Posted on 07/31/2015 7:59:26 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Trump as a candidate is almost entirely a creation of the media. That is not to deny that he is adept at manipulating the media, that is perfectly plain. But it is to say that a man adept at manipulating the media has met a media eager to expose Trump to further its own needs. The media gains readers and viewers and makes money off the Trump phenomenon. History tells us that the media habitually builds up that which they will later destroy when it simply begins to bore them or suits their politics.
There is a third element which is vitally important to understanding the Trump phenomenon: He has given voice to a burning frustration and actual fear in middle America that we are losing our country through feckless policies such as immigration and trade. He is right and he says it better than any other candidate. The media hates the message but loves to feature the messenger (whom they also hate) because it pays so well. The more the media attacks the messenger, the more frustrated and fearful Americans, quite rational in these feelings, instinctively side with Trump. The more Trump denigrates the media, the more middle America instinctively sides with Trump because middle America viscerally understands that the media and the two political parties are in cahoots. The disenfranchised middle has almost no choice but to turn to a maverick and the more Trump is positioned either by the media or by his own mouth to be out of the mainstream, the more he fits the role of white knight riding to the rescue with no motive other than to save the Holy Grail of our way of life.
How then will the media ultimately destroy Trump's candidacy? First it is necessary to understand that Trump's candidacy is a media event, not a grassroots movement, not a development within the party, not a political movement. It is a series of media events.Trump makes good copy and gives good video. Rather than a grassroots movement, rather than a bottom-up phenomenon, it is a sensory event, one that must occupy the screen and preoccupy the consciousness or fade out. A media phenomenon survives only so long as it is a phenomenon in the media. That implies that Trump must be ever more and more outlandish if he is to hold media momentum. He will be confronted with the choice: Either he burlesque's his own character ever more and more or he moderates. If he chooses the former he will eventually cross too many lines; if he chooses the latter he will lose the magic. His timing and stage presence must be exquisite if he is to keep the cameras rolling.
The choice Trump must make comes in the context of issues. We have already seen him start to dance on the issue of immigration: Who he will deport; how he will uncover them in America; how he will physically deport them; whom he will allow to return to America; upon what standard; whom he will make citizens; why?. His answer was virtually incoherent but even if regarded to be coherent, his answer was hardly confidence inspiring, in reality, it was not the kind of second act needed to keep the media bubble growing. Was he moderating his position? Has he continued to differentiate himself from other true conservatives like Ted Cruz? How is his immigration stand different from Scott Walker's? Sooner or later, Trump must say something other than, "I will make America great" he must choose. With choice inevitably comes opposition or disillusionment. Either he makes more enemies or he disappoints his supporters who need more and more.
The media creature can endure determined attacks in the media but he cannot survive disillusionment. Either the media bubble must grow and caricature itself until it bursts or it will spring a slow leak of disillusionment which only gathers speed and the whole balloon collapses. We have seen this time and again in American politics. Have we forgotten Herman Cain?
The upcoming debates might expose Trump to be a shallow opportunist who has diagnosed the problem but who has failed to rigorously think through his soundbite solutions. Most likely, the upcoming debates will not derail Trump's circus, it is still too early in the media cycle bubble, but it will begin the process.
1. The Maxim does not care if you're the aggressor or if you are the victim, the Maxim assumes that he who wields a sword carries the instrument of his own destruction.
2. The Maxim does not care if you are an expert swordsman, the idea is that there is always a better one, a faster gun if you will to change metaphors, who will be your undoing.
It does not matter ultimately if a media creation is the conscious creation of the media or the facile creation of the individual, the media is the instrument of ultimate destruction. It does not matter how adept the individual is in controlling the media if the individual is only a media creature.
Live by the media, die by the media.
But there is a nagging voice within me that says, be careful. Republicans in general and Trump in particular suffer from a gender gap which the Democrats have been able to exploit in several election cycles under circumstances that absolutely bewildered me. How is it that Republicans are sexist because they choose not to subsidize some female student's sex while in graduate school and pay for her birth control? As a male I simply do not understand how this absurd argument gained traction with females but it indisputably did. And it was indisputably contrived from beginning to end from George Stephanopoulos to "legitimate rape."
