The Politician Formerly Known as "Schumer" --
In the wake of Mr. Schumer's inflammatory vote against his party, I'm asking what his political persona means in the politics of today. More, I'm wondering if his type still have a place at all.
If there is a benefit to the alternate narratives of Postmodernism, then it is felt with assured gratitude by the politician. The proliferation of media grants politicians unparalleled access to the American people, which aids support for their narratives. Also, in certain genres like the interview, unapproachable celebrity is blurred by familiarization. In an interview, the politician sheds the pretense of performance to communicate their alternate narratives, as well as shape their persona[1]; they are allowed, in the eyes of their constituents, to become human through conversation. That is, if Postmodernism opens experience to multiple narratives, then the interview gives politicians an opportunity to construct their personas, while allowing the pretense of performance-associated political celebrity to fall away, at least perceptually[2], in the rhythms of a human interaction. The interview’s role in Postmodern politics asks how the rhetor engineers their persona, and whether that persona still succeeds in the current landscape. The New York Times interview with Senator Chuck Schumer particularly characterizes these concerns. Schumer gave an interview to the Times on both sides of his inflammatory decision to vote for the Republican federal spending bill this March. By dissecting Schumer’s persona (ethos, roles, identities, image) as presented in the Times interview, I intend to determine the efficacy of Schumer’s persona in the modern political landscape and speculatively project Schumer’s future—and the future of similar personas—in a Trumpian America.
To effectively project the future of Schumer-esque personas in America, the particularities of Mr. Schumer’s persona (ethos, roles, identity, image) must be defined. Mr. Schumer’s ethos[3] can be parsed from the interview as driven in part—certainly in discussions on antisemitism, which was a large portion of the interview—by his Jewish heritage. Phronesis, the demonstrated practical wisdom and rationality of the rhetor, comes through in his exacting tone and comprehensible language. Mr. Schumer’s voice (it being an audio interview) is conversational, responsibly impassioned, when necessary, but builds his persona as a measured and reasonable rhetor. Mr. Schumer’s language is grounded and comedic (“I’m from Brooklyn…that’s a synonym for ‘Jewish’” *laughter* (9:07-9:17)), legitimizing authority via confidence while refraining from coming across as egotistical. His wisdom is coupled with honesty[4], especially when the inclusion of Jewish identity in his persona—the legitimizing force of his discussion on antisemitism—is rationalized by Schumer as an urge to be authentic:
My best advice is be yourself. The public may not know the difference between your education platform and your opponent’s, but they can smell a phony a mile away (8:56-9:05).
Arete, or a persona’s perceived virtue, enhances phronesis in this way. Mr. Schumer’s arete is derived by his laudation of honesty when discussing identity, which causes the audience to trust not only his alternate narratives, but also his persona’s merit. The reciprocal nature of rationality and virtue in Mr. Schumer’s persona flow into his eunoia (goodwill); his reasoned, virtuous approach to the interview presents the listener with an impression that Mr. Schumer, and his narrative of Democratic Institutionalism along with it, holds the country’s best interests at heart. Just as Mr. Schumer values “telling the stories of my family” (9:20-22), his position, stripped to honesty by the interview, values helping listeners tell theirs. His ethos—the reasonable, empowering servant—also informs his role.
The interplay between ethos and roles comprises a significant part of the rhetor’s persona, which, post-2024, meant Mr. Schumer’s ethos threatened to be delegitimized by his contested role[5] as Senate Minority Leader. He presented a very specific persona in the Times interview, which, in the wake of an election that saw considerable Democratic losses in swing states and a surge in Republican support across many demographics once considered securely Democrat in Obama-era politics, was inarguably necessarily. As Senate Minority Leader, Mr. Schumer’s role positions him as the foremost spokesperson for a party that must reestablish themselves under a second term of Trump. Thus, his rhetorical persona is perhaps one of the most important in the national conversation between new wave Trumpian populism and majority Democratic Institutionalism; if the head of Trumpian populism is the eponymous majority leader, then Mr. Schumer’s role legitimizes his leadership of the opposition. His chosen gatekeeper reflects his role’s ideological allegiance as well, for his giving of the interview to the Times, widely regarded as the gold-standard journalism institution, attracts a certain audience that values the sort of institutionalism Mr. Schumer’s image presently promotes. The goal of this interview is to build a narrative for the Democratic Institutionalist within the persona of Mr. Schumer; so, his selection of the Times, an organization which propagates that position incredibly effectively amongst a widespread readership, makes perfect sense.
