This election may or may not be revolutionary in the traditional sense, a hinge point where history seems to take a turn, or at least changes shape in its endless push toward “progress.” But one thing is for sure: it has been incredibly instructive in giving us observers a view into how power really functions.
It turns out that the major political and social scientists of the last 60 years were right. Here are just two of the ways where they predicted the evolution of our political process:
Lewis Mumford Accurately Described ‘The Machine’
This is the big one. We won’t recount Mumford’s entire theory here, but the gist of his argument is that the various machines protect one another. The media protects the banks, which protects the government, which protects the corporations, and so on. The result is a kind of hyper-resilient mesh of governing structures which are highly resistant to reform. They all have their own individual motivations, but all support the expansion of centralized power and control.
We see this clearly today in this article from the Associated Press: “Analysis: Trump ‘rigged’ vote claim may leave lasting damage.” It reads:
Donald Trump keeps peddling the notion the vote may be rigged. It’s unclear whether he understands the potential damage of his words, or simply doesn’t care…. Clinton and congressional Republicans, should they retain control, would be left trying to govern in a country divided not just by ideology, but also the legitimacy of the presidency.
God forbid this criminal government have its legitimacy imperiled! The horror. We might have people questioning whether our countless illegal wars are moral. People might even think they can govern themselves! The AP continues:
As Trump’s campaign careens from crisis to crisis, he’s broadened his unfounded allegations that Clinton, her backers and the media are conspiring to steal the election.
Unfounded. Wow. That’s plainly not true, and we have dozens, perhaps hundreds of emails both from the DNC hacks and the leaked Clinton email server that prove at least some soft collusion between the media and outfits like the CNN and the AP, as well as bloggers, and individual TV personalities. It defies the common sense of anyone paying attention.
But we digress, the real issue here is that the AP sees a threat to the legitimacy of the government – even if it is criminal – to be unacceptable, requiring rebuke. The establishment must be defended.
This is also why the “make sure you vote” message is so prominent in every election. Without a voting populace, the illusion of Democratic governance cannot be sustained as easily.
We are an Image-based Society
Umberto Eco once wrote, “Mass media do not transmit ideologies; they are themselves an ideology.” In an image based society, images supplant individual experience.
If I were to say that President Obama has a torture chamber in the basement of the White House that he uses regularly for sexual satisfaction, no one would believe me unless I had indisputable evidence (and even then, perhaps not). Why would people be so resistant to the information? Because his image is one of a measured man, with a statesman-like quality. We can see he has a fairly normal family and no obvious psychological problems (aside from an inflated ego). The reality I would try to project can’t easily replace the more powerful image.
The reality of who President Obama is doesn’t matter if it conflicts with the image. A strong, well-defined image can stand up to a lot of criticism. If you tried to argue Obama was careless, lazy, slept in-till noon every day, and watched an excessive amount of TV, it wouldn’t stick, because it doesn’t match the image.
A politician’s image is his most powerful defense. It is more powerful than he or she could ever be as a “real person.” Attacking the real person is futile. If you want to attack a politician, you have to destroy the image first.
This is why it was so important to establish Trump as a careless playboy with contempt for all women before releasing the Access Hollywood tape. If the evidence didn’t match the image already firmly in everyone’s mind, it wouldn’t have the same impact. We now know, with reasonable certainty, that NBC held off on releasing the tape to do maximum damage. (Incidentally, some of Billy Bush’s dialogue was edited out to make Trump’s words appear more vulgar in comparison.) It also coincided with the network’s planned Law & Order SVU episode featuring a Donald Trump like character accused of rape (now pulled from airing).
If Trump’s image had not been established as a hater of women, it would not have had the same impact. Just like the make-believe White House sex dungeon described above, if it doesn’t match the image, the new information can’t be incorporated successfully. If the revelations do match with the pre-existing image, there is a multiplier effect, causing people to conclude that he is out of control.
These are two very broad topics, each could be several books unto themselves, so we’ll leave it there. But 2016 may yet have more to teach us about how power works. We haven’t even had a vote yet.
