Donald Trump was not just a celebrity. He was a brand.
Democrats can widen their search for the next generation of party leaders beyond the usual on-deck circle of former national candidates, senators, and governors.
They can find a celebrity, but not just any celebrity.
This blog has argued that the election of 2016 revealed that the media landscape had fundamentally changed and that Donald Trump responded to it, either by instinct or craft, far better than anyone else including the media itself. Everyone understood that the Walter Cronkite era of curated authoritative mainstream news was over, but no one but Trump responded appropriately. Trump used Twitter, FaceBook, talk radio, and the overt media conservative partisans to circulate a message of populist revolt. Trump represented, through body language and admitted hyperbole, that revolt. Hillary, in her cocoon of valedictorian policy wonkiness and legalistic parsing, was an ideal foil. Trump "got it", she did not.
This blog has repeated a metaphor: politics is professional wrestling, with stock characters playing out a great moral drama. It is not carried out in policy debate. It is carried out in archetypes, in branding by name calling. Hillary called Trump demonstrably unfit. Trump called Hillary crooked. Both did it but Trump did it way better than she did.
The professional wrestling matchup of hero and anti-hero is as old as human storytelling. Gilgamesh fought Enkidu, Achilles fought Hector, and most familiar to Americans David fought Goliath. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump likened themselves to David, the underdog. Democrats thought earnest-female-David was fighting billionaire con-man Koch buddy Goliath. Republicans thought flyover blue collar David was fighting The Machine Hillary Goliath.
A excellent version of latter opinion was sent me by a prosperous white male realtor, who intended it sincerely and without irony. He thought it excellent understanding of the election. Readers who avoid talk radio and who don't understand the mind of many Trump voters should take two minute to click on the link and read. The rant basically argues that the past eight years was an economic and moral disaster, with misery around the land that started with the presidency of Obama. The world turned into a nightmare of poverty and hopelessness these past eight years, ground down under the boot of tyranny. The election was a contest of good and evil. Good won!! ("It wasn't an election. It was a revolution. It was midnight in America. . . . Frontpage Magazine article)
So what can the Democrats do to compete? Find a few leaders consistent with the core beliefs and constituencies of the party.
The policies would need to include:
***Inclusionary rather than xenophobic. People of color are part of the base.
***Women--not government--are the reproductive gatekeeper and decision maker.
***Pro social safety net. Democrats are the heir to the New Deal and Great Society.
***Pro education, as the preferred route to prosperity. Educators and the educated are key constituents.
There is an additional component that Trump possessed and Hillary did not, or at least not sufficiently: the charismatic sparkle of a leader who inspires. Politicians have probably always needed some charisma sparkle. Now--in the new Twitter-FaceBook world-- they absolutely need it.
Two recent comments to this blog examine what kind of celebrity branding might work. Frequent guest post author Thad Guyer argued that America and Democrats were winning the long term progressive change because they were winning the culture war. The future was being written by Beyonce, he wrote, at least by Beyonce as symbol of modernity, progress, technology, youth, vibrant new industries, sexual freedom of expression, personal liberation generally, and ultimately the great victory of America via the power of its culture and its consumer economy.
A retired Oregon attorney disagreed:
"Both Peter and Thad want us to see something other than complete disaster in the coming US government. While it is possible to see the backlash argument, the idea that 2017 will be good for Democrats is patently wrong; it will only be good for the oligarchs. And Thad's idea that it is "our culture that leads our 'living constitution' ” is pollyannish. It will take more than Beyonce to get us out of this. . . . "This blog has argued that the election of 2016 revealed that the media landscape had fundamentally changed and that Donald Trump responded to it, either by instinct or craft, far better than anyone else including the media itself. Everyone understood that the Walter Cronkite era of curated authoritative mainstream news was over, but no one but Trump responded appropriately. Trump used Twitter, FaceBook, talk radio, and the overt media conservative partisans to circulate a message of populist revolt. Trump represented, through body language and admitted hyperbole, that revolt. Hillary, in her cocoon of valedictorian policy wonkiness and legalistic parsing, was an ideal foil. Trump "got it", she did not.
 |
| Hero and Anti-Hero |
This blog has repeated a metaphor: politics is professional wrestling, with stock characters playing out a great moral drama. It is not carried out in policy debate. It is carried out in archetypes, in branding by name calling. Hillary called Trump demonstrably unfit. Trump called Hillary crooked. Both did it but Trump did it way better than she did.
The professional wrestling matchup of hero and anti-hero is as old as human storytelling. Gilgamesh fought Enkidu, Achilles fought Hector, and most familiar to Americans David fought Goliath. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump likened themselves to David, the underdog. Democrats thought earnest-female-David was fighting billionaire con-man Koch buddy Goliath. Republicans thought flyover blue collar David was fighting The Machine Hillary Goliath.
A excellent version of latter opinion was sent me by a prosperous white male realtor, who intended it sincerely and without irony. He thought it excellent understanding of the election. Readers who avoid talk radio and who don't understand the mind of many Trump voters should take two minute to click on the link and read. The rant basically argues that the past eight years was an economic and moral disaster, with misery around the land that started with the presidency of Obama. The world turned into a nightmare of poverty and hopelessness these past eight years, ground down under the boot of tyranny. The election was a contest of good and evil. Good won!! ("It wasn't an election. It was a revolution. It was midnight in America. . . . Frontpage Magazine article)
So what can the Democrats do to compete? Find a few leaders consistent with the core beliefs and constituencies of the party.
