President,Wrestler,Spectacle: An Examination of Donald Trump’s Firing Tweets and The Celebrity Appresident as Response to Trump’s Media Landscape

Awe, Confusion, Similarity: Guy Debord’s Spectacle

Guy Debord’s notion of the spectacle offers a theoretical perspective to examine the relationship between social actors and mediation. According to Debord (2002), late-capitalist societies appear as an “immense accumulation of spectacles” (p. 5). This “accumulation of spectacles” is prominent in societies that structure themselves on the nexus between commodification, mass production/consumption, and highly mediated culture. A modern-day example of this would be reality television franchises such as The Bachelor/Bachelorette. This specific series attempts to persuade audience what “love” and an “ideal partner” not only look like, but that such individual can be selected from a group of twenty men/women. Structures such as entertainment are “both an outcome and a goal of the dominant mode of production” (Debord, 2002, p. 5). Therefore, spectacles reshape the consumer landscape when interpreted through a Marxist lens. Martel (2006) suggests that “the truth” (through these produced and consumed images) influences what the working class sees and understands (p. 69). For example, many young teenagers and adults create YouTube channels under the belief that they too can obtain millions of subscribers and quit their more formal professions.

Douglas Kellner’s Media Spectacle (2003) builds on Debord by recognizing that the spectacle unifies audiences and enables a culture to view the world through specific mediated frameworks (such as entertainment, information, and consumption), which influence thought and action among social actors and groups (p. 2). However, Kellner differs from Debord by positing that media spectacles have always existed throughout history, but technological changes reshape what spectacles appear to be. Kellner also uses Debord’s theory to create a launching pad for a specific focus on politics, noting that “social and political conflicts are increasingly played out on the screens of media culture.” (Kellner, 2003, p. 16). These relationships reinforce the belief that “techno-spectacle” culture brings “multimedia extravaganzas into the home and workplace” (pp. 1–2). Further, the relationship between technology, spectacle, and politics reinforces power dynamics through dramatization and seducing audiences into specific belief systems (pp. 13–14), particularly when examining the role of the presidency.

The Spectacle, the President, and Twitter

Although this research does not specifically focus on television and images the same way that Kellner and Debord have, the notion of the “multimedia extravaganzas” (Kellner, 2003, pp. 1–2) is imperative when considering the structure of specific social media platforms, and how they influence the “techno-spectacle” in relationship to politics. Twitter is a social media platform that is used for various purposes (e.g., advertising, personal usage, community building) by diverse people (i.e., it cuts across class relations). Twitter’s infrastructure encourages communication between two or more groups. What makes these interactions imperative to the presidential “techno-spectacle” is that if a profile is public, any user can view the publicized information: As Srnicek notes in Platform Capitalism (2017), accessibility suggests a level of information accessing privilege (p. 44). Twitter serves as a valuable platform for politicians, particularly the U.S. president by offering accessibility to diverse audiences and participants. However, it is important to remember that social media platforms always operate through a capitalist framework. The platform business model facilitates an efficient way to monopolize, extract, analyze, and use the increasingly large amounts of data to form a new business class where “the more numerous the users who use a platform, the more valuable that platform becomes for everyone else” (Srnicek, 2017, p. 45).

Usage of Social Media

Barack Obama utilized social media under the Twitter handle @POTUS during his time in office (he now uses the handle @BarackObama). In considering Kellner’s “techno-spectacle,” what audiences see on social media should deliver a consistent level of coherence with other images audiences are exposed to. Such tweets during Obama’s presidency matched the persona individuals would see in other mediated frames (e.g., television, press interviews): rhetorically encouraging, thoughtful, and extremely sanitary:

Presidential usage of social media reinforces a specifically crafted persona through a highly fragmented frame. Obama’s spectacle—performed in 140 character tweets—aligns with his other spectacles in other spaces. Therefore, coherence of spectacles bolsters cultural capital. On the other hand, social media usage can backfire when interpreted as unconvincing. By “unconvincing,” this paper posits that the social media spectacle must match other mediated frames. Hillary Clinton attempted to appeal to younger audiences during the 2016 presidential campaign by utilizing “playful and trendy vocabulary” on her social media platforms (Kolehmainen, 2017, p. 6). Hess’ 2015 Slate.com article “Yas We Can” describes Clinton’s online strategy as “not molded to mimic Clinton’s persona.” Hess further points out that Clinton’s narrative is frequently framed as “unlikeable,” so “she tries to fake it, which just makes it worse.”