Many aspects of Mr. Schumer’s identity[6] have already been commented upon; his Jewish identity allows him to speak on antisemitism in a uniquely effective way, his alignment (via voting habits and public engagement) with the Democratic Party as Senate Minority Leader elevate his positionality when commenting on the future of the party, and his impassioned but rational truths espoused over the interview increase the poignancy of both. As found in the Times interview, then, Mr. Schumer’s persona presents an identity as a Jewish, Democrat, Institutionalist, and passionate but reasonable leader. This identity’s overall impression seeks, of course, to provide an alternate truth to Trumpian Populism in the wake of Democratic setback in 2025; however, Mr. Schumer’s particular angle is to provide such a truth that preserves him at the helm. This interview is just as much about reestablishing trust in the Democratic party as it is reestablishing confidence in Mr. Schumer’s capabilities as Senate Minority Leader.
Mr. Schumer’s scrambling to reassert strength in the interview is ultimately the driving force behind his proposed image.[7] The Postmodern interview serves Mr. Schumer as it serves his platform, for it gives a chance for listeners to see, in perceived honestly, a man that is still fit to be the leader of Democratic Institutionalism. At least, that is his hope: in response to pushback on Mr. Schumer’s proposed view of Democrats as “the party of working people”, Schumer claims the reason voters lost faith in the democratic party is due to ignorance:
We lost [the election]. Correct. We always cared about the working people. But in the last few years, while we did a lot for working people, here’s what we didn’t do: We didn’t tell people about it. We thought, just by legislating, people would know about it. They don’t! (12:54-13:10).
Herein lies the essence of Mr. Schumer’s alternate narrative as proposed through the interview: the Democratic Institutionalist platform still works for the people, and the lack of faith in the party is a communication issue (“We lost [working people] because…we didn’t convey it” (15:10-15)). And his particular image? I still work for you.
The conclusion of this interview is obfuscated by Mr. Schumer’s inflammatory decision to vote for the Republican Federal spending bill. Contextualized by the interview, a necessary understanding of Postmodernism is that meaning is ultimately derived from the audience’s interpretation, despite the wishes of the rhetor. Mr. Schumer’s proposed image in the first half of the interview (I still work for you) is contested in the second half, recorded after his decision. And under review, the elements of his persona established in the first half are largely challenged by the second: his tone is no longer clear, but garbled and aggressive (“the point here, again, I’ll repeat what I said” (48:24-26)); voting against his party exacerbates distrust in his role as Senate Minority Leader, no matter his attempted justification; his identity as a passionate but reasonable leader reneges on his reason and contorts his passion. Editorially, I found Mr. Schumer’s handling of the second half staggering—it almost completely undoes the first half of the interview. And the undoing is because the audience is presented with both interviews, and under Postmodernism, they are tempted and validated to find Mr. Schumer’s Democratic Institutionalist persona to be as conflicting as the opposition’s.
Herein lies the danger for Mr. Schumer—he opened himself up to an interview which allowed the nation to judge him. He stripped himself of perceived performance to be honest with his party, then behaved in a way that seriously damaged his persona as a rational and capable leader. He saw the question of his leadership in a Trumpian America and wavered at the answer. This is why Schumer-esque personas are called into question: they do not present themselves as demagogues[8] in a world that rewards demagoguery. The standards for their personas are institutionally based—which invites criticism much easier than Trumpians do. And they provide another admission Trumpians do not—they allow the criticism to affect them. If my analysis is right, then Schumer-esque personas, who value the institutional ideals of Washington, open themselves up to criticism by the very nature of their values. If a Trumpian America prevails, and institutional ideals are replaced by demagoguery outright, then there will be no place for Mr. Schumer, as he will have removed himself.
[1] The performed and audience-perceived version of the rhetor.
[2] perception is fed by the postmodern necessity to question the presented narrative, as well as the understanding that a “persona” is necessarily a performed thing, separate from the rhetor’s inherency.
[3] An amalgamate of phronesis, arete, and eunoia; what Aristotle might call “street cred.”
[4] Recall the Postmodern Interview’s intention of perceived honesty amidst a persona’s performance.
[5] The rhetor’s position within the sphere they operate.
[6] Physical/behavioral attributes that recognize a rhetor with a group. Being an audio interview, physical attributes are drawn from known public media of Schumer; behavioral, though, hold primary presence here.
[7] Verbal/visual characterization that creates a perception of the rhetor.
[8] Depending on party positioning, the term Demagogue might carry positive or negative connotations. I’ve seen Trumpian populists embrace the disruptive sentiment before with terms like propaganda, whereas Democratic Institutionalists avoid them like the plague—it’s all dependent on which side the disruption is felt.
Work Cited
Garcia-navarro, Lulu. “Chuck Schumer on Democrats, Antisemitism and His Shutdown Retreat.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/magazine/chuck-schumer-interview.html?smid=url-share.