By Joshua Arnold

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) stood up for a speech on Monday evening that wrapped up on Tuesday evening, 25 hours and five minutes later. The speech literally made the record books, surpassing the previous record for the longest speech on the Senate floor (set by the late Strom Thurmond in 1957) by 48 minutes. But, beyond setting a new record, Booker’s speech meant little and achieved less.

When he rose, Booker declared his “intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able.” This means that his speech was “not technically a filibuster,” noted Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, because Booker’s obstruction blocked no particular bill. Instead, Booker denied his body food and rest for a day merely to orate generally “in opposition to the policies of the Trump administration,” as Perkins described.

I don’t know how anyone can find 25 hours worth of material to discuss, but Booker’s staff did their best to prepare, laboring for a week beforehand to fill 15 binders full of material. Certainly, it helped that Booker’s pseudo-filibuster was not constrained to a single topic, but to the entirety of President Trump’s far-reaching agenda.

“He’s actually coming in opposition to things like: we now have record low illegal immigration numbers coming across the border, we’re getting a control of our spending, starting to be able to reduce some of the waste in government, and we have a tax bill that we’re trying to start the debate on that will actually prevent a massive tax increase on the American people,” Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) exclaimed in amazement on “Washington Watch.”

If there was a proximate catalyst to Booker’s performance, Lankford suggested it was likely the tax bill. “Senator Booker is in, apparently, strong opposition to that. He wants to see the … tax rates go up,” he said.

Not that Booker’s quixotic episode will cause much harm to this particular windmill. “We’re still going to do that,” said Lankford. “It’s 50 hours of debate, but it’s actually 25 and 25 — so it’s split [between] Republicans and Democrats. We will just yield all of our time back and get straight to the votes on it; people are not tracking and watching all the ongoing debate leading up to it. Either way … they know our arguments.” Even with a vote-a-rama, Lankford predicted the Senate could proceed to a vote on the tax cut package by Thursday at the earliest or Saturday at the latest.

So, if Booker’s speech failed to stonewall legislation, what was the point? The New York Times suggests one possibility: “The social-media-savvy senator streamed the speech live on his TikTok account, where it garnered more than 350 million ‘likes.’ And more than 110,000 people were watching on YouTube when Mr. Booker ended his speech.”

Aha, here is a substantial clue. Many online “content creators” perform “24-hour livestreams” as a stunt to generate buzz and boost their online audience. Booker spoke for 24(+) hours, while livestreaming his speech on multiple social media platforms. Serious news outlets then reported the audience interactions these livestreams generated as relevant details of the story.

Thus, a preponderance of evidence suggests that Booker imagines that his primary occupation is as a content creator, with his senatorial duties taking a secondary — or, in this case, subservient — role. Social media livestreams and breaking records are what you expect from, for example, Dude Perfect, not from The Honorable Gentleman from New Jersey. Of course, all successful politicians need to remain connected and popular among their voter base, and online interactions are one medium to achieve that end. In fact, online interactions can generate real-world engagement; Booker’s office received 28,000 calls before he finished speaking.

But it’s possible to boost a social media presence beyond what is politically useful. For instance, Booker’s speech gathered nearly twice as many likes on TikTok as there are TikTok users in the U.S. (170 million). (I can more readily believe that 110,000 angry Democrats tuned in on YouTube to watch Booker’s finale). Even for a senator of a populous state with obvious presidential aspirations, this social media stunt seems like overkill.

On the other hand, judging by the plaudits he has received, Booker apparently gave the Democratic base exactly what they wanted: an elected official who was “fighting” against Trump, no matter how fruitlessly.

In the process, however, Booker managed to render the Senate a more frivolous institution. The Senate is designed as a more austere, deliberative body than the House. Senators enjoy the privilege of speaking for as long as necessary, while House members are usually constrained to only a few minutes. Senators also enjoy the privilege of a filibuster, which forces inter-party deliberation to move legislation. Booker abused these privileges for his “24-hour livestream” speech, which served no purpose other than to delay the Senate’s ability to generally conduct business by approximately 24 hours.

If there is one silver lining to the frivolity, Booker’s speech put to rest the brazenly hypocritical notion that the filibuster (especially the talking filibuster) is a “Jim Crow relic,” as former President Barack Obama put it. The only reason why anyone could suggest as much with a straight face is that the record for the longest speech was set by a Southern senator opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now that Thurmond’s record has been superseded — by a black man, if we’re being frivolous — all parties should be able to recognize the filibuster for what it is, a neutral implement for protecting minority interests.

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.