Shortly after Jerry Springer died last month, another brunette, a septuagenarian with a Germanic name, continued his work. Springer’s platform is daytime TV, while Donald Trump’s is no less than CNN. Springer had to coax tasteless behavior from his guests, which Trump himself delivered. (He elicited cheers from the live audience on May 10 when he called women “nasty” and “crazy” in various ways.) Springer plays his character with an ironic sense of distance, and Trump Pu cannot play with higher stakes.
Well, a famous old aphorism is wrong. Sometimes history appears first as farce and then as tragedy.
The error is to blame the announcer. Yes, CNN could have denied Trump last week. But for what purpose? It doesn’t change the basic fact that a lot of people find this guy interesting.title like “What is CNN thinking?” and “Really, CNN?” Insinuating that responsible adults failed to stop Trump: He is the product of a negligent elite. That’s always been the case with the analysis of former presidents. Three elites in particular have been blamed.
One is the media. If only Facebook and Twitter would police misinformation on their platforms. If only Fox News had a conscience. If only journalists fact-checked Trump. (Oh, how CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins tried.)
The other is the Republican Party itself. If only congressional leaders like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell came forward. If only his opponent, Ron DeSantis, attacked him directly instead of indirectly. If only Republicans weren’t obsessed with the Tea Party, Newt Gingrich, and other precursors of Trumpist politics.
However, a third culprit is “neoliberalism” and its adherents. If only their policies hadn’t left the industrial heartland in trouble. If only the jobs hadn’t moved to China. If only the unions hadn’t been allowed to die.
In all three cases, there is some semblance of truth. But in all three cases, voters have little choice or power.
Elites are always accused of contempt for the public. This is completely wrong. Elites will undergo enormous intellectual distortions to avoid blaming the public for political conditions. They found themselves at fault, whether they invented social media and failed to regulate it, allowed Trump to take over an institution as dignified as the Republican Party, or let the market tear itself apart. On the surface, this all sounds like humility and contrition. In fact, it is its own kind of arrogance.
After all, the premise is that everything in the world is the result of what the elites did or didn’t do. It sees “the people” as an inert mass without agency of its own. In absolving them, it childishes them.
A more honest account of events would have gone something like this. The vast majority of the public does not need manipulation to vote for populism. While some people have obvious grievances, not all do. (I’m waiting to hear from economic determinists why a lot of wealthy people voted for Trump, and why in the UK, homeland voted for Brexit.) Yes, such a thing as elite mismanagement, it could explain why Voters may try a radical alternative with heavy hearts.It doesn’t explain why someone giggles as sexual assault accuser is called “terrible job” by a former president. No, this is a direct case of civic irresponsibility. Or nihilism.
Simply blaming the elite is comforting because it provides the illusion of control. If the causes of populism are from the top down, so must the solutions. It’s just a matter of finding and applying technocratic fixes. Another explanation is that modern politics is more of a team sport than anything rational, and that Trump is the beloved “captain” of a team whose unconditional allegiance is unconditional as long as he is on the court. Much scarier.it indicates a problem demo Self: Existing before, outside and above the actions of the ruling class.
If neoliberalism was the cause of demagoguery, why did Joseph McCarthy thrive in the statist, egalitarian era of the 1950s? If prominent Republicans muster up the courage to oppose Trump (as many did in 2016), how will that stop ordinary people from supporting him in the primaries?
As for the media, what if it’s more about exposing a country’s populist sentiment than creating it? A generation ago, talk radio was considered radical for millions. That moral panic treats viewers like helpless children. The same goes for the accusations against CNN. At some point, the demand for fake news will come under as much scrutiny as the accurate supply.
janan.ganesh@ft.com