Tag: wrestling

  • The Go-Home Heat of Ordinary Life

    The Go-Home Heat of Ordinary Life

    Around seven this evening, I found myself in Target performing the small rituals of domestic survival. I drifted first to produce, where I stood contemplating six-packs of kiwis—those fuzzy, unglamorous orbs that look like they were designed by a committee that feared both beauty and commitment.

    To my left stood a blonde woman in black athletic tights, late thirties, hair cinched back by a black headband. Her eyes were ringed with the faint bruising of fatigue or life—or both. When she saw me reach for the kiwis, her face brightened with the sudden, evangelical urgency of someone who has found a truth and is no longer capable of keeping it to herself.

    “Have you ever bought the golden ones?”

    I nodded, already sensing the sermon.

    “I love those because you can eat the skin.”

    “I can do without the skin,” I said, hoping to signal that my relationship with fruit had boundaries.

    She leaned in, undeterred. “Don’t skip that part. That’s where you’re getting all your antioxidants, folate, vitamin E, and fiber.”

    She delivered this litany with the confidence of someone who had recently completed a deep dive into the internet’s temple of wellness influencers and emerged fluent in their catechism.

    “I’m a true believer in the kiwi,” I said, offering a diplomatic half-truth in the hopes of ending the exchange.

    It did not end the exchange.

    She urged me to seek out the golden kiwis and to consume them whole, skin and all, as though salvation itself depended on my willingness to chew through fuzz. I smiled, nodded, and executed a tactical retreat.

    She struck me as a fundamentally decent person, but I recognized the type. I’ve met her before in various incarnations: the recently converted, the self-reinvented, the earnest disciple of a new regimen. Somewhere in her recent past, there had likely been a fracture—addiction, heartbreak, loneliness—and now she clung to nutrition and fitness as both shield and scripture. Her enthusiasm, admirable in theory, had exceeded her social boundaries. 

    Five minutes later, we encountered each other again in the granola aisle, approaching from opposite directions like two diplomats from uneasy nations. Our carts collided in that narrow space, and she immediately yielded.

    “You can go first.”

    The earlier fervor had drained from her. In its place was a kind of tentative humility, as though she had replayed the kiwi lecture in her mind and found it excessive. She seemed smaller now, slightly folded into herself, her previous confidence replaced by a quiet, almost visible self-consciousness.

    I sensed embarrassment, perhaps even shame—not because she had said anything offensive, but because she had revealed too much of herself too quickly. Now she was attempting restraint, but the adjustment hadn’t taken. The performance read not as composed but as deflated.

    The poor woman was unraveling in real time, her emotional weather shifting faster than she could dress for it.

    “No worries,” I said, and moved past her.

    Later, at home, I found myself thinking about the kiwi evangelist with more sympathy than irritation. I recognized the impulse. I know what it feels like to become intoxicated by an idea and immediately want to share it with anyone within earshot. I have been that person—too eager, too talkative, too quick to mistake oversharing for connection. Only later does the embarrassment arrive, that slow realization that enthusiasm, when stripped of self-awareness, can become its own form of social aggression.

    People rarely reward that kind of personality. In professional wrestling, every story revolves around two archetypes: the Babyface, the hero who earns the audience’s affection, and the Heel, the villain who earns its contempt. Some Heels possess charisma so magnetic that people love hating them. They generate what wrestling insiders call real heat. Their arrogance, cruelty, and swagger become irresistible entertainment. In sports broadcasting, Howard Cosell was the apotheosis of this phenomenon. He irritated millions with such magnificent consistency that irritation itself became addictive. America tuned in partly to watch the games and partly to watch Cosell be Cosell.

    But there is a far more unfortunate kind of Heel. He isn’t fascinating enough to hate. He merely occupies oxygen. His habits are tedious, his mannerisms grating, his conversation a slow-acting sedative. Wrestling has a name for this, too: go-home heat. The audience doesn’t boo because the villain has done his job brilliantly. They boo because they want him off the screen. They aren’t emotionally invested. They’re simply exhausted.

    Sometimes I wonder whether our brains instinctively divide humanity into Babyfaces and Heels. If so, most of us who become Heels don’t achieve the glamorous status of generating real heat. We generate go-home heat. We become the person whose presence subtly shortens conversations, whose invitations quietly stop arriving, whose absence is greeted not with grief but with relief.

    I’ve felt that kind of heat more than once. The cruelest version isn’t public humiliation; it’s private disappearance. A friend stops calling. Invitations evaporate. Conversations become obligations. You realize you’ve crossed an invisible line from Babyface to Heel, not because anyone announced it, but because the emotional temperature in the room has changed. You can feel the polite distance settling in like cold fog. At that point, dignity requires only one response. You respect the boundary. You gather your things. You go home.

