This article was written by Angus Harker a student at the University of Warwick. This article is part of his column 'The Other Side'.
After a dicey first debate with Kamala Harris, Donald Trump diverted from any further showing in the mainstream media and turned to his tried-and-tested means for gathering support - rallies, and later doing a podcast tour with influencers such as Theo Von and Joe Rogan. Kamala, following suit, chose her own podcasts to work with, aimed at the other demographics of the voting population - namely women and young Black men. This appears to demonstrate a tonal shift when it comes to winning votes, in that performance is not measured by how you fare against the other party, but how you come across in an impersonal, informal setting.
Now that the election dust has settled, important questions need to be asked. What does this shift mean for the future of campaigning? How has the zeitgeist of assessing political eligibility changed in voter demographics? Why do we seem so much more interested in the private lives of public servants?
Asserting Authenticity - The Normalisation of Populist tactics
It is a statement of the obvious that populism has been on the rise in the world. As argued in my previous article, delving deeply into the highly contentious AfD has revealed that their ability to isolate the economically desperate through their controversial speeches belies a predatory approach to securing votes. Attached to this is the notion of encouraging echo chambers, aiming to shut down discourse, capitalising on this to signify themselves as the injured party. Donald Trump certainly did this with his slogans such as “drain the swamp”, putting himself as an outsider in mainstream politics. It was certainly something he discussed freely on the Joe Rogan Experience.
The Cult of Personality is not a new topic. Indeed, most dictators and leaders have relied on establishing them, including Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and many more. What has changed is that now the tools of populism - in particular, building a personable politician - do not merely extend to totalitarian regimes; it extends to every political election, and has been for quite some time. Indeed, as Angela Smith notes, this trend has been on the increase since the 1990s, “reaching a peak during Tony Blair’s premiership”. However, the transition to an online presence, as she notes, came during David Cameron’s election campaign, when he utilised YouTube to start WebCameron, a channel which focused on Cameron’s private life, showing him doing domestic chores such as washing-up, and being a “hands-on father” with his wife Samantha (pp. 9-10). The careful doctoring of Cameron’s private life was chosen to appeal to certain demographics, particularly middle-class nuclear families, emphasising the “new man” persona that came with Blair in the 90s. It’s from this that several key elements of cultivating votes through certain demographics in the Internet have arisen; Cameron marked the start of publicising a politician's private life on the Internet for electoral gain.
Proper Gander - The Viral Spread of Meme Culture
With the base of publicising privacy via the Internet thus established, it’s interesting to note how this has changed with the advent of other platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram. Indeed, the viral qualities inherent in the Instagram reel and on social media “memes” suggests that political authenticity can be enhanced much akin to how Cameron doctored his “private life” to be more sympathetic to voters.
It is easy to assume, then, that memes are used in a top-down format, from politicians and their campaigns down to their intended voter base. However, a study into this phenomenon suggests the opposite, with an analysis of 120 memes finding that 79.2% of these memes were used for “Modes of Expression and Public Discussion” (p. 130). In addition, it is noted that a majority of these memes used “Inaccurate Humor [sic]” or “Fabricated Content”, is targeted to one man (in this case, either Donald Trump or Joe Biden), and toes the line between “Slightly Accurate” and “100% Inaccurate” (pp. 124-129). Whilst the conclusion to this essay suggests that these “...had all of the elements of propaganda and should be treated as such” (p. 222), the evidence itself leads to more of a bottom-up usage of memes, focused on a singular person, that is primarily used by non-organisational people as a mode of expression, often with the use of inaccurate humour to convey the message. The use of levity appears to charge these memes with an act of political agency - in other words, by making it lighthearted, it holds a similar effect to bridging the gap between the voter and the political candidate as WebCameron did in the run-up to the election. Memes, as a result, increase political agency and freedom of discussion in a personal manner, and help build up the character of a political candidate from the bottom-up.
