 |
| Photo: Unsplash |
I heard a discussion the other day about Donald Trump's election victory in which his less vocal supporters were referred to as 'silent Trumpers'. There are many things we can teach our friends from across the Pond about our language, but this will help them learn than one shouldn't judge a Trump by its volume, but the smell it leaves afterwards.
Yes, ok, 'fart gags' probably aren't the most adult way to react to recent events in America. It's the best I've got while we all try to make some sense of it all though. The journalist in me wants to understand it now but the historian in me feels it'll be some years before we can thoroughly and objectively determine what has happened.
At the outset, Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton did feel like it could be one of those 'end of an era' moments. Perhaps it was apt on the day, 27 years earlier, that the Berlin Wall had come down, American voters elected someone who had loudly vowed to put one up. Historians love to split up the past into distinct 'eras', with 1789-1914 often seen as the 'long nineteenth century' for example. You might argue that 1914-1945 and 1945-1989, as the world wars and Cold War, marked two more eras (although historians love nothing more than debating definitions at length), but what if 1989-2016 is another? Only with the benefit of hindsight will we know if globalisation and liberalism were truly threatened by Trump and indeed Brexit.
Trump's campaign - and the words belched from his mouth - has been abhorrent. His comments really shouldn't have made him a suitable man to lead his nation and yet, come January, he'll be in the White House. Did people vote in spite of what he said or because they enjoyed hearing a language alien to political discourse? It was surely a bit of both.
In fact, that has been the problem with much of the coverage so far. Too many people have been too absolute in their analysis. Was it really a huge anti-establishment revolution when more people actually voted for Clinton? Why did so many women back Trump? Would Hillary have been looked upon more favourably if she were a man? If the 'rust belt' is supposedly prepared to support racism then why did it vote for Obama? These questions are more suited to someone more well-versed in American politics but they all point to a more complex and confusing picture with the split between rural and urban and old and young all revealing.
Journalist Gaby Hinsliff probably summed it up best with this tweet
New rule not to read anything starting 'Trump's victory proves...' No one theory fits. Begs as many questions as it answers.
— Gaby Hinsliff (@gabyhinsliff) November 10, 2016
Yet the impact has been felt beyond the world of American politics and has touched on two other areas: journalism and social media.
There's an interesting theory that suggests Trump was only able to stand in the first place because he built up momentum with what he said in TV studios. In an increasingly commercial news environment, Trump is a ratings winner. Controversial performers get bookings and are more likely to have a chance to have their say. I'm not sure how, if at all, that can be fixed. It does, though, show that a certain 'style' is likely to stand out and it's not a style that relies on careful reasoning or evidence.
Then there's the polls. For too long the smallest of movements in one direction or another have become a big story when it comes to politics. The debate then centres on the nip and tuck of the polling horse race, rather than the issues. Hopefully now, with so many of the pollsters being caught out by Trump's victory, Brexit and the last General Election, they will be taken with more than a pinch of salt rather than being - as the New Statesman's Helen Lewis has said - a sugar fix for news outlets.
Social media is under the spotlight too and at last, it seems, the pressure is on Facebook. In recent years this has grown in importance for news outlets who need to publish to their audience on this platform. Yet, with power comes responsibility, and it's high time that Facebook did much more to combat the fact that fake nonsense is given equal weighting to proper journalism.
There's also been a focus on the danger of 'filter bubbles' - the way in which social media can cause us to only see a selection of views within our own narrow friendship and interest groups. I've written before how I think this isn't healthy when it comes to making us all tolerant of others. You might not agree with people who voted for Trump - I certainly don't - but we need to try to understand why they did (I found Amelia Tait's piece on bursting that filter bubble interesting).
Social media is also too much about the 'great take down' and someone 'shutting down' an argument as well as a near-constant state of outrage at what one person has said or done. Sometimes the outrage only serves to get more coverage for the person.
I can't help thinking that Hillary should've followed Michelle Obama's 'when they go low, we go high' mantra a little more. Rather than always attack Trump for what he said - which was what he thrived on - why not focus on his muddled policy platform? Maybe that was half the problem - there seemed very few positive policies to promote from the Clinton camp and so it became a bitter argument won by the man with the loudest voice.
Social media outrage isn't helping and neither is the growing trend of 'no platforming' people because of their beliefs. It's not easy to know what to do - we can't expect people not to be offended at genuinely offensive comments - but there needs to be stronger, clear-headed approach to defeating people through force of argument on all sides of the political spectrum. By refusing to debate with someone, you hand them a moral victory and the chance to appear unfairly treated.
Finally, much has already been made of the parallels with Brexit. It's a very tempting comparison to make, especially for those of us in the UK . One key area in which they were probably similar was in the strength of the core message for the winning side.
PR expert Mike Hind wrote a superb piece after the EU Referendum about the marketing reasons for the success of the Leave side. (It's here if you haven't seen it) I can't help thinking that Trump's 'Make America Great Again' was, like the Leave message, a simple and strong pitch that earned 'gut instinct' votes and cut through all of the personal mud slinging. I'm increasingly starting to think that these gut instincts decide more votes than long manifestos or detailed policy.
Also, just as Brexit turned a complex debate into a basic black and white choice, the US election turned its country's future into a personality contest between two people. Both votes have posed as many questions as they have answers and have left the electorate hopelessly divided.
So, what next? Either Trump will turn back on his boldest promises and upset the supporters he's whipped up into a frenzy or he'll stay true to his word and be awful. For once, I'm hoping this is a case of a politician who lied.
After that train of thought - almost as incoherent at Trump himself - it's time for a lie down. See you in 25 years for a proper historical look at Trump and Brexit? That's if he hasn't pressed the nuclear button before then I suppose...