    Marriage provides one of the purest laboratories for go-home heat. I’ve known more than a few husbands whose wives finally reached the end of their patience and, with varying degrees of diplomacy, informed them that the show had been canceled. The message was always some variation of the same theme: I’ve grown up. You haven’t. Life with you has become lonelier than life without you. In the early days of courtship, these men were Babyfaces. They possessed charm, humor, ambition, and just enough mystery to generate what wrestling fans call pop—the roar of approval when the hero bursts through the curtain. But pop has a shelf life. If the hero never develops beyond his opening act, applause curdles into indifference. The jokes become stale. The promises expire. Eventually the audience stops cheering and starts looking toward the exit. Divorce, in many cases, is simply the marriage announcing that the Babyface has become the Heel.

    I recently watched a far less consequential but equally revealing Heel performance at Trader Joe’s.

    It was a quiet Saturday morning. About fifteen minutes into my shopping, I was comparing pasta sauces beside two sisters in their sixties, both sporting jet-black hair and the alert posture of women who had spent decades detecting trouble before it fully arrived. Then trouble arrived.

    A disturbance erupted in the frozen-food aisle.

    At first I assumed it was the familiar soundtrack of retail life—employees exchanging sarcastic insults, one playing the Babyface, the other the Heel, everyone secretly enjoying the performance. That illusion lasted perhaps three seconds. The voices hardened. The volume climbed. This wasn’t banter. This was a genuine kerfuffle, the kind baseball announcers once used to describe a bench-clearing brawl after someone wore a ninety-five-mile-per-hour fastball in the ribs.

    The dialogue quickly settled into the hypnotic repetition of an absurdist play.

    “Stop coughing on the food.”

    “Mind your own business.”

    Again.

    “Stop coughing on the food.”

    “Mind your own business.”

    The sisters and I exchanged the universal glance of strangers silently agreeing that civilization had taken an unexpected coffee break. Around us, employees gathered in nervous little clusters like prairie dogs emerging from their burrows to determine whether the predator had moved on.

    I never saw the alleged cougher. He remained an unseen villain, a phantom whose crimes could no longer be verified. But I did meet his prosecutor.

    He stormed into our aisle still simmering with indignation, muttering fragments of his closing argument to no one in particular. He was a bodybuilder in his late twenties with the unmistakable lat-spread gait of a man who had spent so much time widening his back that walking normally had become optional. He carried a grocery bag in each hand as though they were ceremonial dumbbells. Gray sweatpants. Turquoise T-shirt bearing the single word STRONG, just in case anyone had mistaken him for an accountant.

    The shirt was drenched with sweat, suggesting he’d recently emerged from the nearby UFC gym and hadn’t yet made the psychological transition from gladiator to grocery shopper.

    His expression attempted righteous indignation, but something betrayed him.

    He looked around.

    No one was applauding.

    No one admired his courage.

    No one seemed grateful that justice had been served in aisle seven.

    Instead, every face wore the same expression: Please remove this man from the premises.

    The go-home heat was overwhelming.

    He had mistaken confrontation for leadership, volume for authority, and muscles for moral credibility. Whatever point he believed he was making had been eclipsed by the spectacle of his performance. The entire store had unconsciously promoted him from self-appointed hero to official nuisance.

    For just a second, I caught something almost touching flicker across his face. It was the expression of a balloon discovering a pin. His certainty leaked away. Chagrin briefly appeared before pride hurried back to cover it.

    As for me, I reverted to one of humanity’s oldest survival instincts.

    I became wallpaper.

    I examined jars of marinara with scholarly intensity, refusing to make eye contact. The last thing I wanted was to be drafted into another man’s private morality play.

    A few minutes later, I spotted him again while checking out.

    He stood two lanes away.

    The entire store seemed aware of him.

    People stole glances over shopping carts. Conversations paused. The emotional climate had shifted. If Trader Joe’s had permitted audience participation, I suspect candy-bar wrappers, reusable shopping bags, and overripe bananas might have sailed gracefully through the air.

    He knew.

    His eyes darted around the room. He tucked his chin toward his chest, rounded his shoulders, and attempted the oldest disappearing act known to embarrassed human beings: becoming physically smaller. Unfortunately, shame rarely makes anyone less conspicuous. It merely signals to the audience that the verdict has already been rendered.

    The whispers began.

    “What a jerk.”

    “One guy can ruin the whole atmosphere.”

    “He really overplayed his hand.”

