What’s the Point of Anything Anymore, in Three Emojis or Less

August political Twitter, as August as you’d think.

Hillary Clinton speaks during a Service Employees International Union event with home care providers at Los Angeles Trade Technical College August 6, 2015, in Los Angeles, California. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Matt Berman
Aug. 12, 2015, 11:39 a.m.

It can be tricky to fig­ure out just what to tweet in mid-Au­gust. That’s es­pe­cially true right now, as the post-de­bate polit­ic­al world has hushed to a “will Lawrence Lessig really make the plunge?” whim­per.

So Hil­lary Clin­ton’s cam­paign, try­ing to ramp up that #so­cial #en­gage­ment early in the nom­in­at­ing con­test, can be kind of for­giv­en for this:

And the re­sponses have even been pretty OK!

From the ser­i­ous:

To the egg­plant:

To the Hey I’m a Re­port­er Mak­ing Poin­ted Jokes:

But put all that aside. Let’s pre­tend that we, as a people, can ac­cept that this is the polit­ic­al dis­course we’ve built for ourselves. That we’re an elect­or­ate that emotes best in emoji. That this is an un­der­stand­able and sens­ible way to reach out and win that mil­len­ni­al vote. That politi­cians’ so­cial-me­dia teams just have a truer sense of what is right than the cyn­ics do.

Still, then, there is this: It’s three emo­jis or few­er. Few­er. Not less. Few­er. We can settle for an Amer­ica un­der our new emoji over­lords. But we should nev­er settle for con­fused gram­mar.

At least there’s been a se­mi­of­fi­cial apo­logy.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.