In his 2023 Speech for the New Year, Labour Leader Keir Starmer repeated his criticism of “the Tory circus” as he lamented the seemingly unbreakable yet entirely avoidable crisis cycle at Westminster. Starmer stated that “nothing has changed, but the circus continues.” Repeat the process.
Starmer has made the performance metaphor one of his favorite insults against the Conservative Party. In a conversation with Laura Kuenssberg, he referred to the “ridiculous and chaotic circus” of his political rival.
The state of affairs was a circus in 2023. Newsweek covered the controversy surrounding the confirmation of a Republican Speaker in the House of Representatives using the hashtag #GOPClownShow. The Washington Post published an opinion article the following day that suggested the “Republican Speaker Circus was a good reason to vote Democrat.”
These examples show a link between politics and circuses that has existed for centuries in popular imagination.
History of Politics and the Circus
The founder of the modern Circus, Philip Astley, was responsible (or notoriously, depending on how you feel) for hysterical anti-dissident pantomimes that provoked violent responses among audiences in his arena, located in Dublin, Ireland.
Astley is credited with being one of the first performers to use modern circuses as a medium for social and political commentary. In the last 50 years, the social circus movement has been driven by left-wing activism. It uses “the arts as a means for human development and social changes.”
Starmer’s comments, and those of the American press in relation to US politics, betray a lack of interest in a “big top” circus. They show the expressive power of the image in political discourse, which is older than Astley’s pantomimes. It also relates to the origin of the word “circus” used in classical times.
The Roman Circus featured gladiator contests and chariot races. Classicist Catherine Keane claims that the wordlessness in these public spectacles was what attracted Juvenal to compose his Satires during the second century. You could make the circus image mean whatever you wanted, unlike language-based performances, where meanings were fixed.
Juvenal, in one of his most famous phrases, Panem et Cirenses, suggested that modern citizens’ needs were not more sophisticated than Bread and Circuses. They were superficial and unsubstantial.
If you think that the Circus is a simple show, then you are missing out on something very impressive.
Incorrect image of Circus in political discourse
Showtime, the television network, launched the documentary series The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show in the World as a reaction to the increasing populism of US political campaigns. The show has now entered its seventh season despite a switch in administrations from Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden.
Jon Sopel, the former North American editor of the BBC, followed Showtime and published A Year at the Circus (2019), his account covering the Trump Presidency.
Dea Birkett was inspired by Sopel’s book to launch a passionate defense of the skill, professionalism, and composure displayed by circus performers in The Spectator Magazine.
In her article, Birkett (herself a former circus performer) addressed the cliched habit of describing the behavior of former US president Donald Trump, his aides, and close advisers in circus terms. She extended her criticism to the equivalent tendency in British politics and media when it came to conveying frustrations with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
From political metaphor to performance
ITV’s The Circus, a high-profile documentary from 2012, revealed the precarious nature of traditional circus life in Britain today. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, once known as “The Greatest Show on Earth,” pulled down its giant top for the last, allegedly, time when Showtime aired its documentary describing US political life as a circus.
We go to the traditional Circus mainly out of nostalgia, but it’s not the only reason. It’s not essential to have experience with the Circus to be able to use it effectively.
In Politicians & Rhetoric, Professor of Linguistics Jonathan Charteris Black argues that metaphors are used in political contexts for ideological purposes. This is because they activate unconscious emotional associations.
If we consider the metaphor of a circus, these associations, such as risk, adventure, excitement, and freedom, could be positive. In a negative context, a metaphor for chaos might suggest cruelty, disarray, antisocial behavior, civilized behavior, and style over substance.
Invoking the Circus as a metaphor in political discourse undermines the ability, power, and common sense of an opponent. This is why Birkett was frustrated that her fellow circus performers were not acknowledged for their skill and prowess.
Charteris-Black says that metaphor is the change in the meaning of a phrase or word by giving it a new context. The innovative sense will change the importance of the metaphorical word. Politicians and commentators have replaced the circus ring with the political arena in such a way that the purpose of the term has been altered.
We understand the Circus best through its symbolic use in other cultural, political, and social phenomena.