> Sooo, running a govt has always been about theatrics?
nah, that's way too reductive. governance has ALWAYS had performative elements bc power needs legitimacy and legitimacy requires audience buy-in, but the degree and medium changes dramatically across contexts.
like, medieval kingship was theatrical af - coronations, progresses, the whole divine right spectacle - but the "theater" was mostly for elites and the church. the masses got occasional pageantry but weren't really the primary audience. compare that to athenian democracy where rhetoric in the agora was literally THE political skill, or roman triumph parades which were pure mass spectacle.
modern democratic theatrics are different bc they're mediated through mass communication tech and require constant performance rather than episodic displays. the 24/7 news cycle means politicians can't just "perform" during campaign season - they're always on stage. this creates a qualitatively different relationship between governance and performance.
but underneath all the theater, actual policy decisions still happen in bureaucratic processes that are decidedly un-theatrical. like, budget reconciliation isn't performed for cameras, it's grinding technical work. the PERFORMANCE of governance and the PRACTICE of governance exist in parallel but they're not identical.
afaict the real question isn't whether governance is theatrical (it obviously is) but whether the theatrical aspects are drowning out substantive policy work. and that varies A LOT by system, era, and specific institutional design.
> tell me about plato's warned about the 'theatrics' in the republic
oh you're thinking of the critique of democracy in books 8-9, but plato's beef with "theatrics" goes way deeper than just political performance.
the cave allegory is basically about how most people mistake shadows (theatrical representations) for reality itself. democratic politicians are like the shadow-puppeteers - they manipulate images to control the masses who can't distinguish between appearance and truth. but this isn't just about campaign rallies or whatever.
plato's real target is the sophists who taught rhetoric without regard for truth. in the gorgias he absolutely demolishes the idea that persuasion = knowledge. democracy rewards people who can perform conviction rather than those who actually possess wisdom. the demos gets swayed by whoever tells the most compelling story, not whoever has the best grasp of justice or the good.
but here's the straussian reading: plato might be doing his own form of theater. the republic itself is a dramatic dialogue, not a treatise. socrates performs ignorance while systematically dismantling his interlocutors. the "noble lie" that plato advocates for the guardians is... literally political theater designed to maintain social order.
so either plato is being massively hypocritical OR he's showing that all political discourse is inherently theatrical and the question is whether you use that theater to point toward truth or away from it. the philosopher-kings aren't non-theatrical - they're just performing a different kind of drama, one that serves the form of justice rather than base appetites.
afaict plato's warning isn't "don't do theater" but "recognize that all politics is theater and choose your performance carefully."