**tldr: people have begun to care more about the personal preferences of politicians which hinders substantive policymaking and increases polarization.** So I'm kind of arguing two things 1) American politicians have become celebrities and 2) thats a bad thing. 1) Politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders (among others, these are just the two at the top of my head) appeal to people because of their personalities in addition to their platforms. The celebrity element is that people often care a great deal about AOC's personal Among Us play style in addition to (and maybe even more than) her political platform. 2) this is bad because it shifts politicians focus away from substantive policy making toward personal appeals that emphasize identity politics. This increases polarization. Instead of politicians being public servants they become celebrities with dedicated fan bases. (I'm only relatively confident about this stance and I don't think AOC is necessarily the best example. Something just bothered me about AOC's Among Us stream and I think this is it.)

Social media has proven to be a mix of pros and cons on American politics. Politicians are able to maintain closer contact to his followers--and their critics--through social media posts. But some politicians such as Donald Trump was able to speak his mind without the constraints of mainstream media to the world just by sending out tweets. The combination of social media and politics can be wearisome. Pew Research Center reported in August of last year that 55 percent of American social media users were 'worn out' by political posts (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions/). But social media has proven to be the future of politics. The Biden campaign reached out to avid gamers on Animal Crossing (https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/16/21519505/joe-biden-animal-crossing-new-horizons-biden-hq-campaign-election). While not a social media site, it is still a platform where internet users can communicate. Senators Andrew Yang and Bernie Saners joined Twitch to connect with people (https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/15/20804614/bernie-sanders-twitch-presidential-campaign-gamers-streaming-donations-streamlabs-fec). Social media has become a convenient method to reach out to American citizens and broadcast their agendas. So, how is that a bad thing? Should politicians stick to holding rallies, putting up campaign signs and obtain celebrity endorsements? Social media has become a convenient way for followers to get closer to their favorite politicians and see who they are up close, as opposed to watching only what is broadcast about them on mainstream cable news. Politics have always had to adapt with the world as it moved on. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 after wearing the wrong colored suit in the first televised presidential debate (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/behind-scenes-first-televised-presidential-debates-nixon-jfk-1960/). Overtime, politics shifted towards television because they realized they could bring their campaign to American's living rooms. So, politicians broadcasting their political campaigns on social media is basically history repeating itself. Politicians adapt and utilize the current medium dominant in American households to reach out to voters. CITATIONS: Anderson, Monica, and Brooke Auxier. “55% of U.S. Social Media Users Say They Are ‘Worn out’ by Political Posts and Discussions.” Pew Research Center, 19 Aug. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions. “Behind the Scenes of the First Televised Presidential Debates 60 Years Ago.” History & Culture, 25 Sept. 2020, www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/behind-scenes-first-televised-presidential-debates-nixon-jfk-1960. Stephen, Bijan. “Bernie Sanders Joined Twitch to Reach People Where They Are.” The Verge, 15 Aug. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/8/15/20804614/bernie-sanders-twitch-presidential-campaign-gamers-streaming-donations-streamlabs-fec.

**TL;DR- Many U.S politicians have gained celebrity status, however I also think that this has many benefits.** Due to their celebrity status, it’s easier to learn more about them, and ‘know’ them as well as you would a celebrity. Bernie Sanders for example may be compared to a celebrity through his extensive use of social media etc. Sanders posts a lot on social issues, as well as publicising, or starting up and then promoting many fundraisers etc (such as the recent meme t-shirt one). This has certainly allowed me to really get to know what he stands for, what his policies may be if he was ever in the race again, and his personality- this is the case for many social media users. It’s a similar case for Biden and Harris; without their celebrity-like status and activity on Instagram, Twitter, etc. many voters (especially young voters) may not know as much about them as they could. Without this limelight, they may have got less votes in the recent presidential election, which brings me on to my next point. Donald Trump is almost like a celebrity, with many of his actions heavily publicised. Through this limelight, the world sees how much of a terrible person he is, and without this celeb status, he may have even won the 2020 election due to people being unaware of many of his dreadful actions. Although the media can be flawed, the celebrity status of American politicians definitely brings them into the public view, and connects them to us as we see them as real people with real lives. This is surely better than them being faceless politicians we only ever hear of if we go ahead and research them ourselves.

I actually find the use of social media detracting from the serious business of governance. It presents a picture, sometimes false, of people often conducted by their PR team and is in no way representative of the real person. Conversely it can also show their flaws and ineptitude if they dabble without the intervention of the PR team. Old fashioned as my view may be, social media is for celebrity and too demeaning for those in positions of power

With or without social media, American voters pay significant attention to the personalities of politicians. Sometimes, this emphasis can even outweigh voters’ preferences for policies when they cast their votes. However, this preference unfairly disadvantages underrepresented groups in political races. When voters look for ephemeral qualities, such as likability, in politicians, they tend to shy away from underrepresented groups. Female politicians often have to bear the label of angry, cold or unlikable. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) received significant media discussion of her likability during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. The same discussion did not manifest for the male candidates. Candidates of color often fall prey to the perception of unelectability, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. American voters look for idols in their leaders. Such a tendency gives favors for traditional politicians, often white cisgender male. AOC may be winning applause during her streaming. However, outside the liberal corners of the internet, the celebrity fascination with politicians have sunk many underrepresented politicians like her. For this reason, the celebrity status of U.S. politicians does not constitute a healthy political environment.