Political Theatre category archive

At Psychology Today Blogs, Jeremy Sherman suggests that the motivations for members of right-wing “populist” movements may be simpler than many theorists believe. In that context, he opines that Donald Trump’s behavior during this week’s “debate” was not to be unexpected.

Methinks his comments are worth consideration; here’s a tiny bit:

Whatever else MAGA might be about with its many conflicting messages, there is this underlying theme that can hardly be a coincidence: Everything it stands for demands that others accommodate the movement. The movement shall not be moved. It will correct the world; the world will never correct it.

Trump is the perfect embodiment of that proud stance and this week’s debate was the first test of that stance in four years, Trump’s first public moment in four years as an equal to others, not the dominant leader granting audience to respectful supplicating subordinates.

. . . His best and only remaining strategy is simple: Continue to pose as indomitable; imply inevitable and absolute dominance with ever-louder dog-whistles.

All he had to do was demonstrate continued unflappable dominance and he pulled it off brilliantly running roughshod over every social norm. He didn’t blow the debate; he nailed it.

Sherman, I think, makes a telling point. I suspect that Donald Trump does indeed believe that he nailed it.

Follow the link to put that little bit I quoted in context. It’s worth the five minutes.

Aside:

I put quotations around the word “populist” because the usage of the term has morphed significantly. Initially, it denoted a progressive movement, rather than, as it does today, a regressive one.

Seth looks at the Presidential debate and at Fox News’s attempts to spin it into an alternative reality so as to put Donald Trump’s behavior in a positive light.

Mike Littwin pretty much sums it up:

I’ve been watching this stuff for approximately forever, and I’d never seen anything like it or close to it. I mean, you’d think that people would be condemning Biden for calling the president of the United States “a clown” and telling him to “shut up, man.” Instead, they were praising him for his restraint for settling on calling him the worst president in American history.

I don’t know how well Biden did in the debate. No one knows how well he did. Trump talked over him and interrupted him at every turn. If anything was clear, though, it’s that the dementia argument should be over by now.

More of Littwin’s summation on the debacle at the link.

Image via Job’s Anger.

Read more »

At Psychology Today Blogs, Camille Johnson demonstrates that lies can affect our judgement, even when we recognize them as lies. At the end of the article, she suggests some steps we can take to reduce our chances of drowning in the sea of lies. A snippet:

What is important to consider is that in a world where misleading and false information are constantly being presented in social media, we need to be aware of our vulnerability to that information – even when we know it is false, inflammatory, or intended to sway us. We like to think that we are not vulnerable, that Facebook posts, twitter threads, and funny memes aren’t affecting us – because of course we know that they aren’t 100% true and it is just a joke. But science shows that we are vulnerable. When we see outlandish information, even when we know it is untrue, it sways our judgement. This is especially true if the information appeals to us on an emotional level.

As Yom Kippur nears, Brian Greenspun takes inventory.

Disappearing frolics.