Guest Post: Americans want their Entertainment

Peter Sage:   Guest poster Thad Guyer is an attorney specializing in assisting employee whistleblowers.  Litigators like Thad engage in message judo and become expert on what audiences of judges and juries might find persuasive.  He watched the debate and has this comment.


By Thad Guyer


The American Cult of Audience

The Up Close profiling of the audience in South Carolina provides a lot of useful information for understanding how much or how little Republicans may be influenced by the debate. The live debate audience told us little, because each candidate is given a proportion of tickets which go to the candidates’ faithful. Thus, the cheering of Cruz or the booing of Trump doesn’t necessarily represent the Republican mind generally. The Up Close data on the cult of the audience gives a much more reliable and unique perspective. 

I think Trump significantly benefited from the booing. He was unshaken by it, stood firm and unapologetic, thus giving a strong impression of a leader with conviction who is unswayed by who likes him or doesn’t. This is a theme in his rallies, where he says “you may not like how I say things and you may think I am not nice enough—too bad.” He tells his crowds that the establishment candidates don’t say a thing that is not vetted by internal pollsters, speech writers, superpacs and consultants. The Up Close audience profile tells us that Republicans like Trump’s unvarnished style. I was surprised to hear Trump booed on Muslim immigration, and my suspicion that the booers were partisans for Bush or other candidates was somewhat confirmed by the Up Close report on audience response.

My opinion is that Bush and Kashich made the best showings of sophisticated and statesmen-like policy articulation, and they sounded a lot like Hillary or Romney, i.e., experienced leaders who have learned that bold and brash statements make policy consensus and initiatives much more difficult to attain in the real world. They understand that the public good is best served by patient and incremental approaches toward policy goals. I felt guilty that I wanted to hear strong and polarizing rhetoric, the good stuff, the red meat, rather than responsible leadership. But that, ironically, is the legacy of Obama, who waged his 2008 campaign on a cult of leadership and a cult of audience, leaving the stateswoman Hillary in the dust, fueled by massive Trump-like rallies. Star power is what Americans want. We want the Obamas, Sanders, and Trumps, not the Clintons, Bushes and Kasiches. We want hope and hate, inspiration and ridicule, grand promises and partisanship. 

Up Close put it this way: “The activists want a fight, not an agreement.” I offer this friendly amendment: “We the American audience want a fight, not an agreement.” If that is what we want, then I agree with the commentators who now conclude that the Republican primary is Trump’s to lose. We democrats had our glory and bravado of soaring rhetoric with Obama. Republicans now want the same high of empowerment that we had. “Change will not come if wait for some other person or for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for", Obama said to the roaring audience in Missouri on February 19, 2008. “America doesn’t win anymore. America needs to start winning again", is what thrills the audience at Trump rallies. It’s the same anti-establishment message: the system is broken and only outsiders like us can fix it. American audiences don’t want the words of statesmen, we want the hope and anger of firebrands.