Trump’s communication techniques, frames of analysis, and democracy

Several months ago I said that I would do some analysis of Trump and the American election. Up until now I have refrained from doing any kind of analysis or reflection, primarily because I feel the conversation is so saturated that nothing I had to say would be particularly interesting or novel. But now I have an idea, so here it goes.

Recently I stumbled upon a YouTube channel called Charisma on Command. Basically the channel breaks down ways in which you can be charismatic and persuasive (including analysis of why certain Game of Throne characters do well and others do not, if your into that sort of thing). In May 2016 the channel posted a video predicting that Donald Trump would win the American election, and proceeded to break down the communication techniques and strategies that Trump was using and why they were beating those techniques being used by Hillary. The analysis is quite interesting, but what struck me was that technique is not something I have seen much discussed in public dialogue as to why Trump beat Hillary. Most analysis that I have seen has been primarily ideological/economic, proposing that Trump won because of disenfranchised rust-belt voters, democrat hubris, and various other accounts. There just has not been much talk about the idea that Trump won and Hillary lost because Trump was a better communicator who successfully controlled the election agenda. I think that there are two interesting things to take away from this. First, I think it shows how theory/frame sets the ways in which events are interpreted and explained. Second, it is possibly the case that the ‘technique’ frame is avoided because it undermines the democratic frame.

I am using the term ‘frame’ here pretty loosely to refer to the broad assumptions that are being made about how the world works. In the American election, I suggest that the assumptions that have been made are something like this: beliefs and economic circumstances are the important factors that determine an election. Candidate’s win or lose based on their moral characteristics and the degree to which they represent the public.

Contrast this with the frame that captures Charisma on Command’s interest. The primary ethos of the channel is that charisma can be captured through teachable techniques (this being how the channel makes its money). The primary focus of the video on Trump is breaking down the methods through which he succeeds. This kind of explanation is almost a-historical – Trump won because he was a good public speaker and tactician, shifting tactics and ideology to suit the different audiences he needed to win. This is potentially anti-democratic because it seems to undermine the democratic assumption that voting places authority in the hands of the people – if elections are won on the back of rhetoric and technique, than democracy entails rule by the rhetorician, not the public. I said before that this frame is possibly avoided because it undermines the democratic frame. By this I do not mean that it is inconceivable that both technique and ideology play a role in democratic life. However, trust is a keystone in democracy – the system functions in part because people believe in it. I therefore think it is unsurprising that the technique frame is rarely explored in public channels.

Let me know what you think!

CreativePhilo

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9zSWu

Advertisements

Trump’s communication techniques, frames of analysis, and democracy

Several months ago I said that I would do some analysis of Trump and the American election. Up until now I have refrained from doing any kind of analysis or reflection, primarily because I feel the conversation is so saturated that nothing I had to say would be particularly interesting or novel. But now I have an idea, so here it goes.

Recently I stumbled upon a YouTube channel called Charisma on Command. Basically the channel breaks down ways in which you can be charismatic and persuasive (including analysis of why certain Game of Throne characters do well and others do not, if your into that sort of thing). In May 2016 the channel posted a video predicting that Donald Trump would win the American election, and proceeded to break down the communication techniques and strategies that Trump was using and why they were beating those techniques being used by Hillary. The analysis is quite interesting, but what struck me was that technique is not something I have seen much discussed in public dialogue as to why Trump beat Hillary. Most analysis that I have seen has been primarily ideological/economic, proposing that Trump won because of disenfranchised rust-belt voters, democrat hubris, and various other accounts. There just has not been much talk about the idea that Trump won and Hillary lost because Trump was a better communicator who successfully controlled the election agenda. I think that there are two interesting things to take away from this. First, I think it shows how theory/frame sets the ways in which events are interpreted and explained. Second, it is possibly the case that the ‘technique’ frame is avoided because it undermines the democratic frame.

