» Goodykoontz: At least Trump has rekindled political engagement.

Interest in Comey testimony should be a beginning, not a one-time thing

Say this for President Donald Trump: He has reignited political engagement.

That’s the plus side. The negative side is that for many, it’s the same level of engagement one reserves for the finale of “The Bachelor.” Or maybe “The Apprentice.” You can’t say it’s not fitting.

Former FBI Director James Comey, fired by Trump, testified before a Senate committee Thursday, and it was like the Super Bowl of political social media. And traditional media. And online media. And any other kind of media you can think of. There were probably telegrams and smoke signals sent about Comey’s appearance, so complete was the saturation.

There were Comeyviewing yoga sessions in Los Angeles and lines to get into restaurants showing the hearing in D.C. Drinking games abounded (or, at least, people pretended; the hearing started at 7 a.m. Arizona time, a little early for that first pop).

It’s all anyone was talking about. But how they were talking about it brings up questions, and maybe social media doesn’t hold all the answers.

Engagement of this sort is a double-edged sword. The fact that we are talking about Senate hearings, and that people actually watched one, is unquestionably a good thing. In truth, many of us probably weren’t sure exactly what we were seeing, but it’s important to bear witness.

But is it important to joke about it?

To some extent, sure. I know I did. We’d probably all benefit from keeping this all in context. Sarcasm is the lingua franca of social media. But there’s no question some reaction ranged from silly to sillier.

When Comey, referring to Trump’s tweet that Comey should hope there aren’t tapes of their conversation, said, “Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” the joint practically burned to the ground (virtually). When Comey shrugged in imitation of Trump, an instant meme was born. And poor Sen. John McCain, last in line to question Comey, was alternately mocked and worried over when he doggedly pursued an odd line of questioning. (McCain trended on Twitter afterward, perhaps not in the way he would have hoped.)

Things got serious in social media when Comey said he documented a meeting with the president because he was concerned Trump would lie about it, and during testimony that seemed to suggest that an investigation of obstruction of justice might be in the offing. Armchair lawyers and would-be politicians continued to try and convict (or exonerate) the president throughout. There was a deluge of information, spawning the hashtag #ComeyDay, like it was a holiday.

Or, yes, a Super Bowl. Just like football’s biggest game, the hearing came complete with the equivalent of pregame and postgame commentary, along with plenty of partisan rooting (for and against) during the big event itself. Millions of words were tweeted and spoken.

But the most anticipated were not.

Trump himself, who has turned Twitter into a tool to speak directly to the American people, sometimes to his detriment, remained silent on social media. His son, Donald Jr., took to Twitter, but really, who cared? His comments were a pale imitation of the old man’s, who is a master at stirring things up (and is, not for nothing, the president of the United States, so his tweets demand a little more attention).

President Trump’s silence was deafening, in part because we’re all so used to hearing from him. Even the former FBI director.

“I’m not going to sit here and try to interpret the president’s tweets,” Comey said at one point. If that’s true, he’s the only one.

So, does social-media political engagement ultimately mean anything? Making your voice heard is one of the most important ways to exercise your freedom. But the fact is, you’re better off joining a march or visiting your congressman’s office than you are crafting a snarky tweet. Don’t misunderstand: I love snarky tweets, and write them all the time (or try to). But I’m not trying to bring down — or, for that matter, preserve — the presidency of Donald Trump.

Some social-media users offer useful information. You often learn a lot from the tweets of someone who covers the White House or Congress. Or from an organizer or activist. You cannot, however, cost the president his job because you refuse to use his name in a tweet. Or call him Drumpf or the Cheeto-in-chief or whatever.

The level of interest and social-media engagement in Comey’s testimony was remarkable. But it shouldn’t be a one-time rubbernecking session. It should be the start of something more.