(In reference to Clinton’s attempt at connecting to younger audiences):

Trump’s coherence demands a deeper interrogation as he sustains several spectacles (i.e., reality television star, businessman, president) simultaneously. Further, Trump utilizes his presidential Twitter account in a way that contrasts the perceptions citizens have of a president: decorum, civility, overall “worldliness.” Trump’s Twitter usage contrasts these expectations and simultaneously captures attention due to its novelty and excessive information sharing (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018). The spectacles that Trump upholds through his mediated representation make them difficult to comprehend and untangle. The Trump figure recognized in politics is produced, consumed, a materialization of the current media culture. In order to make sense of this landscape, one must “speak its language” to comprehend the “formation’s agenda” (Debord, 2002, p. 6). Trump’s “language” and “agenda” is unique, as he occupies what Ott (2017) calls “The Age of Television” and “The Age of Twitter.” Ott, pulling from Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), posits that our current society has “witnessed and lived through a paradigmatic social change, a fundamental shift in the dominant mode of communication” (p. 59). Within “The Age of Television,” Trump’s fame derived from caricaturing himself as an aggressive real estate business mogul on his series The Apprentice (2004–2017). This spectacle represents and reflects reality television’s neoliberal, corporate-driven logic. Because Trump was known primarily as a reality television celebrity, this image carries over to his presidency: an aggressive, negative individual fixated on “winning” and separating himself from the “losers.” The occupation of simultaneous spectacles frames Trump’s presidency as volatile, rooted in “gut instinct,” and brash (Lakoff, 2017; Santa Ana, 2017). These characteristics are further amplified by Trump’s usage of tactical populism.

Populism via “The Age of Television” and “The Age of Twitter”

Upon announcing the decision to run for office, Trump transferred his reality television persona of an aggressive business mogul to his political campaign. However, Trump’s preconceived reputation, personality, and business-oriented background created a complicated position for a political platform, stacked with a shifting voting history across party lines including Republican, Democrat, and the Independence Party (Bump, 2015). Although Trump’s presidential campaign and current political party is Republican, his positionality within this camp utilizes a heavy right-leaning populist slant. This particular angle enables Trump to shift through his various spectacles under the guise of a political communication style.

Populism is a political style that is broadly defined as communicative appeals to “the people.” Although the phrase is utilized frequently today among political commentators, scholars, and researchers the notion of “the people” can be traced back to the 19th century where Russian intellectual Narodniki engaged in egalitarian struggles for peasants (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007). Current examples align with modern interpretations of left and right leaning political camps. For example, the left-leaning Spanish populist party Podemos is currently recognized as “one of the first and most successful cases of a new political party stemming from a protest movement” (Casero-Ripolles, Feenstra, & Tormey, 2016, p. 379). On the other end of the political spectrum, there is “New Right Populism” (dating back to the 1970s), which focuses on immigration, taxes, crime, and nationalism. Although “New Right Populism” does not exist within a specific location, characteristics of the “New Right” can be seen within the United States and France. The Tea Party (an off-shoot of the U.S. Republican party), first emerged in 2009, following a Democratic landslide of 2008. Although it has been often dismissed as a “repackaging” of populism, the political movement has been effective in reinvigorating the Republican party base (Havercroft & Murphy, 2018, p. 1021).

Within Western Europe, The National Front continues being “one of the oldest and relatively most successful contemporary right-wing political parties” (Berezin, 2007, p. 131). In 2002, Jean Marie Le Pen (the leader of the right-wing party) came in second place during the presidential election. These two modern—but quite different—contexts and cultures for “populism” reinforce the style’s critique of being “thin.” By “thin,” critics of populism argue that because the notion of “the people” is so broad and the success of populism can be achieved through diverse methods, populism “has no political color; it is colorless and can be of left and of the right” (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007, p. 323). Further, Moffitt and Tormey (2014) note that “literature has reached a new level of meta-reflexivity that the definition of what populism is has lost analytical value and is meaningless” (p. 382). Based on the three examples between Spain, France, and the United States, it is clear that populism can take many shapes, forms, and appeal to a variety of reasons based on the notion of “the people.”