This doesn’t quite construct a cult of personality, but it does highlight how the Internet could produce one. It differs massively from the usual top-down methods of manipulating mass media and suchlike. The best question to ask, then, is how does the building of this political character intersect with political authenticity?
The Devaluing Factor of Cringe - YouTuber apology videos
In answering this unorthodox topic centred around unorthodox methods of coercing the population, we must turn to unorthodox examples to analyse - and what better way to start than with the analysis of Internet influencers, and their reputational demise. It isn’t necessary to analyse what made them famous - only when they fall off. Interestingly enough, despite some influencers such as Mr Beast being the focal point of some sickening ethical practices, his subscriber base sits at 325 million, and his videos still amass tens of millions of views. This suggests that it isn’t controversy which kills your Internet traffic. What does?
Two people come to mind when it comes to Internet controversy: Namely, Colleen Ballinger and Sienna Mae Gomez. The former was alleged to be grooming minors and has been accused of racism, whilst the latter had a video about her surface which appeared to show her sexually assaulting a drunk, unconscious person. Both of these are horrendous allegations, and both influencers released “apology videos”. Ballinger, under the character Miranda Sings, posted her playing the ukulele against the wishes of her team, whilst Gomez put out a performative “apology” video of her dancing to Sam Smith’s “Young”, which boasts lyrics as “I’ve done nothing wrong/I’m young”.
It’s important to note two key aspects of both of these. The first one is that their content isn’t apologetic or sincere in the slightest; the second aspect is that it is cringeworthy; embarrassing to watch given the subject matter. It is both of these reasons that has led to Ballinger and Gomez’s YouTube viewership and subscriber base steadily declining, dropping into obscurity.
From this, several elements surrounding Internet fame can be deduced. Firstly, sincerity is key. People want to watch someone who seems authentic, especially in their private life. Secondly, alongside sincerity, don’t be embarrassing - the cringe factor appears to exponentially increase the potential of influencer failure. Cringe, on the Internet, devalues your personal appeal.
Making a Megalomaniac Relatable
How does the strive for authenticity, memes, sincerity and cringe, all factor into the online profile of a politician? Let’s compare these controversies with Donald Trump’s many controversies, such as his boasting of groping women, and the controversy around his first and second impeachments. A key factor uniting them is that he has not apologised for any of them, at all. Despite it feeding into his personal profile as an egotistical megalomaniac, it builds his Internet character as he makes no excuses for his personal conduct. It makes him sincere, in a way. Secondly, it excludes him from any cringe, because he is not trying to be anything other than who he is, is not trying to impress anyone, and is not trying to gaslight viewers. Thus, he is the pinnacle of authenticity. This allows the bottom-up nature of political memes to interpolate with the candidate’s authenticity, allowing for humorous modes of expression to intersect amicably with the candidate’s “sincere” side. This is perhaps why Kamala Harris’s pre-recorded video at the Al Smith dinner appears to be cringe. By appearing alongside a Saturday Night Live character, this endorses a facade, and as previously discussed, facades and insincerity score low on Internet authenticity.
The War of Words and How They Are Said
Though only one part of a massive presidential election, buying the online vote is incredibly important as it allows a candidate to intrude upon a voter’s private life with their own. In a war of words, this Internet battlefield is not so much based upon what is said, but how it is said - and most importantly, if what is said is sincere from who says it. Whether or not this influences the election is hard to tell. But as it stands, Trump has the slight edge, and his podcast tour could be seen as more successful because of his aforementioned “sincere” nature. The zeitgeist of political eligibility, at least online, hinges on authenticity and the ability to be comfortable in being truly personal. This has grown since Blair, moved to the Internet with Cameron - and with the advent of meme culture, has been inadvertently capitalised on by Trump.
The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Warwick Economics Summit.
References:
VeryWellMind -
NPR -
ABC News -
Time-
ResearchGate-
ProQuest-
YouTube-
SocialBlade-
Washington Post-
BBC News-
WES Journal-
Comments