I’m not a specialist in politics, but 2020 is being characterized as the end of some highly political years, terminating in the departure of President Trump. Today (30th December, 2020) BBC World News on APM Radio interviewed a couple of reporters on how they had been covering the news. To my disappointment, this whole discussion was dismally narrow – filled with serious misconceptions about politics and ignoring the most relevant facts about wider society. I thought to myself, social science hasn’t done a good job if this is how it is being presented by a leading news organization. Even as a non-specialist, I feel compelled to point out some ways that politics, an older part of society, can be better framed and understood more clearly.
Current events have again reminded me that the most relevant feature of politics is its evident long term decline. The political power of states has been in relative decline for centuries, as the economy and, later, our collective sociology have increased their own importance. The Trump years have simply made this decline more obvious. In this context, defining Trump as ‘populist’ and and his term in office as ‘a bid for power by a dangerous man’ misses the broader context of increasing irrelevance of the state. This analysis can be illustrated by recalling that his initial electoral claim to build a border wall amounted, in practice, to nothing and yet this didn’t hurt his support base. Trumpism is better understood as a desperate and narrowly party political effort to rally votes and stay in office by creating endless publicity stunts that entertained his known audience – those who ‘don’t care’ and feel ‘left out of progress.’ This demographic has been pretty clearly identified and is widely recognized. The narrowness of this gambit is easy to see.
Far from being a grab for state power, Trump’s rapid rise and fall reveals a pathetic and doomed effort to retain the appearance of the long vanished strong state. Anyone aware of history can see that the real mechanisms of progress today include the economy and, more so, our shared sociology. (I am aware that a few die hard political academics still cling to the quaint notion that politics is ‘society’s one and only expression of collective purpose.’ While this was plausible in Ancient Athens, most thinkers accept that modern society relies on its economy – and its sociology.)
So my dismay at hearing the BBC tell me that two reporters thought the Trump White House was a fun gig for reporters to cover was disappointingly narrow. It told me that journalism really doesn’t understand what is important. Twenty four hour coverage of elected leaders and, with a straight face, tirelessly reporting their mendacities and stunts was not a helpful contribution to public knowledge. It exaggerated the trivial and offered no understanding of either the limits of central government or the real sources of economic and social change. Actual governments today have to listen; all their lower branches – legislative, state, municipal, and civil service – have to reconcile multiple conflicting interests. The populace, rallied at intervals to become an electorate, doesn’t spend most of its time thinking politically – whatever the Twitter and news reports say. People correctly spend most of their time following other sources of information and entertainment. Better illustrations of men’s collective efforts in teams can be found in professional sports leagues, and go to video blogs if you want to discover new trends – you’ll find reports on consumables and personal relationships. These entertainments are where we find today’s the real ‘influencers.’ The occasional loud-mouthed bully who, for a few years, occupies some buildings of faded power is rightly seen as irrelevant, as evidenced by how quickly after an election both the population’s opposition to and support for a politician disappear.
After hearing reporters describe their political tunnel vision, what is most seriously disappointing is that, in fact, some very interesting social movements did arise, mostly in opposition to the Trump rhetoric and its implications. The #MeToo movement and Black Lives Matter had huge influence, not just in the US but world wide; these present challenges for all people to understand and respond to, including us social scientists. How nice it would have been to have a report on these, the unintended effects of the Trump movement. How much more practical it would have been for news organizations to send well-informed reporters to cover ordinary people’s protests and seek out what galvanized them into action.
Instead, what we got was narrow political coverage and this tells me that news reporting hasn’t caught up with how society has changed. The myth of state power lingers on, despite the evidence that ordinary people now make the crucial judgements about where society is going. Where are people expressing these critical desires and aspirations? The answer will take serious effort in studying people’s economic and sociological action. When will such valuable studies of society be undertaken and reported helpfully? We don’t know, but what the year 2020 has proved again is that the answers won’t be found in the press conferences and Tweets of one elected official.