    “That guy watches way too many Bro videos.”

    He hurried out of the store with the defeated posture of a politician leaving the courthouse after an indictment, squeezed his improbable physique into a modest Honda Civic, and disappeared into traffic.

    Go-home heat is a cruel force, but perhaps it serves an evolutionary purpose. Every society needs mechanisms for enforcing its unwritten rules. Sometimes applause rewards admirable behavior. Sometimes boos remind us where the boundaries lie. Like every weapon, however, go-home heat demands restraint. Used wisely, it protects a community’s moral norms. Used recklessly, it becomes little more than collective bullying disguised as virtue.

  • College Essay Assignment: Kayfabe Nation—How Showbiz Spectacle Hijacked Reality

    College Essay Assignment: Kayfabe Nation—How Showbiz Spectacle Hijacked Reality

    Prompt:

    In professional wrestling, “kayfabe” refers to the willing suspension of disbelief—the blurred line between what is real and what is scripted. Vince McMahon, long-time CEO of WWE, not only mastered kayfabe in the ring but arguably exported it to the broader American culture. From politics to social media, from reality TV to influencer culture, the logic of kayfabe—the performance of truth—has arguably infiltrated how we consume media, understand power, and participate in public life.

    In an 8-paragraph essay, make an argument about how kayfabe, as popularized by McMahon and WWE, has become a defining feature of American culture. Use examples from Mr. McMahon (Netflix docuseries), the book Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America by Abraham Riesman (optional), and draw on insights from at least two additional cultural texts (suggestions below) to support your claim.


    Essay Structure (8 Paragraphs)

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Define “kayfabe” and introduce Vince McMahon as a key architect of it.
    • Introduce your thesis: Kayfabe has escaped the wrestling ring and now defines American public life through… [insert core claims: performance, manipulation, spectacle, etc.]

    Paragraph 2 – McMahon’s Mastery of Kayfabe

    • Show how Vince McMahon blurred the line between reality and performance in wrestling.
    • Use specific examples from Mr. McMahon or WWE history: character reinvention, real-life scandals worked into storylines, etc.

    Paragraph 3 – Kayfabe in Politics

    • Explore how politicians use wrestling-style performance—outrage, heel turns, loyalty tests—to manipulate perception.
    • Draw connections to Trump, MTG, RFK Jr., or any public figure who uses theatricality as political currency.

    Paragraph 4 – Kayfabe in Influencer Culture and Social Media

    • Show how influencers perform personas for clicks, sponsorships, and attention.
    • Highlight “authenticity as a performance” (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube).
    • Connect to Sherry Turkle’s idea of “performing ourselves into being.”

    Paragraph 5 – Kayfabe and the Media

    • Explain how media outlets also engage in narrative performance, packaging news as conflict and drama.
    • Consider the structure of cable news or partisan commentary.
    • Tie in insights from The Social Dilemma if desired.

    Paragraph 6 – Why This Works: Spectacle, Identity, and Tribalism

    • Analyze why kayfabe culture thrives—people want characters, not nuance; certainty, not ambiguity.
    • Explore how kayfabe fuels tribal identity and short-circuits critical thinking.

    Paragraph 7 – Counterargument & Rebuttal

    • Some may argue kayfabe is just entertainment and audiences are in on the joke.
    • Rebuttal: Even when “in on the joke,” people act based on performance rather than truth—leading to real-world consequences (e.g., Jan. 6, vaccine conspiracies, celebrity cults).

    Paragraph 8 – Conclusion

    • Restate your thesis: Kayfabe is no longer a gimmick—it’s a governing principle.
    • Reflect on the dangers of living in a world where perception outweighs reality.
    • Optional: Suggest how we might reclaim discernment in a post-kayfabe culture.

    Suggested Sources

    • Netflix documentary: Mr. McMahon
    • Abraham Riesman’s Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America (excerpts or reviews)
    • Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk “Connected, but Alone?”
    • Clips from WWE (e.g., McMahon’s character arc, Trump’s WrestleMania appearance)
    • The Social Dilemma (Netflix)
    • Articles on political spectacle and “media wrestling” (e.g., Matt Taibbi’s Hate, Inc. or Jonathan Haidt on tribalism)

  • Kayfabe Nation: How Wrestling Pinned American Politics: Exploring the Blurred Line Between Performance and Reality in the Post-Truth Era: A College Writing Prompt

    Kayfabe Nation: How Wrestling Pinned American Politics: Exploring the Blurred Line Between Performance and Reality in the Post-Truth Era: A College Writing Prompt

    Prompt:
    In his essay “The Rise and Fall of Vince McMahon,” Vinson Cunningham examines how the theatricality and blurred lines between reality and fiction in professional wrestling have permeated American politics, leading to a culture where spectacle often trumps substance. This phenomenon raises concerns about the erosion of truth and the rise of performative politics.

