Harry Targ
The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump has
mobilized rightwing populists, economic nationalists, racists, anti-Muslims and
anti-Semites, sectors of the marginalized and growing precariat, and some
Republicans. His stock in trade has been a continuous communication by brief
soundbites and tweets lies and innuendos, egregious insults, personal attacks,
and slanders. These have exceeded much of the history of political discourse in
the United States (with the possible exception of the anti-Communist ravings of
the 1950s and the virulently hostile campaigns in the days of Thomas Jefferson,
Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr).
It is clear to most well-meaning political activists
of the center and the left, that a Trump presidency would cause untold pain and
suffering to an already aggrieved population of people of color, workers,
women, gays and lesbians, and advocates for the environment. However, Donald
Trump, for a year now, has been a candidate who is largely a creation of the
mainstream media. Day after day mainstream media reported on the candidate’s every
word, his seeming popularity, and his “presumptiveness” as the Republican
nominee of his party. CBS executive Leslie Moonves said about the Trump
candidacy: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”
(Campbell Brown, “Why I Blame TV for Trump,” Politico Magazine, May/June 2016). The Trump candidacy has been
worth millions more dollars in corporate profit for a news industry that has
experienced declining viewership and readership in recent years.
Once Trump secured almost enough delegates to be nominated
the Republican candidate, the media, including liberal and left voices,
launched a non-stop effort to discredit his background, his assertions, and his
broad array of rightwing supporters. And
since candidate Trump continuously articulates his bizarre views he has become
the gift that never stops giving. The frame has shifted from Trump the curiosity
to Trump the monster. Both tropes, it is hoped, will increase the viewership
and advertising as 24/7 coverage shifts to the general election.
The narrow media frame on the Trump phenomenon and
his daily statements lead to a portrait of an electoral contest with his
Democratic Party opponent that prioritizes personalities and sound bites and not
ideas, issues, worldviews, or ideologies. The media frame reaffirms the typical
American personality “binary,” that is if not Trump then the presumptive
Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton. Although the differences between the
two candidates matter, fundamental questions of policy and purpose which should
be part of political discourse are frozen
out of the political process. The central issue of the election has become
Donald Trump.
The Trump candidacy has poisoned and distorted the
real political contest of ideas undergirding the issues of the twenty first
century. Black Lives Matter, the Occupy, the Fight for 15, Moral Mondays, and
the climate change movements are all about the fundamental structural
impediments to any semblance of a humane society. Many of the issues articulated
by these campaigns have been reflected in Bernie Sanders’ presidential
campaign. But because of the Trump media frame and the political binary these vital
issues do not get discussed.
Fundamentally, because Trump represents the worst
aspects of United States history and politics, political conversations center
on him. They do not address the connections between capitalism and poverty,
inequality, racism, sexism, homophobia, war, and terrorism. And the mainstream
media prefers that such discussions not take place either. In addition, since
the Democratic candidate is part of the problem, not the solution, the Trump
conundrum limits necessary political discourse.
So progressives have a problem. A Trump victory in
November will have enormous negative consequences for the vast majority of the
most marginalized sectors of American society, some of whom struggled for
almost 100 years to achieve some modicum of social and economic justice. And a
Clinton victory ensures the continuation of the institutions that have promoted
the global capitalist agenda that has been in place for the last forty years:
monopolization and financialization of the global economy and the use of “humanitarian”
military interventions to implement the neoliberal order.
Perhaps for the coming period the prioritization of
the progressive political agenda should include in this order: say “no” to
Trump; say “no” to the revitalization of neoliberal globalization in a Hillary
Clinton Administration; and finally say “no” to the American political binary
that institutionalizes just two choices, forestalling discussions of
fundamental change in the United States.