Although populism offers a plethora of political interpretations, the political style maintains consistent characteristics that transcend culture and context (Block & Negrine, 2017; Busby & Cronshaw, 2015; Casero-Ripolles, Sintes-Olivella, & Franch, 2017; Engesser, Ernst, Esser, & Buchel, 2017; Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Moffitt & Tormey, 2014). Overall, populist strategies utilize the communicative elements of identity, rhetoric, and media usage (Block & Negrine, 2017, p. 181). Within the scope of “identity,” populist leaders depend on the notion of “the people” in multiple variations: “the people” are the base of support for the populist figurehead. Generally, such supporters feel a sense of disenfranchisement/alienation within a specific society with the culprit being “the elite” of a specific society (e.g., high degree earning societal members, the media). Thus, a unified identity enables a notion of shared values, goals, and complaints. Although such identity results in influential political support, “the people” are also a “communicative construction” in that the problems of supporters are “at the core of the political agenda” (Casero-Ripolles et al., 2017, p. 990). The notion of “the people” is imperative for populist success regardless if the groups leans left or right and is rhetorically reinforced. “The people” are described in terms that frame supporters are inherently good and paramount to the success of the political leader. Because of this strong dependence on a large, vaguely defined group, populist rhetoric is often framed through an “either/or” dichotomy. While “the people” are of utmost importance, the corrupt elite and the “Other” are threats (Engesser et al., 2017). The starkness of this dichotomy is reinforced by what Moffitt and Tormey (2014) define as “bad manners” within populist rhetoric. Populist leaders act on a sense of urgency and concern, favoring “short term and swift action rather than ‘slow politics’” (p. 392). Populism aims to implement their politics in a way that is “highly instrumentalized and utilitarian” (p. 392). Finally, populism (across the political-leaning spectrum) spreads notions of identity and rhetoric through strong media messages. Podemos, for example, focused on message simplification and appealing to the emotional aspects of politics, while constructing Iglesias as an “electoral brand” (Casero-Ripolles et al., 2016, p. 385). Engesser et al. (2017) note that social media platforms are popular with populist leaders as a circumvention method from “gate-keeping” journalists, thus allowing them to “uncontestably articulate their ideology and spread their messages” (p. 1110). Trump utilizes the characteristics of populist leaders and adds his own touch on them, particularly in how he uses his preferred social media platform, Twitter.

Firing Tweets

Literature concerning Trump’s volatile behavior on Twitter is well established (Crockett, 2016; Gabler, 2016; Lee & Quealy, 2016). These behavioral patterns are reinforced by aggressive, attack-oriented offensives that make his rhetoric (and by extension, his spectacle) appear “spontaneous” as opposed to scripted (Fuchs, 2017; Lakoff, 2017). In keeping with a populist-bent in his political behaviors, Trump is well known for firing off at various “hot button” issues (e.g., Syria, North Korea) through his Twitter platform. However, Trump utilizes his presidential power and social media usage that contrasts presidential decorum by publicly expressing his sentiments towards his cabinet members. These habits form a foundation of his presidential spectacle and contribute to “tactical populism.” Trump utilizes “tactical populism” through his social media usage as the main communicative channel for official presidential announcements, and raw emotions. Unlike previous presidents who strived to compartmentalize their public personas, Trump’s position as the president is at tension with his other spectacles. The fluidity of such an identity (despite a dramatic position change) suggests that there is a lack of compartmentalization among spectacles. The dismissal of boundaries becomes prevalent on social media, where the disintegration of the presidential cabinet collapses “in real time.” Trump’s “strategic populism” derives from his rhetorical choices; by controlling the framing of cabinet firings, Trump decides the broader legacy of such individuals. The cabinet—and their respective reputations—are crumbled under a handful of tweets.

Trump’s firing tweets represent the intersection between his spectacles. Although Trump has raged on various members within his government, this research focuses on five firing tweets in particular: James Comey (former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]), Sally Yates (former Attorney General), HR McMaster (former National Security Advisor), Andrew McCabe (former Deputy Director of the FBI), and Rex Tillerson (Former Secretary of State). These tweets are examined rhetorically within the framework of myth analysis via “dismantling a text and scrutinizing the system operating in it” (Djakaria & Limanta, 2012). In considering such dismantling and system scrutinizing, this analysis assumes that texts operate as sets of relations; therefore, “one text cannot be isolated from its relation to other texts outside the text itself” (p. 88).