    Drawing upon the Netflix docuseries Mr. McMahon, Cunningham’s insights and the following essays, analyze the extent to which professional wrestling’s narrative techniques have influenced contemporary political discourse. Consider the implications of this shift for democratic processes, public trust, and the role of media in shaping political realities.

    Related Readings:

    1. Cunningham, Vinson. “The Rise and Fall of Vince McMahon.” The New Yorker, October 21, 2024. 
    2. Greene, Dan. “How Much Does Pro Wrestling Matter?” The New Yorker, March 31, 2023. 
    3. Hendrickson, John. “How Wrestling Explains America.” The Atlantic, March 26, 2023.
    4. Hendrickson, John. “Trump’s WWE Theory of Politics.” The Atlantic, March 31, 2023. 
    5. Parker, James. “Viceland’s ‘Dark Side of the Ring’ Shows the Sleaze and Humanity of Wrestling.” The Atlantic, May 17, 2019. 
    6. Newkirk II, Vann R. “Jesse Ventura’s Theory of Politics.” The Atlantic, July 25, 2016. 
    7. Haidt, Jonathan. “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.” The Atlantic, April 11, 2022. 
    8. Garber, Megan. “Are We Having Too Much Fun?” The Atlantic, April 27, 2017.
    9. Beckerman, Gal. “A Book That Was Like Putting on ‘a New Set of Glasses.’” The Atlantic, November 3, 2023.
    10. Miller, Laura. “Still Amusing Ourselves.” Slate, March 25, 2025.

    Instructions:

    • Thesis Development: Formulate a clear, argumentative thesis that addresses the influence of professional wrestling’s narrative style on American political discourse.
    • Evidence Integration: Support your argument with specific examples and quotations from the provided readings. Analyze how these examples illustrate the blending of entertainment and politics.
    • Critical Analysis: Evaluate the consequences of this phenomenon for democratic engagement and public perception of truth. Consider counterarguments and address potential criticisms of your position.
    • Conclusion: Summarize your findings and reflect on the broader implications for the future of political communication and civic responsibility.

    Essay Requirements:

    • Length: 1,500–2,000 words
    • Citations: Use MLA format for in-text citations and the Works Cited/References page.
    • Submission: Typed, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font

    Here’s a 9-paragraph essay outline for the prompt “Spectacle Over Substance: Wrestling’s Influence on American Political Discourse.” This outline follows a logical, argumentative structure that weaves together the assigned readings while encouraging students to build a cohesive, persuasive essay.


    I. Introduction

    • Hook: Begin with a vivid moment—perhaps Trump’s triumphant fist pump after the assassination attempt, or Vince McMahon strutting to the ring—blurring entertainment and politics.
    • Context: Introduce Vinson Cunningham’s claim that McMahon’s wrestling empire laid the foundation for modern American political spectacle.
    • Thesis Statement: American politics has adopted the narrative strategies of professional wrestling—flattening truth, elevating spectacle, and turning public discourse into a performance—creating a civic culture where democracy is treated less like a system of governance and more like a ratings game.

    II. The McMahon Doctrine: Kayfabe and the Politics of Performance

    • Define kayfabe (the wrestling term for presenting fiction as real) and show how McMahon’s WWE blurred the lines between villainy and heroism for the sake of crowd reaction.
    • Use Cunningham’s insights to show how this strategy has infiltrated American political identity: politicians as characters, scandal as storyline, truth as a flexible tool.

    III. Trump as Wrestling Archetype

    • Draw on John Hendrickson’s The Atlantic essays and Cunningham’s portrayal of Trump’s staged bravado.
    • Analyze how Trump models the heel-turned-babyface narrative, using defiance, cruelty, and performative grievance to cultivate loyalty.
    • Show how this political theater leaves truth irrelevant—as long as the audience is entertained.

    IV. The Algorithm Joins the Ring

    • Introduce the role of social media algorithms in amplifying performative politics.
    • Reference Haidt’s and other essayists’ concerns about how outrage and spectacle rise to the top of the feed.
    • Connect to WWE’s formula: escalation, emotional arousal, and moral oversimplification.

    V. Wrestling with the Truth: The Death of Nuance

    • Explore how the binary storytelling of wrestling—good guys vs. bad guys—maps onto political polarization.
    • Use Cunningham and Greene to illustrate how political complexity has been flattened for audience catharsis and tribal loyalty.
    • Show how this environment punishes nuance, deliberation, and compromise.