I am using the term ‘frame’ here pretty loosely to refer to the broad assumptions that are being made about how the world works. In the American election, I suggest that the assumptions that have been made are something like this: beliefs and economic circumstances are the important factors that determine an election. Candidate’s win or lose based on their moral characteristics and the degree to which they represent the public.

Contrast this with the frame that captures Charisma on Command’s interest. The primary ethos of the channel is that charisma can be captured through teachable techniques (this being how the channel makes its money). The primary focus of the video on Trump is breaking down the methods through which he succeeds. This kind of explanation is almost a-historical – Trump won because he was a good public speaker and tactician, shifting tactics and ideology to suit the different audiences he needed to win. This is potentially anti-democratic because it seems to undermine the democratic assumption that voting places authority in the hands of the people – if elections are won on the back of rhetoric and technique, than democracy entails rule by the rhetorician, not the public. I said before that this frame is possibly avoided because it undermines the democratic frame. By this I do not mean that it is inconceivable that both technique and ideology play a role in democratic life. However, trust is a keystone in democracy – the system functions in part because people believe in it. I therefore think it is unsurprising that the technique frame is rarely explored in public channels.

Let me know what you think!

CreativePhilo

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9zSWu

Trump’s communication techniques, frames of analysis, and democracy

Several months ago I said that I would do some analysis of Trump and the American election. Up until now I have refrained from doing any kind of analysis or reflection, primarily because I feel the conversation is so saturated that nothing I had to say would be particularly interesting or novel. But now I have an idea, so here it goes.

Recently I stumbled upon a YouTube channel called Charisma on Command. Basically the channel breaks down ways in which you can be charismatic and persuasive (including analysis of why certain Game of Throne characters do well and others do not, if your into that sort of thing). In May 2016 the channel posted a video predicting that Donald Trump would win the American election, and proceeded to break down the communication techniques and strategies that Trump was using and why they were beating those techniques being used by Hillary. The analysis is quite interesting, but what struck me was that technique is not something I have seen much discussed in public dialogue as to why Trump beat Hillary. Most analysis that I have seen has been primarily ideological/economic, proposing that Trump won because of disenfranchised rust-belt voters, democrat hubris, and various other accounts. There just has not been much talk about the idea that Trump won and Hillary lost because Trump was a better communicator who successfully controlled the election agenda. I think that there are two interesting things to take away from this. First, I think it shows how theory/frame sets the ways in which events are interpreted and explained. Second, it is possibly the case that the ‘technique’ frame is avoided because it undermines the democratic frame.

I am using the term ‘frame’ here pretty loosely to refer to the broad assumptions that are being made about how the world works. In the American election, I suggest that the assumptions that have been made are something like this: beliefs and economic circumstances are the important factors that determine an election. Candidate’s win or lose based on their moral characteristics and the degree to which they represent the public.

Contrast this with the frame that captures Charisma on Command’s interest. The primary ethos of the channel is that charisma can be captured through teachable techniques (this being how the channel makes its money). The primary focus of the video on Trump is breaking down the methods through which he succeeds. This kind of explanation is almost a-historical – Trump won because he was a good public speaker and tactician, shifting tactics and ideology to suit the different audiences he needed to win. This is potentially anti-democratic because it seems to undermine the democratic assumption that voting places authority in the hands of the people – if elections are won on the back of rhetoric and technique, than democracy entails rule by the rhetorician, not the public. I said before that this frame is possibly avoided because it undermines the democratic frame. By this I do not mean that it is inconceivable that both technique and ideology play a role in democratic life. However, trust is a keystone in democracy – the system functions in part because people believe in it. I therefore think it is unsurprising that the technique frame is rarely explored in public channels.

Let me know what you think!

CreativePhilo

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9zSWu

Trump’s communication techniques, frames of analysis, and democracy

Several months ago I said that I would do some analysis of Trump and the American election. Up until now I have refrained from doing any kind of analysis or reflection, primarily because I feel the conversation is so saturated that nothing I had to say would be particularly interesting or novel. But now I have an idea, so here it goes.

