $12 billion, Newsom showed a diesel freight train on a conventional track to create the appearance of a working railroad.
Voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue in 2008. Even at a fraction of the original length, it is now projected to exceed $128 billion and could ultimately cost a billion dollars per mile.
It does not matter. Newsom looked marvelous in front of a diesel on a different track. Not jumps, just style.
It is all part of our post-truth environment, and this is obviously not simply a phenomenon on the left.
Notably, one of the things that many on the left detest most about Trump is his style. Trump insults, threatens, and saber-rattles to get concessions. Many object to his rhetoric and attacks, including those directed at our closest allies or, most recently, Supreme Court justices. “Being presidential” is often a matter of style with citizens expecting our leaders to set a model for civility and respect.
Such objections to style can be a barrier to scoring “technical point” successes in foreign relations and the economy.
Our politics have become so stylized that many voters and viewers have no expectation of substance. Take the most recent hoax perpetrated by Stephen Colbert and Democratic Texas Senatorial candidate James Talarico. Colbert had another self-aggrandizing moment on his CBS Late Show, claiming he was prevented from airing an interview with Talarico because CBS caved to pressure from the Trump Administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair, Brendan Carr. In another faux Spartacus moment on the left, Colbert thrilled the audience by saying he aired it on YouTube anyway and treated CBS’s legal guidance as dog poop on air.
As usual, the media took it from there and breathlessly repeated the false story. It was so outrageously false that CBS took the rare move of issuing a public statement saying that it was completely untrue. It explained that CBS lawyers did not bar the interview but noted that, under equal-time policies, Colbert might be required to give the other two candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the same opportunity.
For his part, Carr held a press conference that debunked Colbert’s claim and said that neither he nor the FCC had even heard of the interview until they were accused on the program.
Again, it did not matter. Talarico raised millions after he claimed that he was being silenced by the Trump Administration and shot up in the polls the day before the start of early voting in the Democratic primary. He continued to claim that he is the target of “the most powerful politicians in the Trump administration and the most powerful corporate media executives.”
What was so impressive was Colbert’s open effort to manufacture a false claim. Colbert has turned his show into an exclusive space for the Democratic establishment. Despite losing revenue and ratings, he has portrayed himself as a victim of the corporation that is continuing to subsidize his overtly political programming. In this case, the Democratic establishment has decided to block Crockett and push Talarico. That task was given to Colbert, who would now create the buzz needed to put him over the top. Colbert had previously had Crockett on to throw profanities and insults at Trump, but now she had to go.
The problem is that such interviews just before voting can trigger equal time requirements. All Colbert had to do was give Crockett equal time. That was not what the Democratic establishment wanted. They want Crockett out, and Talarico inflated to super-hero size through another manufactured hoax.
So, Colbert and Talarico skated onto the ice and looked marvelous with only one spin: a false claim of censorship. They then grabbed another gold for style in American politics.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Steve Hilton and Chad Blanco are both ahead of Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell in the latest poll for the California gubernatorial primary. If this pattern holds, CA’s next governor will be a Republican. Those who abandoned the state will be viewed as premature scorekeepers and defeatist quitters. Losing faith in your fellow citizens based on what the sensationalist-alarmist media is telling you is not a good look. It’s neurotic.
Democrats currently hold about 60 out of 80 House seats in the state legislature and 30 out of 40 Senate seats. That’s a supermajority. If it holds, Democrats will have the power to veto/override any governor. If they do not maintain their supermajority, odds are they will have at least a majority in both houses, making it difficult for a non-RINO Republican to effect meaningful change.
The primary election is a “jungle primary”. Meaning the top two vote getting candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. If a Republican makes it to the general election, odds are Democrat voters who were split in the primary will coalesce around whichever Democrat is on the ballot. The Republican will lose.
Those choosing to move are behaving rationally, not neurotically. That’s because odds favor Democrats to maintain much of their power after the election. And Democrats have made it clear they plan to confiscate more of the income and wealth of those choosing to move out of the state.
If you can’t defeat bad policy at the ballot box, another alternative is to vote with your feet. That’s what the movers are doing. It’s perfectly rational.
Turley Writes:
“Ocasio-Cortez had a meltdown when asked a predictable question on Taiwan”.
***
Yesterday, Congresswoman Cortez shared a photo ‘from the Epstein files’. It pictured young Melania Trump performing a pole dance in a one piece body suit. The venue seemed to be an upscale party (as opposed to a strip club). But standing only a few feet from Melania is Jeffrey Epstein in a business suit.
However genuine that photo might be, it raises serious questions. Like: ‘Did Melania know Jeffrey Epstein before Donald Trump?’ And, ‘Did Melania enter the U.S. through Epstein channels?’
The answer to these questions could be an all-time bombshell.
Why would it be a bombshell? Melania was trying to make a living as a model. Is your assertion all based on guilt by association? It’s entirely likely Epstein’s social circle is how Trump met Melania. Don’t be shocked if it’s true.