We male Republicans do not understand how women get their news, how they form their opinions, why they vote the way they do. Have you ever taken a look at women's magazines? They are vile propaganda sheets inserted between cosmetic ads. I would rather gag than be subjected to an hour of Oprah but she influences millions of votes.
At the risk of being a chauvinist swine may I ask, how many women will watch Donald Trump in the debates and not hear what he is saying but simply react negatively to his aggressiveness? I love his aggressiveness, just as I loved Newt Gingrich's aggressiveness. But I am an aging white Republican. From what I understand of the very unrefined polling results available to date concerning Donald Trump, his appeal to women shows a profound gender gap. Moreover many of these women polled are Republican rather than Democrat, women whom we would expect to be less vulnerable to creeping Oprah Winfrey-ism.
But if we cannot fight the fight on this issue, where can we?
Numbers under are their rank, currently. debate A is two hours.
The question is do they have the ground game, the political infrastructure as well? Ted Cruz's problem is that the Washington elite will move heaven and earth to deny him that infrastructure. To be successful, Ronald Reagan style, Ted Cruz has to get around the media and the establishment. So does Donald Trump. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio seem to have cut deals with the establishment but the tenor of the times apparently has prevented them from capitalizing on the fruits of those deals.
Other candidates, like Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 did not face that problem because of his five-star status. Despite the record of Mr. Republican, Sen. Taft, the infrastructure of the Republican Party was simply his for the taking. Richard Nixon in 1960 had the Republican Party in his pocket. Likewise George HW Bush despite the Herculean efforts of Pat Buchanan whom I supported. Hillary Clinton might be one of the few candidates in history who has the party in her pocket and who loses it twice.
But these are individuals quite apart from media candidates. Donald Trump has no institutional support. In fact, he is aggressively opposed by most institutions and will be opposed no doubt vehemently by the Chamber of Commerce, for example. The Republican Party in various states will oppose him as will most elected officials in those states.
Ronald Reagan had roots going back to the Goldwater campaign and he paid his dues in speech after speech for General Electric all over the country. He won the biggest state in the union and became its governor. He had infrastructure. George HW Bush even before he was vice president was said to have the longest resume and the biggest Rolodex in Washington. He had infrastructure, he had support. Richard Nixon in 1960 of course had support as the incumbent vice president. By 1968 he had accumulated a host of IOUs which he cashed in as support. These men infiltrated the Republican Party or sections of it and gained infrastructure so that they could mount ground games and campaign from the bottom up to match their media appeal.
Ted Cruz is trying to win over the tea party and gain that infrastructure. So far, it has not helped much in the polls. As far as I can tell, he has only media momentum and evidently not much of that. But Cruz is attempting to gain support with a coherent conservative political philosophy. He presents a consistent, coherent conservative biography. Donald Trump presents us with a checkered past, divided loyalties, inconsistent political positions, and a host of ready made enemies. Trump has no infrastructure and apparently no plans for creating any. He is riding the media wave.
We shall see.
“Trump as a candidate is almost entirely a creation of the media.”
Nope...lets not forget how many statements have been suppossed to sink him already according to that same press...and some here on FR as well...
“How dare trump say those things about mexicans (illegals)’
“How dare trump say tha bout John McCain(RINO)”
“Trump raped his wife (no not really)”
This many canidates means many people already have a dog in the fight...and they dont want to see trump upset their apple cart.
Please read the entire vanity and note the portions that talk about how Trump prospers by criticizing the media and the degree to which he also prospers from media criticism. Please read the second sentence. Please also note the portions which talk about the kind of media campaign Trump is running.
Please understand the point of the vanity which has nothing to do with whether Trump is manipulating the media or the media is creating Trump.
Enjoy the rest of the vanity.
Its nice to see that there are still people with hope out there much like obamas hope
Watch the CNN focus group. I have never seen unanimous support across sex, class, and income lines. The pollster said "But he's a billionaire" and a woman with tattoos, lower class looking, said "but he's like us."
Now, do you remember 2012 and Rush saying he knew it was over when 80% of the people in exit polls said Obama "cared for people like them?" That is exactly how Trump is connecting.
