Politics is downstream from culture , as Andrew Breitbart once said.

And yes, it’s true: Politics is almost always a symptom of or reaction to our society’s culture. Legislation , for example, doesn’t change culture. It simply reflects the culture's current state.

This doctrine has been used as a reasonable justification by conservative media figures to engage in the culture — and, in some instances, to great political and societal effect. Examples include the exposure of transgenderism-infused madness in Loudoun County schools culminating in the electoral victory of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) or the rejection of Bud Light’s embrace of transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney , which sent Anheuser-Busch’s stock plummeting like a lead balloon.

On the surface, it seems like conservative media’s focus on wokeness is paying dividends.

Culturally? Sometimes. Financially? Always.

Unfortunately, we have now reached a point in which both sides of the political and cultural divide have found an easy recipe for success. This is no longer a zero-sum game. Both sides can win.

Here’s how the cycle works: The American cultural Left creates some form of arguably controversial content, whether that be Sam Smith doing his best tomato impression while gyrating as a low-budget devil, Lizzo playing Russian roulette with physics by twerking onstage, or, most recently, the Barbie movie’s use of phrases such as (gasp) "patriarchy."

Next, the conservative media outrage machine gets to work, providing the latest expression of cultural wokeism with exactly what it wants: wall-to-wall attention. By furiously churning out content, conservative social media becomes alight with the very content conservatives supposedly abhor.

And then the pendulum swings back, with those on the Left seeing conservative outrage as evidence that the content is worthwhile, only fueling their support and the reactive outrage.

Both sides get attention, and both sides reap the financial rewards. Nothing changes, and then it’s on to the next target of outrage as both sides get the attention (and money) they want.

Now there’s obviously a line here between worthwhile and less-than-worthwhile expressions of outrage. To ignore every change in our culture would be to fail where we have failed before by abandoning the culture.

But have we crossed the line from calling out specific and serious ideological assaults on our culture to piggybacking financially on every viral story that comes across our path? Especially when we remember the financial incentive of modern political commentary: Clicks are king.

Measured with this lens, even the most innocuous acts of supposed wokeism are fair game if they provide commentators with the parasitic opportunity to feed off the notoriety of someone else’s work. Unfortunately, that’s how most political commentary now works: identify viral moments and find a way to get a piece of the action.

But what is the outcome here? Rather than engaging in a real cultural fight, we’re witnessing our representatives engage in a cultural pro-wrestling match. Sure, it might seem just as vicious, but it’s nothing but performative theater.

The truth is that both sides need each other. Those on the Left need the conservative media outrage machine to provide them with millions of dollars of free advertising, and those on the Right need the Left’s cultural machine to provide them with fodder for reactive clickbait.

What would conservative media do without Sam Smith, Lizzo, and Barbie?

Ian Haworth ( @ighaworth ) is the host of Off Limits with Ian Haworth . You can also find him on Substack .