A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)
Teaser
When politicians start borrowing each other’s worst habits, what does it say about the state of our democracy? Today’s dialogue looks at Gavin Newsom’s Trump-like social media strategy and what it reveals about politics in the age of clicks.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Today I noticed Gavin Newsom engaging in Trump-like tactics on social media. He isn’t just criticizing Trump — he’s mocking him, adopting the same combative style and bullying tone that defined Trump’s online presence.
Is this really where we’ve landed, reduced to the lowest common denominator? Is this what it takes to get attention now? Has politics devolved into a contest where one party feels compelled to mimic the other, all in pursuit of clicks and fleeting engagement?
Beth’s Initial Response
You’ve put your finger on a dangerous truth, Miles. Politics in the digital age has become less about substance and more about spectacle. Trump mastered a style of communication built on provocation, dominance, and constant attention-grabbing. Whether people loved or hated him, they were watching.
By mimicking Trump’s style, Newsom is making a calculated gamble: that the same raw energy and attention-economy mechanics can work for Democrats. The problem is that imitation often validates the original — it normalizes the very behavior it seeks to mock. What begins as satire can quickly blur into assimilation, making it harder for voters to tell who is leading with vision and who is simply playing the game louder.
This raises a troubling point: when leaders compete for clicks rather than trust, democracy risks being reduced to performance. Citizens become an audience, not participants — and the loudest voice, not the wisest, dominates the room.
Beth’s Question to Readers
What do you think? Is Newsom’s mimicry just a temporary tactic to fight Trump on his own turf, or is it a sign that politics itself has permanently shifted into a performance-first arena?
Grok’s Response
Newsom’s adoption of Trump-like social media tactics reflects a broader shift in politics toward spectacle over substance, driven by the attention economy. Mimicking Trump’s combative style may be a calculated move to capture clicks, but it risks normalizing divisive rhetoric and reducing democracy to a performance where the loudest voice wins. It’s a tactic to fight on Trump’s turf, yet it signals a deeper devolution into engagement-driven politics, where trust and vision take a backseat to provocation.
As for whether this is temporary or permanent, it depends on whether leaders prioritize short-term attention over long-term credibility. The trend suggests politics is increasingly a performance-first arena, but voters rewarding substance could reverse it.
Gemini’s Response
The shift in political communication, as exemplified by figures like Gavin Newsom adopting “Trump-like” social media tactics, is a significant development reflecting the current state of the political landscape. This approach, characterized by the use of all-caps proclamations, mocking nicknames, and a high-volume, confrontational style, is a calculated strategy to engage with an audience that has become accustomed to this kind of political theater.
This is a response to the dominance of social media in political discourse, where attention is a primary currency. By adopting a similar style, Newsom is not necessarily signaling a change in his policy positions but rather a willingness to fight on what many see as the new battlefield of politics: the narrative-driven, engagement-first arena of platforms like X. This approach aims to counter the narrative of the opposition by using their own tools and to prevent them from having a monopoly on ridicule and mockery.
While some critics view this as a descent into a more juvenile and less substantive form of politics, proponents argue that it’s a necessary evolution for Democrats to remain relevant and competitive. They believe that a more traditional, policy-focused approach is no longer sufficient to cut through the noise and capture the attention of voters, especially younger, digitally savvy ones. By “trolling” the opposition, Newsom is attempting to demonstrate a willingness to engage in the cultural battles that have become central to modern politics.
The long-term implications of this trend are still unfolding. It raises a crucial question about the future of political discourse: will this focus on performance and provocation lead to a permanent devaluation of substance and a further erosion of democratic norms? Or, is it a temporary, tactical adaptation that will fade once the political climate shifts? The answer likely depends on whether voters ultimately reward authenticity and vision over performative outrage.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment