Donald Trump in the Era of ‘Videopolitics’
Published in Opinión
(Bolivia) on 25 August 2015
by Álvaro Cuadra (link to original)
(Bolivia) on 25 August 2015
by Álvaro Cuadra (link to original)
Translated from
by Miken Trogdon.
Edited by Danielle Tezcan.
Without a doubt, Donald Trump has become an interesting media icon in relation to the upcoming U.S. presidential election. From a communications perspective, the question remains: How is it possible that someone with such scant political (and personal) merit becomes such a protagonist?
It’s true that he’s an unruly, dramatic millionaire with ample experience in television; nevertheless, his national and international political vision doesn’t go beyond what is discussed by friends in the corner of some bar: a cocktail of simplistic opinions not very distinct from [the opinions of those] he is addressing. Upon reviewing this celebrity’s basic rhetoric, we can establish that like Le Pen on the other side of the Atlantic, it is precisely adjusted to opinions widespread throughout certain segments of the U.S. population. It is “political rudeness” that creates toxic discourse for a public that, rightfully so, hopes for a figure of this type who can represent them.
There is clear radical, right-wing extremism in his statements – not without naïveté – like pretending to end the problem of Latino immigrants by building a wall on the Mexican border financed by the Mexican government itself (sic.). Trump has been astute enough to carve himself a niche in American society so that he speaks for his own, a sector that has shown itself to be relevant enough to grant him a starring role among the Republican candidates.
Trump’s case shows that politics and the media go hand in hand in so-called “Western democracies.” “Video politics” is the way by which the majority of political figures in this world are built today, in an era where the important thing is not the rationality of arguments or deliberations, but rather the spectacular nature of the interactions. In that sense, Donald Trump has shown signs of being a “high-profile figure” of importance. Each of his “performances” – a mixture of clown and trash leader – is calibrated to increase media “ratings” and make front pages across the globe.
This formula isn’t new; others have already gone down this path. Hitler was one of the first to utilize the specter of an “internal threat” to unite the masses around fear and hate. It’s enough to remember Goebbels: All propaganda should be popular, bringing itself to the level of the least intelligent individuals for whom it is intended. The larger the multitude to be convinced, the smaller the mental effort should be to make it happen. The receptive capability of the masses is limited and their understanding is lacking; what’s more, they forget very easily. In the end, “If a lie is repeated enough, it ends up becoming the truth.”
Yesterday, it was the Jews in Germany, today the Arabs in France and the Latinos in the USA. The question that is still pending is if maybe the oft-touted “American democracy” has degraded so much as to support a figure with the traits of Donald Trump as a contender for the White House. It’s still too early to give an answer, seeing as history tends to surprise us. As it’s been said, an idiot is an idiot, two idiots are two idiots, but a few thousand [of them] form a political movement.
It’s true that he’s an unruly, dramatic millionaire with ample experience in television; nevertheless, his national and international political vision doesn’t go beyond what is discussed by friends in the corner of some bar: a cocktail of simplistic opinions not very distinct from [the opinions of those] he is addressing. Upon reviewing this celebrity’s basic rhetoric, we can establish that like Le Pen on the other side of the Atlantic, it is precisely adjusted to opinions widespread throughout certain segments of the U.S. population. It is “political rudeness” that creates toxic discourse for a public that, rightfully so, hopes for a figure of this type who can represent them.
There is clear radical, right-wing extremism in his statements – not without naïveté – like pretending to end the problem of Latino immigrants by building a wall on the Mexican border financed by the Mexican government itself (sic.). Trump has been astute enough to carve himself a niche in American society so that he speaks for his own, a sector that has shown itself to be relevant enough to grant him a starring role among the Republican candidates.
Trump’s case shows that politics and the media go hand in hand in so-called “Western democracies.” “Video politics” is the way by which the majority of political figures in this world are built today, in an era where the important thing is not the rationality of arguments or deliberations, but rather the spectacular nature of the interactions. In that sense, Donald Trump has shown signs of being a “high-profile figure” of importance. Each of his “performances” – a mixture of clown and trash leader – is calibrated to increase media “ratings” and make front pages across the globe.
This formula isn’t new; others have already gone down this path. Hitler was one of the first to utilize the specter of an “internal threat” to unite the masses around fear and hate. It’s enough to remember Goebbels: All propaganda should be popular, bringing itself to the level of the least intelligent individuals for whom it is intended. The larger the multitude to be convinced, the smaller the mental effort should be to make it happen. The receptive capability of the masses is limited and their understanding is lacking; what’s more, they forget very easily. In the end, “If a lie is repeated enough, it ends up becoming the truth.”
Yesterday, it was the Jews in Germany, today the Arabs in France and the Latinos in the USA. The question that is still pending is if maybe the oft-touted “American democracy” has degraded so much as to support a figure with the traits of Donald Trump as a contender for the White House. It’s still too early to give an answer, seeing as history tends to surprise us. As it’s been said, an idiot is an idiot, two idiots are two idiots, but a few thousand [of them] form a political movement.
Next article![]( "The Dangers of Populism")