Losers and the Spectacle: Sally Yates, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe

Regardless of which medium Trump presents and engages himself, he maintains an occupation—if not obsession—with “winners” and “losers.” By creating sharp binaries within a political spectrum, Trump reinforces the notion of “the other” through the nexus of three angles: populism, capitalism, and the underlying nature of social media. This is particularly evident in the firing tweets of Sally Yates (January 2017), James Comey (May 2017), and Andrew McCabe (March 2018). The three selected tweets demonstrate various incarnations of Trump’s “firing rhetoric,” which emphasizes a distinct “other,” a level of victimization, and a fragmented narrative fueled less by concrete information and moreso by emotion. Populist rhetoric relies heavily on the notion of the “Other.” Regardless of who (or, what) is deemed as “the other,” this categorization implies that these individuals/groups/notions do not benefit “the people.” According to Engesser et al. (2017), the elite “are considered a danger from above (vertical dimension)” and “the other(s)” “are perceived as a threat from outside or within the people (horizonal dimension)” (p. 1112). Traditional populism suggests that “elites” prevent the rise of “the people” via intellectualism, identity politics, and pro-globalization rhetoric.

Sally Yates

On January 31, 2017, it was announced that Sally Yates had been fired from her position as Attorney General, due to Yates requesting that Justice Department lawyers not defend Trump’s order on immigration (Trump, 2017a). In Trump’s tweet (Figure 1), he blames the former cabinet for obstruction and delaying his cabinet picks.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Donald Trump’s tweet concerning former Attorney General Sally Yates.

Trump's argument that Democrats are delaying his “cabinet picks” while Sally Yates remains in office as “an Obama A.G.,” suggests that Yates represents the 'elites,' which in this case aligns with the “The Democrats.” Further, Trump’s cabinet is lackluster because there is a remnant of the Obama administration remaining in a high position of power. In this instance, Trump’s “strategic populism” appears: The sooner these individuals leave their official and influential positions, the less of Obama’s “influence” remains in office. Thus, this serves as an obstruction to Trump’s populist agenda of having all cabinet members represent “the people.” In order to save “the people” from the “elites,” Trump legitimizes his presidency through a rhetorical tool called “the hinge of history.” Through these linguistic choices, Trump becomes the “hero” of this situation (in this context, the hero of “the people”). By referring to Yates as an “Obama A.G.,” Trump frames the removal of Yates’ position as necessary and urgent. Keeping Yates in office longer than required creates an unstable cabinet. Therefore, this lens situates Yates as the enemy of the cabinet, with Trump as the tactical, populist “hero” to save the White House. Further, this lens frames the “hero’s opponent” as “so dangerous that electing that person will plunge the nation into the apocalypse” (Kolehmainen, 2017, p. 5). The “hero’s opponent” is salient in Trump’s firing of James Comey and Andrew McCabe.

James Comey and Andrew McCabe

James Comey’s firing in May 2017 (Shear and Apuzzo, 2017) was rather abrupt and remains discussed to this day (Figure 2). Comey was not only the former head of the FBI but also leading the investigation against Trump concerning Russian collusions. Comey’s firing is not quite as transparent compared to the tweet concerning Sally Yates. Again, there is a distinct “other,” being “The Democrats.” However, the tweet itself (Trump, 2017b) is extremely vague, passive aggressive, and puts Trump in a position of “being right.” Further, he positions himself as “making the right decision” for firing Comey, while suggesting that he is not the sole party responsible for this decision. Rather, the Democrats have also said negative things about Comey, hence deflecting the controversial decision to fire the head of the FBI to everyone as opposed to just him. In this deflection, there is materialization of another populist trait: the aggressive and volatile reactions to critiques. According to literature on populism, capricious responses from leaders are generally attacks on media elites. In this case, such elites are “The Democrats.” Social media as a mechanism for Trump’s firing is performative because these tweets represent the “complete” story of an event.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Donald Trump’s tweet concerning the firing of James Comey.

In the firing tweet of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe in March 2018 (Trump, 2018a), Trump’s rhetorical tone shifts to plain and pointed aggression, which contrasts to the cryptic nature of Comey and Yates’ terminations (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Donald Trump’s tweet referencing McCabe’s firing.