    VI. The Erosion of Democratic Discourse

    • Argue that when politics becomes performative, democratic institutions suffer: debates become promos, policies become props.
    • Use Vann R. Newkirk II’s piece on Jesse Ventura to show how long this has been brewing.
    • Analyze the consequences: diminished trust, manipulated electorates, and emotional extremism.

    VII. Counterargument: Populist Connection or Dangerous Spectacle?

    • Acknowledge the defense: wrestling-style politics connects to “the people,” makes issues accessible, and breaks elite control of discourse.
    • Rebut: accessibility without integrity breeds demagoguery, and emotional spectacle is not a substitute for civic truth.

    VIII. Cultural Addiction to Spectacle

    • Tie together the readings’ concern that Americans are now addicted to the drama of public life more than its consequences.
    • Show how wrestling trained audiences to want louder, meaner, simpler characters—and how democracy now suffers for it.
    • Cite Dark Side of the Ring or How Wrestling Explains America for evidence of how low the spectacle can go.

    IX. Conclusion

    • Reaffirm thesis: politics has become wrestling with better suits and worse consequences.
    • Reflect on Cunningham’s closing concern: if spectacle is the new substance, democracy is no longer deliberative—it’s kayfabe.
    • Close with a challenge to the reader: if we want a democracy rooted in reality, we’ll need to stop confusing entertainment with governance.
  • The Death of Truth: Vince McMahon, the Algorithm, and the Rise of Unreality

    The Death of Truth: Vince McMahon, the Algorithm, and the Rise of Unreality

    In “The Rise and Fall of Vince McMahon,” New Yorker writer Vinson Cunningham stares into the sideshow funhouse mirror of American public life and recoils at what stares back: a nation wading chest-deep in a swamp of “public unreality,” where reason drowns and absurdity floats like a bloated carnival prize. He paints a disquieting tableau: one political figure visibly unraveling into cognitive soup while handlers chirp, “Nothing to see here!”—and another candidate howling about alien intruders abducting and gobbling the nation’s household pets. As if things weren’t deranged enough, an assassination attempt unfolds before our eyes—and instead of ducking for cover, the former President rises like a messianic pro-wrestler, bloody and defiant, pumping his fist in glorious kayfabe triumph. In that moment, Cunningham writes, he isn’t just a politician—he’s a character on the WWE stage. And just like that, the cultural script is flipped: he’s the babyface, and his critics are heels.

    This unreality show has a ghostwriter, and his name is Vince McMahon. As Cunningham brilliantly argues, the Netflix docuseries Mr. McMahon is not simply the chronicle of a wrestling mogul—it’s a grim allegory for how American storytelling devolved into moral junk food. McMahon, the snarling CEO of WWE, pioneered a brutal formula: distort narrative, vilify truth, exalt spectacle. He didn’t just conquer the wrestling world—he scripted a worldview that has metastasized into the nation’s political bloodstream. The WWE, Cunningham reminds us, is the prototype of reality TV, the primordial ooze from which influencer culture, troll politics, and clickbait populism have crawled.

    In McMahon’s moral universe, lying is a skill, cruelty is charisma, and domination is the only virtue. So long as you win—and do it with flair—you’re golden. Sound familiar? This cartoon villainy, once confined to the ring, now governs the debate stage. It infects our civic discourse like a virus in a locker room. Cunningham doesn’t just lament this transformation—he diagnoses it with the precision of someone who’s watched democracy tap out to the roar of an overstimulated crowd.

    For Cunningham, Mr. McMahon is a documentary about wrestling in the same way Jaws is about fishing. It’s a cautionary tale about the American mind: how we’ve flattened good and evil into caricature, how we crave cheap catharsis and blood-soaked redemption arcs, how dopamine-dripping spectacle has replaced the hard work of truth and critical thought. WWE fans were just the beta testers—social media made us all marks. And if you think it can’t get worse, Cunningham points you to wrestling’s most grotesque era, the “Attitude Era,” when the distinction between hero and villain disintegrated entirely. No good guys, no bad guys—just degenerates in speedos vying for attention through escalating acts of moral collapse. A decade later, Twitter took notes.

    Cunningham’s alarm is more than justified. American politics isn’t just flirting with the WWE playbook—it’s plagiarizing it. We are no longer governed by statesmen but by characters playing to the cheap seats. When every tweet is a finishing move, every debate a promo, and every scandal a setup for the next storyline, democracy isn’t just weakened—it’s kayfabe’d. And Vince McMahon, smirking from his throne of steroid-soaked storylines, already wrote the script.