The policies would need to include:
***Inclusionary rather than xenophobic. People of color are part of the base.
***Women--not government--are the reproductive gatekeeper and decision maker.
***Pro social safety net. Democrats are the heir to the New Deal and Great Society.
***Pro education, as the preferred route to prosperity. Educators and the educated are key constituents.
There is an additional component that Trump possessed and Hillary did not, or at least not sufficiently: the charismatic sparkle of a leader who inspires. Politicians have probably always needed some charisma sparkle. Now--in the new Twitter-FaceBook world-- they absolutely need it.
Two recent comments to this blog examine what kind of celebrity branding might work. Frequent guest post author Thad Guyer argued that America and Democrats were winning the long term progressive change because they were winning the culture war. The future was being written by Beyonce, he wrote, at least by Beyonce as symbol of modernity, progress, technology, youth, vibrant new industries, sexual freedom of expression, personal liberation generally, and ultimately the great victory of America via the power of its culture and its consumer economy.
A retired Oregon attorney disagreed:
I agree that Beyonce is the wrong symbol, although people ignorant of her work may not realize how successful she is as a performer and the political content of her performances, especially her most recent album Lemonade, which had sales in one week that eclipsed the all-time sales of The Art of the Deal, as Guyer noted. The lyrics include this:
Freedom! Freedom! Where are you?
Cause I need freedom too!
I break chains all by myself
Won't let my freedom rot in hell
Hey! I'ma keep running
Cause a winner don't quit on themselves
Beyonce is reclaiming the role of David, the good and the oppressed, fighting Goliath. As a young black woman she has more natural credibility here as the little guy than does a tall white male billionaire like Trump, who calls himself a Winner. Thousands of people attend Trump rallies. Tens of thousands attend her performances. People get into Trump rallies for free. They pay $100 to see Beyonce. People underestimate Beyonce at their peril.
 |
| Yule Brenner |
But she confronts human biology, conditioning and culture. Among the great threats to humans, along with disease and starvation is the predation of other humans. The right symbol is someone whose brand and image projects warrior strength. The commander in chief commands a military. The troubadour accompanies the commander but is not the commander. Humans have an image of a strong leader. People who cast movies are not idiots. They understand who looks and sounds a part.
 |
| Woody Allen with Bogie |
Yule Brenner, in "The Magnificent Seven," looks like someone who can defend the village against the bandits. He doesn't need to persuade anyone with words. We can see it.
Woody Allen, in "Play it Again Sam," here shown with the Humphrey Bogart character, is the archetype of the little guy wishing to be strong and heroic and finally at the end of the movie achieves this through self sacrifice. Audiences cheer for him but they would not vote for him as warrior, no matter how clever and insightful and manipulative he might be, nor how skillfully he might direct his generals.
 |
| Look. Very big hands. |
Commanders have a look. They have a brand. They communicate strength. Even Michelangelo's David, naked, looks like a warrior and a hero.
The archetype celebrity for a Democrat would be:
***A professional athlete in a rough sport, currently or retired. ATom Brady and Curt Schilling have stepped forward, but both have announced they like Trump.
 |
| Harmon |
***An actor who played tough resolute hero. Harrison Ford (former president in Air Force One and former Indiana Jones swashbuckler) would work. Tommy Lee Jones (former Ghostbuster and former policeman chasing The Fugitive) has the right look. John Harmon has been leading a group of detectives on NCIS. His strength and appearance of command might translate to politics.
It is no accident that Trump, age 70, kept criticizing Hillary for being weak, for lacking stamina, and his social media machine kept circulating the idea that she had dementia or Parkinson's or alcoholism or menopausal hysteria.
In any year prior to 2016 the argument that a actor celebrity might have more instant credibility as president would be implausible. Ronald Reagan was a spokesman for GE and Goldwater before he was a candidate for California Governor, then Governor for 8 years before running for president. Fred Thompson was a US Senator before he fizzled as a presidential candidate. But Trump changed the paradigm--or more precisely, he revealed that the paradigm had changed.
The fractured media world and the partisan world views puts voters into silos. The author of the article from "Frontpage Magazine", in the above link, considered the past eight years an unmitigated disaster of unemployment, factory closings, economic collapse, and misery. (
(The prosperous realtor who sent it to me lives in Eugene, Oregon. Let me advise out of state readers that Eugene is not a hell-hole of poverty and misery. The image of a nightmare world of citizens struggling under occupation of a foreign power, Poles under Nazi occupation or Nanjing under the Japanese, is an image revealing the inner mind of my Eugene informant, not the reality of life in Eugene where there are bidding wars on residential houses.)
That view was not open to reporting or government statistics or articles from the mainstream news. The author of the Frontpage piece wanted a hero to represent an emotion and a team, and he found it in Trump. The Bible didn't examine and compare the policy merits of the Jews and the Philistines in their rights to occupy land; God was on the side of David because God gave that land to the Jews. The Jews want the land, the Philistines should scram. End of story.
Democratic Governors and Senators can be the leader of the Democrats. They will do it successfully if they project a brand of strength, not a brand of cleverness and agility. Trump revealed that after eight years of Obama people want someone who projects raw, strength, and if a person is battling Trump he or she must look like a credible opponent of Trump.
There is time for one of those people to shape his or her brand in the right direction. The right celebrity may already have established an heroic brand. Either the hero must become a politician or the politician must become a hero.
No comments:
Post a Comment