Today we are going to talk about the irony behind the far-right political discourse, using Donald Trump as our subject. We’re not diving into his political proposals, instead, we’re going to reflect on how they present them to the public.
As the post-structuralism thinkers say, in our analysis it’s essential to pay close attention to the language used by political figures, as it reflects their way of thinking, their ideas, their values…and their intentions. Comedy and irony are not exempt. Words and speeches are acts of power because they contribute to making up reality. They are not just tools to describe something that already exists, they help create it. Therefore, pulling the strings of public discourse is an instrument of power. This becomes particularly important when it aims to establish boundaries that create a “we” separate from the rest labeled as an enemy. Policies become made and justified on the grounds of identity. It is important to take into account this approach because it helps us understand that threats can often be not objective dangers, but rather antagonists built through speech acts that led us to tolerate things we wouldn’t tolerate otherwise: the centralization of power in one’s hands, losing part of our freedom, raising borders, the deportation of immigrants…
That said, what post-structuralism would want us to do is try and dig a little deeper on what politicians tell us. This can be done with very simple questions like “Why are they saying this? What can they gain from this?” and most importantly “Who speaks?”. In our case, the one speaking is Donald Trump.
We’re all familiar with Donald Trump’s history, relationship with his electorate… and pending charges. He’s a character and a very well-built one at that. He’s not the only one who’s been doing this, but for now, he’s the most skilled. His position is also not to be overlooked: he was President of the United States and is running to be elected for the same position, which (whether we like it or not) is still one of the most relevant in international politics. Being the POTUS comes with a great share of responsibilities.
Since the Roosevelt presidency, the US have been living a “personalization” of politics (a trend now visible all around the World); and that is particularly true when it comes to the President. The simple fact that he’s still riding on such a high consent (around 45%, very close to Biden) despite the accusations he still has to be proven innocent (on a trial still without a date); is a first glance at the conditions of the actual American civic and political environment.
Politicians, even before the term was even coined, always knew the power of emotions and symbolisms and, even after Illuminism and the birth of AI, we’re still not immune to their charm. It was with the dictators of the 40s that politics became a real show, and the new far-right seems to have taken on their ancestors’ legacy and become a master in using comedic timing as one of its best assets in the political debate.
We shall not underestimate the power of laughter, which can be a pretty strong and destructive weapon:
First, one of the many things that humor can do is dehumanize. By continuously making fun of your rivals or enemies who become characters in your narrative, they gain the qualities you give/attribute them. Also, introducing a discourse that borders on bullying in a political campaign can boost the tolerance of discrimination, because it normalizes referring to certain people in a certain way (often meaning without respect).
On the other hand, if you make yourself the “victim” of your own jokes, you become less threatening. The constant irony accustoms people to not take everything you say to them seriously and maybe, if you’re lucky, even if you’ll menace to revoke their civil and political rights. In the words of Fintan O’Toole: “It allows a threat to democracy to appear as at worst a tasteless prank”.
The point is that irony does not always consist in “lying” while meaning the opposite of what you’re saying. It is a highly valuable tool, both in everyday life and political argumentation. The downside is that it also creates a safe space for even the more outrageous and dangerous thoughts all in the name of humor, while planting poisoned seeds in people’s minds.
Of course, irony alone is not going to be what breaks down the ancient palace of democracy and his (pretty dark) humor is not the only thing that keeps Donald Trump still running.
I would like to leave with a question, related to what we’ve just discussed, that also looks at the counterpart: is it easier to appeal to the public if you’re representing the far-right? Isn't it odd that ignoring the health of democracy might make you seem good to today's citizens?
When it comes to the “Biden VS Trump” dispute there are many other variables related to the two personal figures, but even looking through the Democratic Party in general it’s not common to find characters of such nature. The reasons are plenty, and some of them are probably rooted in history, social norms and “trends” that were built throughout the years.
The electorate is also a part of this equation. Saying that irony builds a safe space, materially translates to not having to worry about how your potential electorate will react to your statements. What politicians like Trump can rely on, while their opponents can’t, is a peculiar support base that claims to represent the whole Nation and they are all very similar: white Christian nationalists which make up the vast majority of the Republican voters. The Democrats, on the other side, must try and appeal to basically everyone else. Democrats have to be one hundred times more careful about what they say and don’t have the luxury to count on a strong common ground to unite all their potential voters, who are very different in social and political backgrounds and ethnicity. This is especially true in a country with a peculiar electoral process such as the United States.
So once again it’s not just a matter of ignoring the health of democracy per se, but rather a matter of “Who speaks” and “Who they speak to”.
Gaia Pascucci
Main sources:
- Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics, Charlotte Epstein, 2011
- “In on the Joke: The Comedic Trick Trump Uses to Normalize His Behavior”, POLITICO, 17 March 2024, by Michael Kruse
- “Fascists Know How To Turn Mockery Into Power”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 20 August 2020, by Noah Berlatsky
- “Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t”, The New York Times, 24 January 2020, by Ezra Klein
コメント