The inability to sort out right from wrong without a political overlay is a sign of moral decline.
In Portland today AntiICE rioters disrupted the Portand City council and every portland cop had to come to City council to break it up.
Why ? Because both the rioters and the city council want ICE gone.
They are trying to use zoning and property USE laws to force ICE out. The City Council likely was read a psky thing called the Constitution which gives the federal government sovereignity over the entire country. States can not force Federal fascilities out.
Regardless the protestors want City Council to send in the police to remove ICE,
and City Councel is wisely saying NO we do not have that authority,
So protestors are rioting against City councel.
Separately a Quaker was arrested, indicted and convicted of assaulting an ICE officer for throwing a rock at him and hitting him in the head.
And later using a steel pole to destroy federal property in Portland.
He is headed to jail for a very long time.
Do not throw things at Law Enforcement – very bad idea.
Do not spit on them either – that is also a felony.
I can not beleive I have to say this – but when you are out stupidly protesting ICE,
do not do anything stupid. It could ruin the rest of your life.
John Say
Please scroll down to my little thread posted in response to your claim that “circumstantiality’ is not a word.
You may find it enlightening and perhaps worth some introspection.
HEY ANON circumstantiality /sûr″kəm-stăn″shē-ăl′ĭ-tē/
noun
“The quality of being fully or minutely detailed.
A particular detail or circumstance.”
The state, characteristic, or quality of being circumstantial; particularity or minuteness of detail.”
EAT IT ANON!!!
Or eat it John??
I would refer you to ATS’s post using “circumstantiality’
While he is correct that it is a word, try to fit ANY definition into the sentence he wrote and you will end up with a mess.
ATS clearly made it up when he used it, and got lucky because it is both an old english word that is rarely used, and a medical term – neither of which come remotely close to fitting in the sentence he wrote.
I correct my errors – “circumstantiality’ is a word.
A rare one that ATS has no idea how to use.
Consider the absurd self-contradictory assertions being made here by John Say.
1. Circumstantiality is a word that ATS “made up”.
2. Although it is a “made up” word ATS “got lucky” because it is in fact a REAL word.
3. But that word is rarely used.
4. ATS has no idea how to use it.
This is not the thought process of a healthy mind.
Circumstantiality may not be a word used by laypeople in common usage, but it is by far one of the most common words used by mental health professionals.
That is why I know exactly what it means, and how to apply its usage in the proper situations.
There are more than a dozen psychiatric disorders where circumstantiality is a prominent symptom, so it is one of the most common terms used in the mental health world.
Separately the non-medical form of the word is bad form. it is a bad idea to convert a noun, to an adjective and back to an noun by compounding endings. That does not change the meaning.
It is like a double negative in logic. The endings cancel.
More profoundly abnormal thinking.
John Say believes that “circumstantiality” does not mean what it quite clearly means, because it has compounding endings that cancel its clear meaning.
So now “circumstantiality is a word that I made up, but I got lucky because it is in fact a real word, but nobody uses it, and anyway it does not mean what it clearly means because it has compound endings that cancel out.
Judge for yourself what is going on here.
You do not need a psychiatrist to explain it.
ATS – I would suggest a great deal of introspection on your part.
Not only did you have to respond something like 8 times to my assertion that “circumstantiality’ is not a word.
Which I have corrected
But you drew from that a long list of bizarre personal claims having absolutely nothing to do with the actual points being debated
that are both false and would be irrelevant if true.
And then you are so obsessed that you jump to the top of the comment sections to post a reply in attempt to assure that I will take notice of your responses.
You appear to have an unhealthy obsession.
You are incredibly insecure.
And you keep making these delusional claims.
If you are so desperate to know who I am there is more than enough information that you can figure it out,
You can find one of my emails I posted it here several times
you can figure out my name – someone doxed me some time ago.
You can find my linked in profile.
You can learn all about me and much of my professional life
If that floats your boat.
All of that is of course completely irrelevant.
It is irrelevant what my mental health is – though it is fine.
It is irrelevant what my IQ is
It is irrelevant whether I am paid to post – but I will be happy if someone wants to pay me.
It is irrelevant whether I am a Russian AI bot – Nobody’s bots are anywhere near this good.
What is relevant is that instead of addressing the argument you went off first into character assassination,
and then into completely absurd nonsense that you have zero foundation for – that is totally irrelevant.
They call that delusional.
You have self owned yourself more times than I can count.
Ordinarily I would at this point leave you alone – because you are pathetic and beating on disabled people is not moral.
But you are posting as anonymous making it impossible for me to Know whether the next idiot left wing nut poster I think about responding to is you.
Yet another perfect textbook example of obsessive, manic behavior and circumstantiality.
This tirade by John Say exhibits all the typical signs of profound mental illness.
He wanders off into meandering, digressive, disconnected thoughts and is completely unable to sustain a rational train of thought.