McCabe was fired the eve of his official retirement from the FBI (Apuzzo, 2018). Here, Trump simultaneously utilizes the populist trope of the “other” against Comey and humiliates McCabe’s character with religiously tinged rhetoric. Although the FBI is supposed to ensure various forms of national security through strict guidelines, Trump’s firing tweet suggests that there is an ambiguous line where the FBI becomes too “sanctimonious” for his liking. As the former director, Comey is seen as too morally uptight, and McCabe is merely an echo chamber of such standards. By announcing the firings on Twitter (and dispersing blame to Democrats) suggests that Trump believes his presidential social media platform is the vehicle for controlling his narratives concerning his cabinet. This sense of control gives Trump the belief he has “last word” concerning the investigation. Furthermore, these tweets not only operate as “presidential statements” but also make “the people” feel like involved, active participants of their government.

The firing tweet of Andrew McCabe emphasizes the “thin” ideology of populism. The firing of these top directors of the FBI puts “the people” in a better position because there is less “lies and corruption” being fed to them; however, this is the same organization that would protect citizens in the long term if corruption is occurring within the cabinet. In this particular instance, Trump demonstrates the power of his “losers”/“winners” mentality. This dichotomy enables Trump to “make examples” of his former cabinet members. When these individuals are terminated from their positions, the utilization of Twitter to announce these cabinet position changes enables Trump to attempt to control his narrative.

Losers of the Spectacle: Implications

Although the selected tweets in this section are a representative sample of Trump’s overall Twitter (and presidential) behaviors, these firing tweets offer insights into Trump’s rhetorical styling. Specifically, Trump’s linguistic choices reflect his spectacle and ongoing myth-making of his presidential persona. Lakoff (via Santa Ana, 2017) suggests that Trumps’ speech patterns are spasmodic, although not entirely a “word salad” (p. 272). By Trump utilizing spasmodic linguistic choices, his language reflects the attitudes of “the people” – scattered, emotional, and driven by “the gut” rather than analytical, linear reflection. Although Trump’s tweets are spasmodic, they are also highly contextual. In looking at Trump’s firing tweets chronologically, there are linguistic and tone shifts. For example, Trump’s earlier firing tweets resemble an attitude towards a performance of powerful institutions (McDevitt & Ferrucci, 2018, p. 512). In Trumpian terms, the “other” and the “elite” are losers. The more “losers” around and framed as such, the closer the Trump administration is to achieving “victory.” The notion of “losers” and “victory,” aside from contributing to Trump’s version of tactical populism, contributes to Trump’s version of the spectacle. Rather than viewing these tweets as detached images separate from lived experiences, the tweets (and the image of the tweet themselves) offer larger insights into how society is dependent on mediated images to determine social relations.

Social media is a materialization of Debord’s notion of the spectacle, and what Fuchs (2017) calls “Trumpology,” or the relationship between the current political climate, culture, and ideology within a capitalist society. Twitter is the perfect platform for Trump’s version of populism and promoting his “Trumpology”; it demands simplicity, promotes impulsivity, and fosters incivility (Ott, 2017). Trumpology plays a salient role when examining how Trump determines his “winners” and reflects the rhetorical shift in his firing tweets to a more capital-driven framework.

Winners and The Apprentice

Trump’s spectacles are composed of multiple facets: President, businessman, reality television star, and so on. These layers and spectacles (which occur and operate simultaneously) is what makes Trump complicated, novel, and outlandish. However, when these spectacles bleed into the presidential position, the expectations of presidential decorum and civility are thrown aside. This transition suggests that the spectacle does not “end” when technological shifts occur. In other words, the spectacle and the modality of it may change, but it is unclear where the distinct beginning or end of the spectacle, as the phenomenon does not occur in a vacuum. In this case, Trump takes the “successful” (i.e., winner-worthy) traits from his reality television experiences and transfers them to his presidency or his “Age of Twitter.” In Trump’s recent firing tweets, his linguistic choices (e.g., tone, sentence structure, and emotional bent) shifts significantly. These changes give way to “business man” and reality television Trump. Trump still utilizes the spectacle; however, the shift in delivery deserves examination. Such changes are evident in his tweet referencing the firing and replacement of HR McMaster (Trump, 2018b) and Rex Tillerson (Trump, 2018c).

