The Death of Political Decorum: Pam Bondi, JD Vance, and Why We're All Exhausted

It feels like every time I open the news, I’m not reading about policy anymore. I’m watching behavior. Grown adults, with real power, acting like the goal is to humiliate someone on camera rather than solve anything. And I don’t even say that as a partisan complaint. I say it as a human who is tired.

I’m Nicole, and I’m here with Jolene. We sit on opposite sides of the political aisle, and we’re asking a simple question today: where did decorum in the White House go? Not the fake, polite kind that hides corruption. The basic, functional kind. The kind that lets people disagree without turning every interaction into a performance designed to go viral.

Because right now, politics feels like it’s being run by the same logic as social media. Outrage wins. Clips win. Humiliation wins. And the rest of us are left trying to live normal lives while the people in charge behave like they’re auditioning for a reality show.

One of the moments that really set this off for us was watching congressional hearings that felt less like a search for truth and more like a junior high debate team competition. Pam Bondi during the Epstein hearings was a perfect example. It wasn’t that tough questions were asked. Tough questions are part of the job. It was the tone. The posturing. The sense that everyone already knew their lines and the only real audience was the camera.

Jolene and I both had the same reaction, which was basically, are we seriously doing this? Is this what oversight looks like now? Because when hearings turn into theatre, they don’t just waste time. They teach the public that politics is not about governing. It’s about winning the moment. And if you’re raising kids, or teaching kids, or just trying to be a decent adult in public, it’s hard not to look at that and think, we are modelling the worst possible behavior.

And then there’s the media layer, which pours gas on everything. Headlines are written like boxing match promos. Photos are chosen for maximum disgust. Arrows, circles, “gotcha” captions, breathless framing. “Democrats grill” this person. “Republicans slam” that person. It’s not information, it’s agitation. It’s a national tabloid with better lighting.

My hot take is that we are all being trained into a constant stress response. Even people who say they love politics seem exhausted by it. We’re being pitted against each other every day, and it’s not because the issues don’t matter. It’s because the delivery is designed to keep us angry, loyal, and clicking.

So we started asking the awkward question. What would happen if we took the cameras out of congressional hearings? Or at least changed the rules so the incentives weren’t so performative? We want transparency, obviously. But right now, “transparency” is being used as an excuse for made-for-TV drama. What if no one was allowed notes? No visual aids. No rehearsed speeches. Just people answering questions like adults. Imagine that.

And then, in the middle of all this noise, we had a moment of contrast. We watched Marco Rubio’s Munich speech and both felt the same surprising thing. Relief. Not because we suddenly agree with everything he believes, but because it sounded like an adult speaking to adults. Measured. Clear. Serious. Not trying to go viral. Not trying to bait the other side. Just communicating like the stakes are real.

It made us wonder if that kind of tone still has a future in American politics, or if the system now rewards the opposite. Because here’s the tension. Voters say they want maturity, but attention often goes to outrageousness. People say they want substance, but the algorithm rewards spectacle. And then you get leaders who feel more like entertainers than public servants.

We talked about Gavin Newsom in that context, too. He’s polished, charismatic, and undeniably skilled at the performance of politics. But does that polish read as leadership, or does it read as theatre? Does relatability matter more than responsibility now? Are we choosing candidates based on who feels like they can run a country, or who feels like they can dominate a news cycle?

And then there’s the piece we can’t ignore as women. The double standard. When men are forceful, they’re “strong.” When women are forceful, they’re “unstable.” When men raise their voices, they’re “passionate.” When women do it, they’re “emotional.” I shared a personal story with Jolene about being assertive and watching it get translated, almost instantly, into something irrational. Like confidence in a woman must be explained as a problem.

That matters because it shapes who feels “acceptable” in public life. It shapes who gets taken seriously. It shapes who gets forgiven for the same behavior. And in a culture already drowning in rage and performance, women often get punished twice. Once for playing the game, and again for refusing to.

So where does that leave us?

Honestly, we’re not ending this episode with a neat solution. We’re ending it with a cultural challenge. Can we shift away from rage-bait and click-driven drama? Can we reward leaders who speak like adults? Can we stop treating politics like sport and start treating it like the shared responsibility it is?

We’d like to believe we can. And we’re trying to do our small part by modelling something that feels almost old-fashioned now. Disagreement wrapped in respect. Curiosity without contempt. Conviction without cruelty.

If you’re exhausted too, tell us. What do you think changed? Do you think decorum can come back, or is this just politics now? And what would you actually reward in a leader if the algorithm wasn’t in the room?

Because every shift starts the same way. Someone decides the current normal is not good enough and says it out loud.


RESOURCES MENTIONED:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/how-pam-bondi-democrats-turned-hearing-hysteria-right-front-jeffrey-epsteins-victims

How to find Nicole
How to find Jolene

YouTube

Previous
Previous

Iran Conflict: What Happens When "You Break It, You Buy It" Applies to War?

Next
Next

Bridge Grades: The ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ Scorecard for Congress