US elections: great storytelling, no facts — a sardonic fairy tale
With a little coaxing from family and friends, here is a translation of the interviews I gave last week to Radio France[1] and the French regional newspaper, Sud Ouest[2]:
“Mr. Trump is now the US President-elect. By his very election, he is both legitimate and President of the whole nation. Since I’m a little too old to believe in magic wands and fawlty towers, I will judge him by his acts.
I’m none-the-less more worried about our current electoral process than I am about the future President. In my eyes, this campaign was staged more as a reality show than as a telling example of American democracy. The major parties were more concerned with spinning tall tales than taking a hard look at the facts.
The candidates spent more time stigmatizing each other than in building workable solutions for our very real social and economic challenges.
This line of conduct wasn’t the result of chance but of deliberate choice to privilege methods of cognitive psychology to influence the electorate’s mindset. Mr. Trump proved that he is indeed a “Master Manipulator” while Mrs. Clinton played a similar game in the general election.
Donald is “Darth Vador”, Hillary is “crooked”, Jeb is “Low energy” and Marco is “Little Marco”. Both chose deliberately to sidestep the facts in anchoring images of right and wrong in the minds of their followers. A minority of influent Americans criticized Mr. Trump’s tweets that few followed, while the silent majority cried foul over Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails that few even read.”
Less and less facts, more and more opinions
“There can be no cries of victory in a so deeply divided society. What the political commentators seemed to miss before the election was that so many Americans: white, male, angry and disfranchised, would strike out in the Swing States.
As Scott Adams and Jason Hreha pointed out last year, Mr. Trump’s understanding of bounded rationality would serve him well.[3] Much of the electorate of Mr. Trump is neither university educated nor technologically savvy, their anxieties and anger are rarely reflected in the traditional press. But the real tragedy is that voters are increasingly partisan.
It’s not a question of the value of either data or information — but of a widespread trend to listen only to like-minded opinions.
The practice of American democracy is no longer a confrontation of ideas, but a sterile competition for mindspace.
Faulting the public here would be as misleading as blaming the politicians, for many media sources today see themselves more as information aggregators than as journalists who job is uncovering unpopular truths. The fault is also my own, as a professor not exactly thrilled with Mr. Trump’s ideas and methods, I have been guilty of neglecting why so many Americans feel isolated.
My greatest concern today isn’t over the liberty of information in the digital age, but over how individual and collective choices can be so void of data.”
The distorted mirror of digital campaigning
“Digital strategies in politics today differ little from those in private business. The goal isn’t to produce websites to sell ideas, products and services, but to build digital spaces capable of capturing the public’s objectives, motivations and actions.
Since the 2000 presidential elections, the use of the Internet in politics has progressively taken center stage: each election cycle has given birth to increasingly sophistical omni-channel strategies that focus on amplifying partisan support. Donald Trump seems to have demonstrated an astute understanding of digital communication today — at least enough to win the election.
You may have noted that his campaign took control of his Twitter account the last few weeks of the campaign when things seemed to be getting out of hand. This said; his sexist, racist, and chauvinist comments simply fed a partisan flame. Social media today seems to portray a modern twist on the “Emperor’s new clothes” than any hint of “social innovation.”
What does the future hold?
“In the States, I worry about a social and economic system that strays further and further away from the American dream of the early sixties of a just, caring, and united nation.
I do hope that Mr. Trump’s cabinet and the Congress will work with him to measure and structure his thoughts, as well as to weigh the costs and the opportunity of his proposals. I do fear that the president elect’s personality, as seen during the electoral campaign, may prove difficult to manage and even more difficult to harness. Who knows, perhaps he can surprise us once again?
In France, there are three potential outcomes that come to mind.
The first is in current economic climate — protectionism and isolationism have never proven conducive to creating jobs nor economic prosperity.
The second is the danger of the ideas and methods used during the campaign.
Finally, I worry that a certain number of French politicians, on both the Right and the Left, will be increasingly enchanted by the sirens of populism. Winning isn’t finding the means to be elected, it’s creating a climate in which the public, the government and private enterprise can build a stronger, more inclusive society for all.
On a personal level, my choices are even clearer. If as an American I readily acknowledge the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s election, I believe now more than ever it’s important to focus on what matters. Not as part of a silent majority, but as an actor of a vocal minority committed to social and economic equity. I to practice what I preach : use the data at our fingertips to encourage decisions for the common good.
Storytelling without the facts is nothing more than a sardonic fairy tale. “
Lee SCHLENKER
[1] L’invité de la rédaction de France Bleu Béarn, November 09, 2016
[2] Parôle d’expert — inquiet par le ton de la campagne plus que par le candidat Trump, Sud Ouest, November 10, 2016, p. 10
[3] Trumpsuasion: The Donald Trump Persuasion Manual, Medium, May 25, 2016
