The BEST Political Influencers Are Barely Political At All
"Apolitical?" As if!
A lot of today’s most popular lifestyle creators insist they’re “not political,” but they often have the greatest political influence online thanks to parasocial closeness. That’s the sustained sense of intimacy and trust that makes an audience feel like they know a creator, even though the relationship is one-sided.
PS. I teamed up with my good friends at Feel Good Action for this article! They were like, “Hey, do you wanna talk about this?” And I said… “DUH.” Check them out, you’ll love them as much as I always have.
Research in parasocial theory, influencer marketing, and political communication points to the fact that some of the strongest political influence doesn’t look political at all. Surveys show that followers report actually changing their political opinions because of an influencer’s content, and influencers themselves widely recognize their persuasive power.
The same dynamics that make lifestyle creators effective for brands (trust, perceived similarity, and authenticity) also make their messages more persuasive when they dabble in political messaging.
Platforms also amplify this effect because the algorithms rank and recommend content based on what holds attention. Over time, influencers deepen parasocial bonds using tactics like direct eye contact, casual language such as “you guys,” or framing advice as care. And I’m not saying everyone is doing this consciously! It just naturally happens. But that repeated faux-intimacy is what increases persuasive power whether the message is about a product, a belief, or a political idea.
That’s why non-profits in civic advocacy spaces are beginning to focus on digital media and collaborations with influencers. For example, Feel Good Action uses social media and partners with trusted online messengers to promote accessible ways for people to register to vote, request absentee ballots, and make an impact while advocating for just societies, resilient communities, and a healthy planet. (you can check them out right here on Substack!)
When we zoom into the research that’s been done on parasocial relationships, there are two parts to it.
First, there are parasocial interactions. Those are feelings you get while watching someone on a screen who looks straight into the camera and seems to talk directly to you.
Then, there are parasocial relationships, which form out of repeated parasocial interactions. These are deeper and long-lasting feelings that you know someone, trust them, or feel connected to them because you watched them repeatedly over time.
Once that relationship exists, authenticity starts doing a lot of work. When creators share personal stories about what they’re struggling with, what they’ve learned, what their routines look like…people tend to like them more and see them as more genuine. (“They’re just like me!”)
Lifestyle content is especially effective because it’s built almost entirely around that kind of self-disclosure.
Influencers function like “human brands.” They meet peoples’ needs like feeling understood, inspired, or competent. Over time, that attachment doesn’t just apply to products they recommend. It spills into things like health, family, gender roles, or which institutions deserve trust - all of which have political consequences.
Trust actually changes how people process information. When someone feels like a friend, viewers are less likely to question their statements.
The combination of shared identity and emotional closeness makes persuasion easier.
Even on explicitly political accounts, “intimacy” and parasocial cues matter and work. When researchers look at politicians themselves, perceptions of intimacy corresponds to a candidate’s perceived credibility.
So if a creator has engaged followers, politicians and organizations jump on that as a valuable asset. We are seeing influencer ecosystems more and more often being used in modern campaigning as a way to reach audiences who avoid traditional political media and a way to present politics through “friends” who are relatable and not a part of the “institution” or “establishment.”
The lifestyle-influencer-to-political-messaging-vessel-pathway is rarely about endorsing a candidate. More often, it works through the influencer talking about those issues that look personal but have direct political stakes.
Wellness is one of the clearest areas where lifestyle influencers become political influencers through identity-based, lifestyle-coded narratives (fashion, homesteading, evangelicalism, motherhood).
The downside of the effectiveness of such influencers is that their content can be exploited to spread misinformation, conspiratorial thinking, and extremism.
Parasocial relationships also lend themselves to social currency or “identity infrastructure.” Influencers project what “people like them” wear, buy, value, or ridicule.
The issue is not “parasociality is bad.” Parasocial relationships can be very positive!
The pitfalls are that parasocial bonds can reduce scrutiny in a way that allows misinformation to spread because platforms reward content that grabs attention and generates feedback. Rage bait, unfortunately, garners both.
This can encourage creators and political actors to adopt emotionally charged, identity-based framings instead of nuanced messaging.
I found researching this fascinating. There’s a lot of flippant remarks made to creators such as “get a real job!” But modern political communication strategy has borrowed a lot from influencer marketing.
One study found that politicians who establish active Twitter accounts see significant upticks in campaign contributions.
Globally, governments are all investing in influencer ecosystems as part of their public communication strategies. In the UK for example, government departments spent hundreds of thousands of pounds hiring social media influencers to communicate everything from welfare policy to environmental campaigns. We are seeing influencers treated as a messaging channel with reach traditional press do not have.
The “why” all goes back to the parasocial. Audiences trust influencers more than traditional news sources, and political content (even when bundled in lifestyle or entertainment formats) frequently outperforms non-political posts in terms of engagement.
And influencers don’t become politically influential because they’re talking about politics all the time. They become influential because parasocial closeness makes audiences feel seen, understood, and emotionally connected (even though the relationship is one-sided.)
Once that bond exists, influence travels easily no matter if the message is about a product, a lifestyle choice, or a political belief.
It’s not that creators are manipulative or that audiences are naïve. Rather, that parasocial relationships are a core pillar in modern persuasion. And if we want to understand modern political influence, we have to pay attention to who is speaking just as much as we pay attention to how close they feel while they’re speaking.
Until next time,
Frazz