Donald Trump - Persona of Power
The term persona, originating from Latin, has evolved significantly in meaning and importance from its ancient roots to modern times. In ancient Rome, persona literally meant a mask worn by actors in theatrical performances. The mask represented a character or role rather than the individual behind it. Over time, persona came to signify the social role or public face one presented in society. By late antiquity, the term gained deeper significance in philosophy and early Christian theology. Latin theologians, such as Tertullian and Augustine, used persona to describe the distinct persons of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each persona sharing one divine essence. Thus, it came to express individuality within a shared nature.
In contemporary contexts, persona retains both psychological and social meanings. Psychologist Carl Jung adopted persona to describe the social identity or mask people wear to adapt to societal expectations. It represents the aspect of the self that interacts with the world — distinct from the private or unconscious self. In marketing, media, and technology, a persona refers to a fictionalized representation of a target user or audience segment, used for designing products or narratives that resonate with specific groups. For example, a “customer persona” helps companies humanize data-driven insights. The word now broadly means the public image or character someone adopts—whether genuine or strategic—especially in social media and politics (e.g., “a celebrity’s online persona”).
The HBO/BBC television series Rome featured actor Ciarán Hinds as Julius Caesar. The scene depicted is likely from the episode "Triumph," where Caesar is seen with red paint on his face during a Roman triumph celebration. Caesar (Ciarán Hinds) celebrates his Gallic triumph with his face painted red with minium. This was actually historically accurate - Roman generals celebrating a triumph would have their faces painted with red lead or cinnabar as part of the ritual. The triumphator was essentially dressed to represent Jupiter Optimus Maximus for the day, and the red face paint was part of this divine association. Some sources suggest the practice may have originated from painting cult statues.
The red face paint served multiple symbolic purposes: it associated the general with the god Jupiter (whose cult statue was similarly painted), it may have had apotropaic (protective) qualities to ward off the evil eye given the danger of such extreme glory, and it visually marked the triumphator's extraordinary but temporary god-like status. HBO's "Rome" depicted this quite dramatically in Season 1, showing Caesar's painted face during the triumph procession - one of the more historically grounded elements of that series' ceremonial scenes.
The "trump orange face" phenomenon is often attributed to his use of bronzer and makeup, a topic that has been widely discussed in media coverage. Explanations vary, with some reports citing self-tanning products, while others point to specific makeup like an orange-hued concealer, and some former aides claiming it is a result of daily tanning. Many observers, including makeup artists, attribute the look to bronzer and makeup, noting the visible difference between his face and neck and the pinkish circles around his eyes.
Some former aides and associates have suggested the color is the result of daily tanning, and the topic of his skin tone has been analyzed in relation to his public image. There have been suggestions that his hue results from tanning devices or self-tanning agents, though some White House aides have disputed these claims. A Swiss makeup brand, Bronx Colors, claimed one of its orange concealers was used by Trump, even offering it for free with a purchase.
Many dermatologists and makeup artists suggest that Trump uses self-tanning products or bronzers, which, when applied too heavily or improperly, can cause a patchy, orange hue. The contrast between the darker skin on his face and the paler skin around his eyes (sometimes called the "goggle effect") suggests inconsistent application of tanning products, potentially by Trump himself. The distinct line visible at his jaw and hairline indicates a lack of proper blending, a common issue when makeup is rushed or self-applied.
On television and under harsh lighting, makeup can appear much more intense than it does in natural light. Trump has reportedly expressed frustration over looking too orange on screen and has had lighting levels adjusted for events. In 2019, a report alleged that Trump used a specific orange-toned concealer from the brand Bronx Colors. While the company did not confirm if Trump was a customer, it did acknowledge the media reports about its product.
Trump suffers from rosacea, which he manages with medication. Rosacea is a common skin condition that can cause redness and flushing. According to disclosures from his White House physician, it's one of his minor medical issues and is well-managed with treatments like antibiotics and topical creams. Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that most often affects the central part of the face, including the cheeks, nose, chin, and forehead. It causes persistent redness, visible blood vessels, and sometimes small red bumps . Unlike acne, rosace tends to appear in cycles, with periods of flare-ups followed by remissions. Over time, the redness may become more persistent, and in more severe cases, the skin may thicken.
Some sources also suggest the appearance is a deliberate part of his larger-than-life personal brand. White House officials, including press secretary Stephanie Grisham, have denied claims that a tanning bed or booth existed in the White House during Trump's presidency. However, former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman has alleged otherwise. Following a CNN town hall in May 2023, some political image experts observed that Trump's skin appeared more natural, though others noted a return to the more saturated color after the July 2024 assassination attempt.
I. The Perpetual Performance: Trump as Durational Art
Consider him first as a performance artist whose medium is attention. The work is durational, iterative, and site-specific: escalators, rallies, debate stages, gold-lacquered ballrooms, and timelines that never sleep. In this frame, "policy" is often the prop and "persona" the piece. He treats audience response—cheers, boos, ratings, polls, clicks—as the live feedback loop that shapes the next act. The aim is not to resolve tension but to sustain it long enough to guarantee the next entrance.
