Edelman’s foundational point is that most people don’t pay close attention to the details of policy, and the news media does a poor job of covering the details (in large part because most people don’t care about the details). As a result, Edelman writes, “Politics is for most of us a passing parade of abstract symbols.” Knowing this, skillful presidents and other leaders can deceive mass publics through the careful use of symbols.
Following a long line of thinkers going back to Durkheim and Freud, Edelman notes that there is something about modern society that makes many people feel as though they lack control of their own lives. “Alienation, anomie, despair of being able to chart one’s own course in a complex, cold, and bewildering world have become characteristic of a large part of the population of advanced countries,” he writes.
He continues: “As the world can be neither understood nor influenced, attachment to reassuring abstract symbols rather than to one’s own efforts becomes chronic. And what symbol can be more reassuring than the incumbent of a high position who knows what to do and is willing to act, especially when others are bewildered and alone?”
In particular, Edelman notes, many people are attracted to the idea of a leader taking charge, cutting through the chaos and confusion of the distant world of government and politics. Most people want a decisive, energetic force of action who appears to be on their side. They want somebody who can convey a supreme take-charge confidence.
But here’s the kicker, and the insight that should ring alarm bells: It doesn’t matter whether problems are actually being solved. Most people can’t tell the difference, especially if the symbols tell them otherwise. It’s the appearance of forceful problem solving that matters. Like many classic problems of monitoring, it is far easier to judge the appearance of effort than the relationship between efforts and results. Hence, Edelman writes, “The public official who dramatizes his competence is eagerly accepted on his own terms.”
This is what Donald Trump grasps. Above all, he is a showman of decisive action, a take-charge businessman who makes great deals. “I alone,” he said in his memorable convention speech. “I alone can fix it.” Other nominees before him showed deference to providence in their acceptance speeches, and called on the American people to do their part, too. Trump instead dramatized his own can-do competence against the gathering dangers of a dark and frightening world.
Edelman also has a remarkably timeless resonant critique of the media worth highlighting (emphasis added): “It is no accident of history or of culture that our newspapers and television present little news, that they overdramatize what they report, and that most citizens have only a foggy knowledge of public affairs though often an intensely felt one. … Publishers and broadcast licensees are telling the exact truth when they excuse their poor performance with the plea that they give the public what it wants. It wants symbols and not news.”
[…]The passage from The Symbolic Uses of Politics that sticks with me most is an extended 1962 quote from pollster George Gallup about presidential popularity. It is worth reading in full:
“I would say that any sharp drop in popularity is likely to come from the President’s inaction in the face of an important event. Inaction hurts a President more than anything else. A president can take some action, even a wrong one, and not lose his popularity. One of the great mysteries of the political scene last year was why President Kennedy did not suffer a great loss of popularity after the Cuban setback. But he didn’t. People tend to judge a man by his goals, by what he’s trying to do, and not necessarily by what he accomplishes or by how well he succeeds. People used to tell us over and over again about all the things that Roosevelt did wrong and then they would say, ‘I’m all for him, though, because his heart is in the right place; he is trying.’… If people are convinced you are trying to meet problems and that you are aware of their problems and are trying to do something about them, they don’t hold you responsible for 100 per cent success. Nor do you have to have any great ideas on how to accomplish the ends.”
[…]If Trump is out there every day, with a PR strategy focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, voters will think he is doing something. Even if the economy is sluggish, Trump can find plenty of “globalists” and “corrupt elites” to blame, or turn the focus to race and identity issues and take action there. Note, for example, that FDR remained popular throughout the Great Depression. One reason may be summed up in this oft-quoted line from a mill worker: “Mr. Roosevelt is the only man we ever had in the White House who would understand that my boss is a son-of-a-bitch.’” That is, as long as voters think the president is on their side, that’s the thing that matters.
[…]In the days following the election, many remarked on the shocking fact that Republicans suddenly felt a whole lot better about the state of the economy, even though nothing objective in the economy had changed. This is a well-known and longstanding political science result: Most people evaluate the state of the economy more through their partisan loyalties than through objective economic indicators.
As Chris Achen and Larry Bartels note in Democracy for Realists, “Even perceptions of economic well-being … are subject to considerable vagaries. Prospective voters’ economic perceptions are powerfully shaped by partisan biases, rationalization, and sheer randomness.”
There is, however, a weakness to Trump’s full embrace of the decisive man-of-action approach to being president, and a reason why other presidents have been less eager to take on the “I alone” messaging strategy. And that reason is that it is very, very hard to succeed at it.
And it is more difficult now more than ever, given both the complexity of modern governance and the deeply polarized nature of modern politics. It is especially difficult when you staff a Cabinet with little to no government experience, as Trump has. It’s hard to imagine a Trump administration staffed by political amateurs not falling prey to a series of scandals of incompetency.
[…]Perhaps Trump can shake off a few scandals like this and blame his subordinates with some big public “you’re fired” fireworks. But there are limits to how often he can do this. Likewise, if his legislative proposals fall flat (as they likely will), he can blame the corrupt Republican establishment and the hated Congress (term limits, anyone?) for a while. But not forever. In other words, at some point his “I alone can fix it” shtick may grow stale, if he really can’t fix it.
The most likely scenario is still that Trump winds up as one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. He comes in with record-low approval ratings for a president-elect, and typically, approval ratings fall once an initial presidential honeymoon period ends, and disappointment with reality sets in.
[…]So those who want to see Trump defeated should think long and hard: What are the issues where he will be unable (or unwilling) to respond? How can an opposition define him by symbols of inaction? Rather than countering Trump’s propaganda with facts alone (though facts are important!), opponents will also need to figure out how to paralyze Trump — how to shake the vision of him as a decisive leader who knows exactly what to do and then does it.
Source: Vox (December 19, 2016)
Subjects: Articles & Links, Excerpts, Politics & Public Policy, Trump
Click to Add the First »