Shortly after Jerry Springer died last month, another sandy-haired man in his 70s with a Germanic name continued to work. Whereas Springer’s platform was daytime television, Donald Trump’s platform was daytime television. Comparable to CNN. Mr. Springer had to trick his guests into giving him bad taste, which Mr. Trump provided himself. (He variously called the women “mean” and “crazy” on May 10, amidst cheers from the live audience.) Mr. Springer played his part with ironic detachment. In contrast, Trump could not play at higher stakes.
So one famous old aphorism goes the other way. History can appear first as a farce and then as a tragedy.
The mistake is to blame the broadcasters. Yes, CNN could have turned down President Trump last week. But for what purpose? The basic fact that many people find the guy interesting won’t change.headings such as “What was CNN thinking?” and “Really, CNN?” Implying that responsible adults have failed to stop Trump, that he is the product of a negligent elite. The former president’s analysis always goes like this. Three elites in particular are responsible.
One is the media. I wish Facebook and Twitter had cracked down on misinformation on their platforms. If only Fox News had nurtured a conscience. If journalists were fact-checking President Trump. (Oh, how did CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins try.)
The other is the Republican Party itself. If congressional leaders like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell stand up to Trump.if he was his rival Ron DeSantis Attacked directly instead of diagonally. If the Republican Party hadn’t indulged in the Tea Party, Newt Gingrich, and other pioneers of Trumpist politics.
But the third culprit is “neoliberalism” and its zealots. I wish their policies hadn’t embarrassed the industrial heartland. Unless jobs have been offshored to China. Unless trade unions were left to decay.
There is a semblance of truth in all three cases. But in all three of his cases, voters have little choice or power.
The elite are always accused of contempt for the general public. This is just wrong. The elite will undergo a great deal of intellectual distortion in order to avoid blaming the public for the state of politics. They are the ones who think they are to blame for inventing social media and not regulating it, for letting Trump take over a prestigious organization like the Republican Party, and for ravaging markets. On the surface, this all sounds like humility and repentance. In fact, it is a form of arrogance in itself.
After all, the premise is that everything in the world is the result of things done or not done by the elite. It treats “people” as inert masses with no subjectivity of their own. To acquit them is to infantilize them.
A more honest description of what happened goes like this: The majority of the public does not need manipulation to vote for populism. Some people have obvious grievances, but not everyone does. (I’m waiting to hear from economic determinists as to why so many wealthy people voted for Trump, and why, in the UK, local counties voted for Brexit.) Yes, the elite. There is such a thing as mismanagement, and it can explain voters’ reasons. I might try radical alternatives with a heavy heart. I can’t explain why someone chuckles when a sexual assault accuser is called a “bad guy.” “It’s a terrible job.” by a former president. No, it’s a prime case of civil irresponsibility. Or nihilism.
Blaming only the elite is soothing because it gives the illusion that you are in control. If the cause of populism is top-down, the solution must also be top-down. It’s just a matter of finding and applying technical fixes. Modern politics resembles a team sport more than a rational one, and the alternate interpretation of Trump as the beloved “captain” of one team, commanding unconditional loyalty as long as he is, is far more terrifying. . suggests that there is a problem with demo In itself: that which exists before, outside, and beyond the actions of the ruling classes.
If neoliberalism is the cause of demagogy, why was Joseph McCarthy active in the nationalist, egalitarian 1950s? like many people do) in 2016), anyway, how are we going to stop the public from endorsing him in the primary?
When it comes to the media, what if they contribute more to revealing a country’s populist sentiment than to creating it? was talk radio. That moral panic treated the audience as helpless children. So are the accusations against CNN. At some point, the demand for fake news will come under as much scrutiny as the exact means of delivery.