His book goes into detail....I think he will give more detailed answers in debate if asked...but low information voters like sound bites...if nothing else Trump may get a lot of people watching..I still like Walker..but Trump might beat them all...
I know.
Isn’t that great!
or not
together Trump and Carson poll 38%, a very, even extreme figure.
the number represents a strong desire to avoid politicians and elect a real man, an ordinary non lawyer, non politico that can speak for the people. To deny grass roots is to totally misunderstand the phenomena.
DINGDINGDING!!!
It is a testament to the power of media, especially in this case social media, and it tells me that there is much that goes on in my fourteen-year-old daughter's world that is foreign to me. I certainly do not dispute that there can be much that goes on in grassroots America politically that can fool me. Ever since I attended my first political rally in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater I have come to understand that my perception of the world, at least of the political world and now the musical world, is not universally shared. The entire arena was sold out with rompin' stompin' enthusiasts for Goldwater. People thronged outside who could not be admitted. On that occasion I returned home and straightaway turned on the eleven o'clock news to see one of the three networks then available to determine how they covered the event. I was absolutely shocked to learn that the pro-Goldwater supporters outside the arena whom I had seen with my own eyes were portrayed by the New York media as Goldwater protesters. What happened to plain talking Goldwater in that election is now history.
So I do not dispute the power of the media to generate action around Donald Trump but I insist that the media also has power to generate opposition to Donald Trump. We are still early in the process in which the electorate tends to fall in love as even conservative Republicans are regrettably prone to do. How much love was wasted on Herman Cain and Rick Perry last cycle? I do not dispute the power of Donald Trump to manipulate the media to generate excitement in a border state which has been overrun to attend a rally against immigration. I concede that Cruz and Walker probably could not duplicate that feat. But does that tell us that candidate Donald Trump is doing this or is the Star of Apprentice drawing the crowd?
We have yet to see whether this excitement translates into votes. We have yet to see whether Trump has longevity. We have yet to see the debates. We have yet to see what the media leaves on the cutting room floor. We have yet to give equal media prominence to other candidates as will happen in an endless number of debates. We have yet to see the institutional forces at work, we have yet to see the power of friction at work. We have yet to see the influence of the ground game. We've yet to see if Trump can or is even inclined to put together a ground game .
In my humble essay I have not disputed the power of Donald Trump to garner support by exploiting the media, in fact, I emphasized it. My question is, can Trump carry this high wire act all the way?
I’m curious to see if, during the debate, Trump will repeat the response he gave when asked about Obamacare.
He said he would replace it with “something terrific.”
If Cruz has a Reagan Democrat appeal plan, he'd better roll it out right quick.
So far, he appears to have a very small but tight-knit organization, sort of a Baker-Deever-Meese set up with his attorney, his campaign director, and a couple of others. But you are right that he has this incredible advantage of free publicity. So his money is actually doubled or tripled in real impact.
Just spitballing, but if I'm Trump, I keep this kind of campaign up for about six more months. Take out the opponents, one at a time. He already finished Rubio and Perry, and many others aren't players. He really only has to worry about Bush and Walker at this point. So if I'm him I just keep pounding these guys in the polls with the "inevitability" notion that he has poll numbers they can't beat, which in turn siphons off some (not all) of their contributors, making it even harder for them to compete.
Sometime around the first primaries (after winning 3-4) I start fully training the guns on Hillary and the Dems in general. Ignore the Republicans, as though they aren't part of the solution but aren't part of the problem. Kind of give the impression that the GOP will follow his lead once he's in office.
About that time I'd expect to see the head-to-head polls steadily shift in his direction, to at least a tie level. If he has not said anything terribly stupid, and if he's managed to expand his base just a little by, say, weighing in on the abortion videos without coming across as a Huckabee, or on national security without looking like a warmonger, then he has a very, very real shot at the presidency.
Today he said some things about Crimea that are going to resonate with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, namely, it's Europe's problem. Now, I'm more hawkish, but we are in the 1930s, where people don't want foreign involvement and where Zero has so totally destroyed our military capabilities it will take someone a while to build them back up so that even IF we needed to help Ukraine, we could. Meanwhile, a lot of anti-Bush GOP types, libertarians, and some Dems will find his comments very appealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.