Performance Politics: The 2016 Presidential Election

When was the last time you had a discussion about Hillary Clinton’s uncertain stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or Donald Trump’s firm intention to criminalise the provision of abortion? In fact, when was the last time you talked about the respective candidates for the U.S. presidency in terms of anything but their clashing personalities? This election campaign has been marred by a personal rivalry, with Twitter insults having become a campaigning tool in their own right. The more Trump and Clinton go back and forth, slating each other on the most public stage there is, the more caricatured their media personalities seem to become. Despite the constant bombardment of footage, it is difficult to fathom the global effect that either potential result would enact. The campaign thus far has resembled something more akin to Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice rather than a battle for the most powerful position in the world, during an unstable global period.

When the infamous video of Donald Trump talking about ‘grabbing women’ surfaced, he became an archetypal villainous tycoon, and despite countless other stories emerging from his alleged victims, he appeared to thrive on the attention – for Trump, all publicity is good publicity.  It’s not just Trump who is at the center of the drama; the exposure of Clinton’s private emails by Wikileaks has served as her own corresponding scandal, triggering threats from Trump to prosecute her if he gets in to office.

Despite the constant bombardment of footage, it is difficult to fathom the global effect that either potential result would enact.

The characters Trump and Clinton are playing – especially in the debates, where their caricatures are magnified – are so delineated that they are the subject of a Saturday Night Live spoof, which Trump has attributed to what he believes is the rigged election. ‘President’ Clinton is introduced, reducing Trump to the stage’s stock fool figure. Trump, played by Alec Baldwin, has such distinct hand gestures and mannerisms that he is easily caricatured. Aaron Blake, writing for the Washington Post, noted that Trump’s, ‘over-the-top rhetoric and style were just made for these sketches… he’s just eminently more lampoon-able. It’s the persona he has crafted for himself.’ Clinton is mocked for her ostensibly relaxed, easy-going demeanour, engineered to win over voters in the seemingly effortless way the Obamas have managed.

The Obamas, campaigning for Clinton, have shone as truly charismatic politicians, especially against the backdrop of the sometimes farcical election campaign. Barack Obama, widely respected for his wit and easy likeability, is incomparable to Trump’s comedic performance at the post-debate Alfred Smith dinner. Here, the candidates’ performance lightened to a false sense of charm and witty friendliness, laughing at themselves whilst trying to land sardonic jibes on their opponent.

Trump’s rowdy rallies are analogous to movie mob scenes; Clinton is the epitome of the measured older figure who is trying to ‘get down with the kids’.

A lot of the candidates’ performances feel somewhat metatheatrical – Clinton and Trump alter their personas according to the situation, but so drastically that the transition isn’t seamless: it’s like watching two different people. Trump’s rowdy rallies are analogous to movie mob scenes; Clinton is the epitome of the measured older figure who is trying to ‘get down with the kids’. She was widely condemned for her ‘over-preparation’ at debates, a criticism levelled from her rehearsed set pieces against Trump.

Time Magazine’s Sam Frizell recently declared that, ‘millennials have finally found something to love in harder-edged Hillary Clinton,’ although the basis of the article was that, ‘much of Clinton’s newfound popularity among millenials is redirected antipathy for Donald Trump, who is widely despised among young people as a cultural throwback.’ Despite Clinton’s methodical, blatantly strategic destruction of Trump at the debates, the popular media’s focus is still on a personal rivalry between the candidates, rather than at political skill. Here in the U.K., we are distanced and limited in our direct access to the campaign, instead accessing it through a mediated frame. The British media is generally pro-Clinton, but again, this is more a reactive response to Trump’s persona than an organic endorsement of her.

The final stretch will included more bitterly personal jibes, and further attempts on both sides to dismantle their opposition’s political façade with some new scandal.

Furthermore, it is the sheer volume of Trump’s material which makes for media fodder. If this were a play, Trump would have double as many lines on stage, and say them twice as loudly. Twitter is a huge part of the campaign on social media, and the New York Times recently published an article listing “the 282 people, places and things Donald Trump has insulted on Twitter”. The social media platform, with its focus on brevity, has become another form of performance, acting as an extension of verbal communication. Twitter illuminates the ‘keyboard warrior’ issue: it is easier to write something on a screen which one may not say aloud, perhaps because it is too rude, too ridiculous, or just downright stupid. The rapidity of Twitter also facilitates hasty posts, which can and have come to bite the candidates later on. Barack Obama appeared on Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘Mean Tweets’ section, reading aloud some of Donald Trump’s tweets in a way which mocked the Republican candidate, and making his bold, grand statements sound petty and childish.

That Obama is even a guest on a late-night talk show is somewhat startling. It shows how the Democrats are aligning themselves with a collectively funny and friendly persona, as opposed to the Republicans’ fragmented, boisterous mob mentality, which is permeated at Trump’s rallies. Today is the presidential election, and the candidates have frantically visited as many ‘swing states’ as possible, trying to turn uncertain voters onto their side. And did we hear either candidate further their most important policies? The final stretch will included more bitterly personal jibes, and further attempts on both sides to dismantle their opposition’s political façade with some new scandal. Whatever tonight’s result, one thing is certain: the drama is not over.