There’s a strong gerontocratic tinge to US politics of late — the youngest of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren and Mitch McConnel is Chuck at 73.
Many a theory has been propounded to explain this phenomenon, but a simple one shall be put to the test in a couple of days: Trump is the last of the political candidates borne of the media monoculture and so Trump will win the election comfortably.
What is the Media Monoculture and What Does is Have to Do with a Gerontocracy?
Before Netflix and Spotify, we all broadly consumed the same media and picked up the same news, the same songs, the same sitcoms and movies. Now we’ve splintered and whatever we learnt through general cultural osmosis that we weren’t otherwise interested in doesn’t penetrate our personally curated media bubble.
This means the next generation of politicians, artists and forms of expression have no springboard from which to make a place in people’s minds. Instead, the names and tropes and art of the monocultural beforetimes stick around well past their due.
So Batman movies are rehashed, the Rolling Stones keep on touring and a gerontocratic cohort of politicians remain in power in the birthplace of the great media splintering, lording their name recognition over the next batch coming through.
Better the Devil You Know with Trump As the Last Relic of the Media Monoculture?
Theoretically, then, the big advantage is with Trump. He is the last of the politicians running for presidential office to have made his name during the great media monoculture. Harris, by comparison, is a no-name neophyte.
And if this name-recognition factor were to hold any sway in this upcoming election, we’d expect the following:
- a comfortable Trump victory of at least 300 electoral college votes;
- low turnout by Democrat voters;
- Trump winning the popular vote, which would be quite a surprise!
All that, of course, wouldn’t prove Trump’s supreme name recognition was a significant factor in his election, but it certainly lends credence to it.
By contrast, a Trump loss or even a toss up means that at least presidential candidates can cut through the media splintering of recent times and reach voters.
It could be a factor, but I can’t see why it’s such a big factor. Obama didn’t make it into our consciousness from years on tele. He came through as a young(ish) star in the old system, just like Bill Clinton did.
Trump is an exception here, as he’s an exception to so many things, but the perseverance of old people seems to me to demonstrate that the big jobs get handed to those with the most power in the parties — even if they don’t have the talent — as in the case of picking Hilary over Bernie. And the longer you’re in the party as an important player, I expect the more power you get.
Bernie wasn’t there in 2016 because of name recognition, but because he was a very talented advocate in his own cause — like Obama, and Bill Clinton.
I guess in a way I find hard to admit, Trump is similar in that sense. He’s got all kinds of vulnerabilities as a candidate — Biden was hardly Bill Clinton even before he went senile. But his charisma has carried him through — and yes, that was leveraged off The Apprentice.
I would put Obama still in the old media landscape for the most part, and I think Obama proves the point: he was the last of the politicians to come from nowhere to gain power because everyone was still watching the same kind of news programs. He could gain traction.
And as we saw in 2020, the Democrats seemed to decide Biden was the only option against Trump’s name recognition.
You’re right with Bernie doing well in 2016, but primaries tend to involve political junkies, not the regular voter.
And the general gerontocratic drift appears to mirror the media splintering. Could be a coincidence, and a stronger bureaucratic approach to politics as we’ve seen would naturally mean incumbents such as McConnell and Pelosi just stick around for longer. But by the same token, a media profile and messaging among the general public is much harder to come by these days and that’s a power all its own that could shift old bigwigs from their perches in days past.
Anyway, this election will be a big test for the brand-name perspective. While they’re both deeply flawed as candidates, the difference in star power is stark.
I can see the merit in the argument, Antonios, but I think there are other axes of influence. I find it difficult to fit the intense impact of Fox News into this framework,. Yes, the media are now fragmented, but some specific media outlets hold large followings and large numbers of listeners/readers/viewers – sufficient to swing an election – adhere closely to their idiosyncratic partisan position.
It certainly is interesting that the USA leadership is all past retiring age and this feature would certainly explain some of their policy positions, maybe the USA’s overall conservative policy outlook.
Hi Tony.
I have been emailing you to find out whether you have added all the 68 subscribers to Noptin and sent an email from that system drawing their attention to articles posted over the last month or so? I am hoping that this will significantly increase the level of reader engagement/discussion/comments. If you have time, phone me on 0437443405 to discuss this.
Antonios
Maybe…
Could it be that younger people these days just aren’t interested in being President? ( For whatever reasons).
It isn’t something I’d want , all of my history personal details exposed to all kinds of trolls etc and I could even be shot at and the chances of achieving anything significant are also quite small.
The prophecy prevailed!
Appears all three expectations to at least not disprove the theory are likely to come true.
Yum
Antonios, I’m with you that name recognition helps, all else equal. What I’m not sure about here is the media theorising. My first thought was that you get most of the same effects just by noting that recent US presidents tend to:
Oh, and having been associated with inflation hurts you (see Carter, Harris).
Yep, I agree with you!
There are far too few elections to prove or disprove the far too many theories about them.
And that’s why I certainly wouldn’t conclude anything too drastic about what the correct “prophecy” showed. All you can say is that this media monoculture theory isn’t disproved.