Recently I stumbled upon a YouTube channel called Charisma on Command. Basically the channel breaks down ways in which you can be charismatic and persuasive (including analysis of why certain Game of Throne characters do well and others do not, if your into that sort of thing). In May 2016 the channel posted a video predicting that Donald Trump would win the American election, and proceeded to break down the communication techniques and strategies that Trump was using and why they were beating those techniques being used by Hillary. The analysis is quite interesting, but what struck me was that technique is not something I have seen much discussed in public dialogue as to why Trump beat Hillary. Most analysis that I have seen has been primarily ideological/economic, proposing that Trump won because of disenfranchised rust-belt voters, democrat hubris, and various other accounts. There just has not been much talk about the idea that Trump won and Hillary lost because Trump was a better communicator who successfully controlled the election agenda. I think that there are two interesting things to take away from this. First, I think it shows how theory/frame sets the ways in which events are interpreted and explained. Second, it is possibly the case that the ‘technique’ frame is avoided because it undermines the democratic frame.

I am using the term ‘frame’ here pretty loosely to refer to the broad assumptions that are being made about how the world works. In the American election, I suggest that the assumptions that have been made are something like this: beliefs and economic circumstances are the important factors that determine an election. Candidate’s win or lose based on their moral characteristics and the degree to which they represent the public.

Contrast this with the frame that captures Charisma on Command’s interest. The primary ethos of the channel is that charisma can be captured through teachable techniques (this being how the channel makes its money). The primary focus of the video on Trump is breaking down the methods through which he succeeds. This kind of explanation is almost a-historical – Trump won because he was a good public speaker and tactician, shifting tactics and ideology to suit the different audiences he needed to win. This is potentially anti-democratic because it seems to undermine the democratic assumption that voting places authority in the hands of the people – if elections are won on the back of rhetoric and technique, than democracy entails rule by the rhetorician, not the public. I said before that this frame is possibly avoided because it undermines the democratic frame. By this I do not mean that it is inconceivable that both technique and ideology play a role in democratic life. However, trust is a keystone in democracy – the system functions in part because people believe in it. I therefore think it is unsurprising that the technique frame is rarely explored in public channels.

Let me know what you think!

CreativePhilo

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9zSWu

Trump’s communication techniques, frames of analysis, and democracy

Several months ago I said that I would do some analysis of Trump and the American election. Up until now I have refrained from doing any kind of analysis or reflection, primarily because I feel the conversation is so saturated that nothing I had to say would be particularly interesting or novel. But now I have an idea, so here it goes.

Recently I stumbled upon a YouTube channel called Charisma on Command. Basically the channel breaks down ways in which you can be charismatic and persuasive (including analysis of why certain Game of Throne characters do well and others do not, if your into that sort of thing). In May 2016 the channel posted a video predicting that Donald Trump would win the American election, and proceeded to break down the communication techniques and strategies that Trump was using and why they were beating those techniques being used by Hillary. The analysis is quite interesting, but what struck me was that technique is not something I have seen much discussed in public dialogue as to why Trump beat Hillary. Most analysis that I have seen has been primarily ideological/economic, proposing that Trump won because of disenfranchised rust-belt voters, democrat hubris, and various other accounts. There just has not been much talk about the idea that Trump won and Hillary lost because Trump was a better communicator who successfully controlled the election agenda. I think that there are two interesting things to take away from this. First, I think it shows how theory/frame sets the ways in which events are interpreted and explained. Second, it is possibly the case that the ‘technique’ frame is avoided because it undermines the democratic frame.

I am using the term ‘frame’ here pretty loosely to refer to the broad assumptions that are being made about how the world works. In the American election, I suggest that the assumptions that have been made are something like this: beliefs and economic circumstances are the important factors that determine an election. Candidate’s win or lose based on their moral characteristics and the degree to which they represent the public.

