From March 31 to April 1, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker embarked on a 25-hour speech — the longest in the U.S. Senate’s history. In a time when the Democratic establishment has claimed they can’t do anything to stop Republican supermajorities, Booker’s feat is impressive, breaking a 70-year record held by Strom Thurmond’s anti-civil rights filibuster of 24 hours and 18 minutes. It’s true that congressional Democrats have little formal powers against the Trump administration, but voters have demanded that Democrats step up amidst record unpopularity. While beating a record held by a segregationist is historically significant, Booker’s stunt comes from an opportunistic and performative strategy.
Booker’s words have been painted as a filibuster, but they don’t exactly fit the description. While Booker stopped senatorial deliberation, he wasn’t speaking to block any legislation. Therefore, it’s outside the scope of an actual filibuster. If there was no legislation to block, then what’s the practical importance here? Perhaps symbolism alone gets the job done, but wasting your bullets on targets that aren’t tangible is worthy of critique.
A speech that long demands substance behind it, especially as opposing Trump rhetorically is an easy political layup. While Booker’s passion should be the baseline for any Democrat opposing Trump, it lands closer to Senator Chuck Schumer’s pitiful attempt at an anti-Elon protest. The standard shouldn’t be meaningless rhetorical victories in the face of fascism through a potential constitutional crisis. If this wasn’t a real filibuster, what exactly was it supposed to achieve beyond optics?
To his credit, Booker made a 74 pages worth of appeals to America’s political history, referring to a list of civil rights leaders while juxtaposing his speech to Thurmond’s. Booker remarked on the significance of symbolically defeating the history of segregation as a Black senator. In addition, Booker admitted that Democrats haven’t done enough, taking responsibility for Trump’s rise. Accountability is the first step to gaining trust, and it’s better late than never.
Still, acknowledging the past demands meaningful change in the present. I don’t think it’s moral purity to demand consistency from elected officials, especially if they claim an ideology that supports equal rights. Booker claims to interrupt “normal business” and acknowledges the risks faced by student protestors, yet he aligns himself with the Trump administration’s foreign policy by voting down a resolution to stop arms deals to Israel. Booker’s perception of human rights and normalcy only goes so far, and it doesn’t extend to roll call votes. Booker’s claim to be a true believer in liberalism is only gridlocked domestically. Regardless, for all its theatrics, Booker’s speech had one material effect: the polls.
As the Democrats search for a new party leader, Booker is among the first to make his ambition public. In the immediate aftermath, the speech gave him a bump. According to Echelon, Booker now polls 11% in the national picture. With Wisconsin Democrats rejecting a visit from former Vice President Kamala Harris, the throne seems to be for the taking. Looking at the nationwide “Hands Off!” protests, hundreds of thousands of people are galvanized. It’s just a matter of taking the opportunity.
Americans live in an image-based society where rhetoric is the name of the game. Few people can indeed go up and speak for 25 hours; it’s an impressive feat that the most proficient of yappers would even struggle with. Booker is appealing to his base, but also visibly doing something that could be extrapolated from the hundreds of angry town halls nationwide.
Change isn’t immediately tangible, and voicing grievances is a part of building momentum. Voters are desperate enough that symbolic acts earned Booker some prominence, for now. Resistance isn’t just vibes, essays and speeches, but it’s starting to look like it’s all we’ve got with federal crackdown on campuses. Compare Booker’s speech to Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a move that feels more of a direct challenge to Trump. Now, Booker seeks to replicate that. Unlike students or immigrants, an elected representative won’t be subject to those risks. When Democrats halfheartedly lean on symbolic gestures, it feels disconnected between the threats of people’s everyday lives.
Senator Booker started his speech discussing the Trump administration’s threats to the American people. These are true, and it’ll become increasingly evident as time goes on. Lame duck be damned, we’re still in the first 100 days — marked by an era of forcing institutions like academia to fall in line with the Trump administration’s goals. A speech is just a moment in time. It just so happens that Booker had the opportunity to monetize that moment for something more meaningful.
Referring to Booker’s words, he acknowledges that the neoliberal status quo caused us to end up where we are today, but his actions surrounding the speech don’t indicate that he represents that change. It’s obvious knowing the positionality of the Democrats. It’s like expecting a fish to grow legs. Something will always beat nothing, but it would be nice if Booker’s performance meant a bit more than just words that uphold the status quo.