This understanding of attention as material rather than byproduct distinguishes the work from conventional political theater. Where traditional politicians seek attention to transmit a message, this practice treats attention itself as the deliverable. The content of any given utterance matters less than its capacity to command the gaze, to generate the responsive murmur that confirms the audience is still watching. In performance studies terms, this represents a shift from representational to presentational mode: the act does not point toward external referents so much as assert its own presence as the primary event. Each appearance becomes what Richard Schechner might call "restored behavior"—not spontaneous action but a repertoire of gestures refined through endless repetition until they carry the weight of ritual.
The sites themselves function as stages precisely because they resist traditional theatrical enclosure. An escalator descent in a Manhattan tower becomes a proscenium arch through sheer force of framing: cameras positioned below to capture the downward glide, the announcement already seeded to ensure the press assembly, the timing calibrated to evening news cycles. The space is not inherently dramatic; it is made so through the marshaling of attention infrastructure. Similarly, the rally exists less as political assembly than as what Allan Kaprow called an "environment"—a constructed situation where the boundaries between performer and audience deliberately blur, where call-and-response creates the illusion of co-creation while the script remains firmly controlled.
What makes the durational aspect crucial is that the performance never actually ends. There is no curtain, no intermission long enough to permit disengagement. The work operates in what might be termed continuous present tense: always unfolding, always demanding response, always positioning the next moment as more urgent than the last. This temporal structure explains the exhaustion so many observers report. Traditional political campaigns have arcs—announcement, primary, general, resolution. This performance refuses arc in favor of accretion, each day adding to an archive of gestures that can be sampled, remixed, and redeployed without regard for sequence or consistency. The through-line is not narrative development but brand persistence.
II. Television Grammar as Political Syntax
Television taught him the blocking. Years of cameos and a long residency as the boss on a boardroom set drilled the beats of setup, catchphrase, and cut-to-reaction. The Apprentice did not just expand a brand; it conferred the grammar of episodic drama: cliffhangers, manufactured rivalries, confessionals disguised as interviews. That rhythm—promise, pivot, payoff—migrated wholesale from prime time into public life, where every appearance could be edited in real time by audiences posting their own highlight reels.
The boardroom sequences operated on a specific dramaturgy: a problem presented, contestants arrayed in judgment formation, deliberation compressed into montage, then the decision delivered with ritualized finality. "You're fired" functioned not merely as verdict but as what theater practitioners call a "button"—the sharp ending that signals applause, that permits the scene to be excerpted and circulated as discrete unit. This modular construction proved infinitely portable. A debate stage replicates the boardroom's spatial logic: candidates positioned for maximum contrast, a problem (the question) posed, response time calibrated to prevent resolution, then the moderator's attempt to impose closure always arriving just after the memorable phrase has been delivered. The structure trains audiences to expect fragmentation, to consume politics as a series of moments rather than sustained argument.
Reality television's confessional—that direct-to-camera intimacy where contestants explain their strategies and feelings—established a template for the Twitter feed and the phone-in interview. The same tonal register: unfiltered, ostensibly unmediated, creating the sensation of access to unvarnished thought. But the confessional is always performed for the edit. The speaker knows the audience is there, knows the clip will be extracted and framed. Spontaneity becomes another production value, carefully curated to feel unscripted. When this grammar moves to political communication, it destabilizes the traditional gatekeeping function of journalism. Why submit to the interview's back-and-forth when you can deliver the confessional directly, retaining control over framing and distribution?
The cliffhanger might be the most consequential import. Episodic television thrives on deferral: will he fire her, will they merge, will the secret be revealed? Answers matter less than the tension of waiting, because tension guarantees return viewership. Political communication traditionally aimed toward clarity—here is the position, here is the plan, here is the timeline. This performance inverts that logic. Ambiguity is not a bug but the core feature. "We'll see what happens" becomes the signature line precisely because it promises continuation without commitment, keeps the audience in suspense, ensures that resolution can be perpetually postponed in favor of the next twist. The policy process, with its tedious committees and incremental adjustments, cannot compete with the narrative velocity of "stay tuned."
Moreover, television's reliance on visual shorthand—the reaction shot, the cutaway, the split-screen confrontation—trained a generation to read politics as performance competition rather than ideological contest. Who looked confident? Who seemed rattled? Who dominated the frame? These questions, central to television direction, migrate into political analysis because the grammar is shared. The candidate who understands this does not prepare policy briefs; he prepares moments designed to survive extraction and recirculation. The goal is not to win the two-hour debate but to generate the fifteen-second clip that will be the debate's afterlife. This is editorialized thinking applied in real time, an internalization of what media theorist John Caldwell called "televisuality"—the prioritization of visual style and production value over informational content.
