August 10, 2015

Trump: candidate of truth

TrumpDonald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it? Money creates opportunity -- for those who have it. Money lets those with a lot of it express their basest impulses and desires -- there is no need to hide the dark drives when there is none before whom one might feel shame (we might call this the Berlusconi principle). It's the rest of us who bow down.

As Trump makes explicit the power of money in the contemporary US, he facilitates, stimulates, and circulates enjoyment (jouissance). Trump openly expresses the racism, sexism, contempt, and superiority that codes of civility and political correctness insist be repressed. This expression demonstrates the truth of economic inequality: civility is for the middle class, a normative container for the rage of the dispossessed and the contempt of the dispossessors. The .1 % need not pretend to care.

The freedom from civility, the privilege of enjoying superiority, incites different responses, all of which enable people to enjoy -- get off on -- this political round.

Some of the underpaid and exploited enjoy through Trump. Not only does he give them permission to express their racism, sexism, and hate, but they are already accustomed to imagining themselves with his power, firing and degrading a wide array of those with whom they disagree. His television shows taught them to do this, instilling in them practices of judgment and dismissal ready to move out of prime time and into the political sphere. Others like the way Trump's brutality, his directness, unsettles and disrupts the branded lies that are the mainstream parties. He's going to screw the same folks who screwed them. The more Trump calls women 'slobs,' 'dogs,' and 'pigs,' the more they (a 'they' which may include some women) like it. The more incendiary his racism, the better. Trump's not afraid to back down -- he's not even angry. It's just good business, good sense, a fact. An American id, Trump affirms the obscene impulses it's just too much effort to continue to repress.

Liberals enjoy their outrage. Here Trump confirms for them their rightness in despising the Republican base, itself only seldom anything other than their own disgust with the working class. As they use Trump as a catalyst for their own good feeling, liberals repeat his practices of contempt in another register. Not only is he a candidate they can enjoy hating but he enables them to extend their hate to all the non-millionaires supporting Trump: they really must be idiots.

In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth.  Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. Trump unleashes the drives US electoral politics more typically attempts to channel along set scripts. This is his politics of enjoyment.

Aug 10, 2015 2:41:39 PM | Capital, Current Affairs

4 Comments

Douglas Lain

Isn't jouissance the pleasure that splits the subject, a pleasure beyond pleasure that has to be resolved or sublated before it can be enjoyed?

Posted by: Douglas Lain | August 10, 2015 at 03:50 PM

Amiriabujamal

this is good http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122494/pro-wrestling-can-teach-you-everything-you-need-know-about-gop but in semiotic terms it is more like Trump is channeling Talledaga Nights, the movie in which All American Ricky Bobby expounds "if you're not first, you're last",and the "shake and bake" tactic, where Trump as "heel" takes the lead only to "slingshot" a "face" to the eventual lead and victory.

Posted by: Amiriabujamal | August 10, 2015 at 08:54 PM

Chadstanton

What of the targets of his disdain. As they don't neatly map onto the dialectic of conservative or liberal. Are they not present as agents in this construction?

Posted by: Chadstanton | August 12, 2015 at 01:45 AM

Blendedpurple

"itself only seldom anything other than their own disgust with the working class"

Spot on.

Posted by: Blendedpurple | August 14, 2015 at 12:51 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Tsipras on austerity and the oxi vote from here: Why did you decide to hold a referendum? I had no choice. You have to look at what I and the Greek government were facing on June 25, at the agreement they were giving us. I have to admit that it was a very risky decision. Not only did the will of the Greek government go against the demands of the creditors; it collided with the international financial system, with Greece’s political and media system. They were all against us. The likelihood of our losing the referendum was so great that our European partners bet on it with their decision to close the banks. But for us it was the only way since they were offering us an agreement with very difficult measures, somewhat like those we have in the present agreement, though slightly worse, but at any event difficult measures and also ineffective ones in my opinion. At the same time, they offered no possibility of survival. For, in exchange for these measures, they offered 10.6 billion euros over five months. They wanted Greece, once it fulfilled its commitments, to take what remained of the previous program in terms of finance, without one euro more, because this is what the Netherlands, Finland, and Germany demanded. The main political problem of the northern governments was that at all cost they wanted to avoid going before their parliaments to give even a single "fresh" euro to Greece, because they were trapped by the populist climate they had fomented, in...
PREVIOUS POST
Fear of passivity At times Zizek suggests that it's better to do nothing. This doing nothing resonates with a certain passivity, perhaps better described as impassivity. With climate change, is it the case that passivity is what is feared? from here: For the post-Cold War generation, the primary global threat comes not from action, but inaction. Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science warned that within a few decades, climate change will have “massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems,” including widespread famines, lethal heat waves, more frequent and destructive natural disasters, and social unrest. Despite the litany of warnings like these, governments have utterly failed to take meaningful action. At this point, climate change can be limited or accelerated, and humans can adapt to some degree, but significant damage to the planetary ecosystem can no longer be averted. According to Washington, D.C.- based forensic psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren, the expectation of climate-change disasters is causing “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” In an interview with Esquire in July, she explains that the symptoms look much like those of post-traumatic stress disorder: “the anger, the panic, the obsessive, intrusive thoughts.” Signs of pre-traumatic stress are increasingly evident among those who stare at the problem of climate change head-on: climate scientists, climate journalists and climate activists. The Esquire piece profiled a number of climate scientists and activists who experienced profound psychological trauma in the course of their work. ... Paul Ehrlich is an ecologist at Stanford University and the coauthor of a recent paper...

Jodi Dean

Jodi Dean is a political theorist.

DSE
The Typepad Team

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments