There has been debate over whether or not Senator Cory Booker’s record-breaking speech was a positive, impactful move. Booker is a Democrat representing the state of New Jersey, and he spoke on the Senate floor for precisely 25 hours and five minutes in protest of the actions carried out by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration in its second term. This marathon speech broke the record for longest-held Senate speech, previously held by Strom Thurmond, a racist senator who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Booker made a powerful political statement through this historic showing and sent a clear message that condemned the current administration while empowering and mobilizing the left and its supporters who wish to see change.
However, some have criticized this extravagant display of political speech or downright discredited the political protest that was made because of some of Cory Booker’s previous actions. I take issue with this for several reasons, and it all boils down to the fact that political purism (the idea that every political actor or action must be “pure” to be beneficial) is becoming a real problem; positive actions — big or small — are often denounced if they are not conducted in a way that individuals deem absolutely perfect. These criticisms fall short, and such complaints are stunting the progress of our democracy.
The harsh reality of the Democrats’ situation in the U.S. federal government today is that they have no real power. They do not have a majority in the Senate or the House of Representatives, giving the Republicans full control over Congress at large. While there are some legislative moves that can be made as the minority party, this situation does force Democratic leaders to turn to other methods of advocacy and mobilization. In turn, I take issue with those disapprovingly calling Booker’s speech “nothing more than … political spectacle,” (“Sen. Booker Speech Unimpressive, Hypocritical,” The Oberlin Review, April 11, 2025).
What we need is a spectacle. The Democrats need to send such a roaring message that they cannot be ignored, and this starts with politicians mobilizing the public. Booker did so not only through his preacher-like way of speaking, but through what he read. He shared letters from his constituents detailing the ways in which the Trump administration had harmed them individually, including a firsthand account of the negative impact of Trump’s proposed Medicaid cuts. And then, what did we see just over a week ago? The “Hands Off!” protests, the most widespread nationwide protests to date since Trump’s second inauguration.
There have been claims that politics should not be performative, but in some ways, performance and spectacle that drive the average citizen to actually care can be the most powerful of all. There are problems of low political engagement and voter turnout in this country compared to other similar nations, and a marathon speech that graces the televisions of Americans for over a calendar day can certainly chip away at that deficit.
There have also been issues taken with controversial moves Cory Booker has made, including the acceptance of donations from pro-Israel interest groups. However, Democrats and Republicans alike have received these kinds of funds, and that is unfortunately the nature of the game. It is an unfair ask to expect politicians, especially Senators on the individual level, to be able to dismantle institutional relationships, such as interest group lobbying and international allyship. These are aggregate-level problems that cannot and should not be tackled by individual politicians, whose primary focus is to serve the people within the system, not to alter the system itself. Additionally, it is unreasonable to expect any single politician to reflect the varying wants, needs, and values of the diverse American electorate.
Why can’t progress be progress? If politicians were expected to be perfect all of the time, nothing would ever change. And that is the nature of politics, whether you like it or not. We do not live in a morally black and white political space, and it is idealist to think that trying to achieve such institutional change at this moment is going to do anything but give the Republicans more power. If Democrats tried to take the moral high ground on every issue, they would be steamrolled into the ground by their opposition, who hold all of the tangible control.
It is obviously good in nature to strive for what is morally just. However, if we discredit any political actors or actions that we deem to be in violation of any part of our varying personal values, then we prevent anything positive from happening at all. I don’t agree with every decision Cory Booker has ever made, but nor do I agree with every decision any single person has made, and I can recognize the good Booker is working to accomplish and the positive impact that his efforts have created. It is crucial not to let the poison of political purism infect the way we engage with current politics, but to instead approach things from a realistic perspective to most effectively achieve the change we wish to see.