Rex Tillerson and HR McMaster

Both of these tweets are similar in nature despite referencing different individuals, and suggest a shift in his firing rhetoric. Both tweets thank McMaster and Tillerson for their service in the cabinet. However, McMaster’s work is specifically framed as “outstanding,” while such adjectives are not connected to Tillerson’s work. This suggests that McMaster will remain on good terms with Trump. Tillerson, who discovered his dismissal through social media receives no compliments besides a broad acknowledgement of his service. Despite the differences in how Trump perceives these individuals, both tweets are complimentary but intertwined with their replacements. Trump maintains an illusion of professionalism by the “blissful unification of society” (Debord, 2002, p. 20). However, per Debord’s theory, this “blissful unification” is only realized through capitalism, specifically the relationship between commodities and consumption. This is particularly apparent in Trump’s tweet concerning McMaster and the usage of the word “contact.”

In his tweet concerning McMaster’s termination, the last line states that “there will be an official contact handover on 4/9.” At first glance, it can be easy to mistake “contact” with “contract.” Trump’s misspellings are plentiful and frequent: the infamous “covefefe” tweet (May 2017), the misspelling of his wife’s name (May 2018), and many others. However, this particular tweet requires examination due to the context and other linguistic cues, particularly the usage of “official,” “handover,” and a specific date. In comparison to previous presidents and to Tillerson’s tweet, Trump makes a point to explicitly state a shift in cabinet positions. In this tweet, Trump occupies a position of both businessman and president. Although contracts are certainly involved with federal positions, it is rarely mentioned that such negotiations occur. The implication of the (most likely) intended term “contract” immediately frames John Bolton’s new position and HR McMaster’s firing within capitalist terms. Kellner (via Rosati, 2012) notes that the spectacle itself is rooted in the culture’s value system. The spectacle’s language revolves around how values, images, and representations can be exchanged, replaced, and upgraded. Therefore, the tweet’s linguistic choices must be framed through a capitalist lens.

Debord (2002) notes that the spectacle “has its roots in the fertile field of the economy” (p. 17). In framing Trump’s tweets through a capitalist lens, McMaster and Tillerson are commodities to be exchanged and upgraded to “better versions” that suit Trump’s demands. In this case, such upgrades are John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. In the tweet concerning McMaster’s replacement, Trump’s decision to replace his cabinet members is a labor exchange that is legitimized and shrouded by business-oriented language. The fact that Trump tweets about a labor exchange occurring in the cabinet suggests that McMaster’s labor did not measure up to the level of value that Trump required for the position. Trump’s spectacle as a businessman views the world through commodities that can be sold; Bolton’s newly acquired position suggests that Trump’s “re-selling” the position of National Security Advisor, therefore generating a “reproduction of wealth” in the form of conservative power that aligns with his populist tendencies (Marx via Rosati, p. 352). Tillerson’s tweet mentions very little about him directly, other than he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo. There is no praise directed to Tillerson; rather, acclaim is aimed at Pompeo and Haspel, the new CIA director. The tweet reads as an odd “compliment sandwich”: There are praises on the outer edges of the tweet, with a subtle hit at Tillerson in the middle. By “upping” the benefits of these new individuals in powerful positions, Trump controls the narrative of Tillerson’s firing. The relationship between rhetoric and messages is imperative for populist leaders, specifically the structure of communication patterns, delivery, and style. By controlling the “message” to their supporters (and opponents), populist leaders offer a version of the narrative that differs from “media elites.” This control and framing of firing tweets contributes to another characteristic of populist leaders; heavy-handed control of agenda setting (Casero-Ripolles et al., 2017).

Winners and The Apprentice: Implications

Contextualizing these value-driven exchanges occurring within the presidency and media culture at large reinforce that the spectacle is “another facet of money” (Debord, 2002, p. 14). For Trump, positions of power within the presidency are constructed via the frame of business, capitalism, and “winners.” Although these “winner” tweets do not fulfill the habitually combative nature of Trump’s social media usage, they suggest a shift in his approach towards his tactical-strategic populism. In the tweets concerning Sally Yates, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, Trump’s driven by the elimination of any Obama-era influences or people in positions of power that may make him look bad. It is also imperative to consider the platform structure in relation to Trump’s firing tweets.

The Spectacle Within the Spectacle: Making Sense of Trump

The structure of social media platforms (e.g., Twitter and others) encourages “spreadability” of Trump’s populist rhetoric, both to “the people” and “others.” Spreadability (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013) “refers to the technical resources that make it easier to circulate some kinds of content than others, the economic structures that support or restrict circulation . . . and the social networks that link people through the exchange of meaningful bytes” (p. 4). The same argument of spreadability also contributes to how satirical responses to Trump’s presidency are disseminated, resulting in competing and contradictory frames. One competing frame to Trump’s rhetoric is the Celebrity Appresident (see Figure 5), a meta-segment that debuted on January 20, 2017, from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (2015–present).