Contrast this with the frame that captures Charisma on Command’s interest. The primary ethos of the channel is that charisma can be captured through teachable techniques (this being how the channel makes its money). The primary focus of the video on Trump is breaking down the methods through which he succeeds. This kind of explanation is almost a-historical – Trump won because he was a good public speaker and tactician, shifting tactics and ideology to suit the different audiences he needed to win. This is potentially anti-democratic because it seems to undermine the democratic assumption that voting places authority in the hands of the people – if elections are won on the back of rhetoric and technique, than democracy entails rule by the rhetorician, not the public. I said before that this frame is possibly avoided because it undermines the democratic frame. By this I do not mean that it is inconceivable that both technique and ideology play a role in democratic life. However, trust is a keystone in democracy – the system functions in part because people believe in it. I therefore think it is unsurprising that the technique frame is rarely explored in public channels.

Let me know what you think!

CreativePhilo

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2u9zSWu

What is an informed voter?

Given the amount of time that that I have spent volunteering for the NDP (New Democrat Party) for the upcoming Canadian election, I feel that I am more informed about the issues in this election than for any other election I will have voted in. This brings up a question that I have previously reflected upon. What is a responsible voter? Crucial to democratic rhetoric is the notion that voting is both a right and a responsibility. That even if you do not know who you intend to vote for, you should, at the very least, show up and spoil your ballet. This is a very minimalist notion of voting responsibility, even if it is one that many people fail to achieve. The question remains, however, how much people should aspire to know or understand in an election.

There is an economics argument that I have read a notable amount on which argues that informed voting is a kind of tragedy of the commons – we would all benefit substantially if all voters spent an hour researching who to vote for (if nothing else, this would lead to higher levels of scrutiny for political parties), but we would all prefer it if others spent that hour researching their vote and we spent the time relaxing or researching where we would like to go on vacation next year. Similarly, party loyalty is arguably an effective means of saving time and energy – after an initial investment deciding on which party to support, the voter can assume that the party will continue to represent their beliefs in the future. In asking the question of how much voters should know, I do not think that this kind of economic logic can be completely disregarded. Our time is precious, and I do not want to take it as a given that pursuing political knowledge is a responsibility of citizens. There is something to the rebuttal that is often uttered that people have fought and died to have the right to vote. This, however, does not quite draw out why it is a responsibility. Perhaps our responsibility is to our fellow citizens, though this is possibly contradictory given that each vote in the voting pool dilutes the votes of your fellow citizens. There is some evidence that group decisions can actually be better than individual decisions in some cases (see more on this here), though the extent to which this is the case is difficult to discern.

So how much should people aspire to know? It is obviously not a formal or lawful responsibility, at least not in Canada (there are 13 countries where voting is compulsory, according to wikipedia, including North Korea, where ‘Dissenting votes are possible but lead to repercussions for voters’). The question is instead how much a ‘good citizen’ should aim to understand in making their vote. Of course, notions of ‘good citizenship’ only have power in a very existential way, quite distinct from what is advantageous as I’ve explored in the previous paragraph. We all ‘should’ be good people, that’s pretty much the definition of good, but the main force behind such a concept is just our desire to be such. This, then, is my question: for someone seeking to be a ‘good citizen’, how much should they set out to know about politics. Even then, though, I do not think there is a uniform answer. When it comes to doing good work, we split responsibility. We can not be masters in all areas. Having a strong grasp of politics, like being a good teacher or an active member of a volunteer fire brigade* requires a significant investment of effort. It seems quite reasonable to say that some members of a community should be knowledgeable about politics, but it also seems reasonable to say that someone who’s interests lay elsewhere may lean on political savvy people they trust when it comes to political decisions.

As is often the case, after exploring what I know of the topic, I must conclude that I have less of an answer than when I started. I’ll probably write on this again next week.

Thank you for reading, let me know what you think,

CreativePhilo

*There are probably better examples in existence.

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FJaMCK