In this meta-series, Noah comments on the on-going terminations occurring in the White House and cabinet. Although the last episode was published in August 2017, The Daily Show’s meta-commentary aligns with Debord’s notion of d’tournement (i.e., diversion). These diversions are “the antithesis of quotation” (2002, p. 61). According to Debord, diversion occurs if and when the linguistic connotations are removed from the context. Philosophically, diversion “recaptures” the image by retrieving “the very material that the spectacle uses to form its own substance” (Martel, 2006, p. 70). In the case of satire such as The Celebrity Appresident, the title takes components of Trump’s spectacle that make him famous (celebrity, businessman, president) and rearrange these linguistic choices to represent a diluted version of his image. One way that Trump’s spectacle is distorted is through his “firing board,” created by The Daily Show on March 6, 2018 (see Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Trump's announcement of hiring John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

The Celebrity Appresident “firing board.”

The Celebrity Appresident 'firing board' bridges Debord’s concept of diversion to the notion of the “spectacle within the spectacle.” The firing board’s logo is Trump from his reality television show, The Apprentice, alluding back to the notion of “winners” and “losers.” Further, the image includes all of Trump’s cabinet and “inner circle,” with a few portraits grayed out, symbolizing that they are fired. The “board” alludes to a board game, specifically Hasbro’s “Guess Who?,” released in 1979. In the Hasbro game, there are 24 images with the goal to determine which character your opponent has. In order to eliminate images, the players ask “yes” or “no” questions to narrow down their choice. Although the presidency is significantly more complicated than “yes” or “no” questions, this satirical segment from The Daily Show suggests that in order to “understand” how Trump’s firing system works, one needs to think of the presidency as a game (whether a board game, reality television, etc.). This framing offers several implications: Individuals have to reduce the severity of Trump’s volatile behavior to a child-oriented game. These contradictions cannot exist, however, without understanding the way media culture shapes societal values, beliefs, and “prevalent view of the world” via mass producing images (Kellner, 1995, p. 14). Since media culture and the spectacle depend on detached images and ideas, social relationships between individuals reinforce these images and ideas as “reality.”

It is imperative to recognize that satire represents a response to Trump’s presidency and spectacle as a whole. By using humor and satire within political discourse, The Celebrity Appresident becomes cathartic and a form of “spreadable media” (Jenkins et al., 2013). At the same time, this catharsis is ironic and paradoxical: Although the Celebrity Appresident mocks Trump’s presidential power, it also helps maintain its “stickiness” or an appeal that keeps people drawn to the material (Jenkins et al., 2013). Such mockery and satire are responses to Trump’s media ecosystem, while simultaneously perpetuating and sustaining the spectacle.

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusion

Conclusion

The spectacle can be interpreted as tautological due to its holistic nature; put differently, the spectacle does not end. However, the assumption that all spectacles are weighted and created equally in society can diminish when unique spectacles occur. On the one hand, it is arguable that Trump’s spectacle is nothing inherently novel. What is different, though, is how his spectacles are layered, thus creating an extremely complex mediated representation. In the response to Trump’s populist tendencies, The Daily Show enacted remixability and satire to create a distance (and coping mechanism) of the current political environment.

Social media platforms, satirical responses, and spectacles all resemble various forms of mediation. Althusser (via Cloud, 2018) noted that social words are “constituted in signs and symbols; language creates the world even though it cannot faithfully represent its “reality” (p. 17). Myth (like the wrestler) enables social actors to make sense of their social realities in digestible cultural figures that collapse the complexity of their daily mediations. Spectacles use tools such as signs, symbols, and myth to bring together fragmented ideas into tropes and images to triangulate entertainment, information, and consumption. In the current polarized political climate, these tools come together in the form of a populist operates as a “mode of appeal that wins people to an impassioned collective project, traps into a desire for coherence and explanation and tethers people to a goal or demand” (Cloud, 2018, p. 41).

Politics are packaged in ways that allow beliefs and values to orient themselves with frames that cultivate belief and will continue to do so (Cloud, 2018). These shifts in the packaging suggest that despite dramatic political changes, spectacle, mythos, and “thin” rhetoric will always manifest itself in ways that suit the current political and media landscape.