III. Celebrity as Recursive Credential
"Famous for being famous" sounds like circular logic, but in performance terms it is closer to a self-licking ice cream cone: fame becomes both content and credential. The more ubiquitous the cameo, the sturdier the frame of recognizability that makes the next cameo land. Celebrity functions like a costume you never take off; identity is not a backstory but a look you can reproduce on demand. This is why consistency of surface matters so much in this oeuvre.
The concept deserves deeper unpacking. In Daniel Boorstin's formulation from the 1960s, the celebrity is distinguished from the hero by being "known for his well-knownness" rather than for any particular achievement. But contemporary celebrity culture has refined this into something more operationally sophisticated. Celebrity now functions as what sociologists call "reputational capital"—a form of currency that can be converted across domains. The real estate developer becomes the television star becomes the presidential candidate not despite the apparent discontinuity but because the celebrity apparatus makes domain expertise less relevant than domain recognition. If you are sufficiently famous, your entry into any new field arrives pre-authorized by the accumulated weight of all previous appearances.
This explains the strategic value of the cameo archive. Home Alone 2, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Sex and the City, WrestleMania—each appearance is not about the specific context but about maintaining omnipresence across the cultural bandwidth. The cameo, by definition, is not substantial enough to be judged on dramatic merit. It is pure insertion of persona into frame, a reminder that this figure exists across registers. Over time, this accumulation creates what media scholars call "intertextual density": the sense that the persona is always-already there, embedded in the shared reference pool, available for instant recall. When the figure then transitions to politics, voters are not evaluating a newcomer but recognizing someone who has occupied their peripheral vision for decades.
The recursive nature is key. Each instance of fame creates the condition for the next instance of fame, which in turn validates the previous instances. The publisher prints the book because the author is famous; the author is famous partly because publishers keep printing his books. The news covers the announcement because he is newsworthy; he is newsworthy partly because the news keeps covering him. This closed loop is often critiqued as empty or parasitic, but within the performance framework it represents a highly efficient system. The work requires no external validation because it has internalized its own legitimation mechanism. Celebrity of this kind is self-authorizing, and that self-authorization is precisely what makes it so fungible across contexts.
Furthermore, celebrity confers a peculiar kind of authenticity. The conventional logic holds that fame corrupts or falsifies, that the real person hides behind the public persona. But when someone has been performing the same character for forty years, across every available platform, consistency becomes its own form of authenticity. There is no "off-camera" self to discover because the performance has been so total, so sustained, that the distinction collapses. This is not the authenticity of depth—the revelation of hidden truth—but the authenticity of surface maintained under such extreme repetition that it acquires the solidity of fact. The persona is authentic because it has never wavered, because it has been so thoroughly rehearsed that it operates with the automaticity of reflex.
IV. Embodiment and the Engineered Image
Hence the meticulous attention to appearance: the comb-over engineered like stagecraft, the bronzer operating as an on-body spotlight, amplifying the face into a logo. Think of it as branding turned to makeup design—Pantone as ideology. The look does three jobs at once: it is recognizable at a distance; it signals continuity from set to stage; and it dares the audience to debate authenticity, which only deepens engagement. Whether you call it artifice or armor, it is a calculated choice about what part of the self should be most legible in a crowd.
The hair warrants particular attention as perhaps the most analyzed piece of personal branding in contemporary politics. Its construction has been documented in enough detail—the forward sweep, the elaborate architecture required to maintain coverage—that it exists as both physical fact and cultural meme. But the performance studies reading asks not whether it is "real" or "fake" but what work it performs. The answer is that it functions as a signature, a mark of authorship visible across any medium or distance. In graphic design terms, it is the logo's negative space: the distinctive silhouette that renders the figure identifiable even in abstract outline. This is why consistency matters more than plausibility. A more conventional hairstyle would be less "ridiculous" but also less effective at its primary task, which is instant recognition.
The skin tone operates similarly, though its strategic function is more complex. The orange-bronze spectrum has been variously attributed to tanning beds, spray tan, makeup, or some combination thereof. What is indisputable is that it reads as artificial, as a visible layer applied to the body rather than the body's natural state. This artificiality is sometimes treated as a lapse, evidence of vanity or delusion. But from the performance perspective, it is a feature. The visible makeup announces that this is a constructed presentation, that you are watching something staged. It operates in the same register as Kabuki's kumadori—the stylized face painting that signals "this is theater." The audience is meant to see the construction, because the construction is part of the point. The made-up face declares that surfaces matter, that appearance is not incidental to but constitutive of the performance.
Moreover, the look's very extremity functions as a kind of stress test. It asks: how much artifice can be deployed before the audience rejects it? And the answer, empirically demonstrated over decades, is: quite a lot, provided it remains consistent. The visual language has been so thoroughly established that significant deviation would now register as wrong, as a betrayal of brand covenant. There is a contract in place: the performer will maintain this appearance, and the audience will accept its stylization as the terms of engagement. This is the dynamic Erving Goffman described in "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life," where the success of a performance depends not on whether it is "true" but on whether it is coherently maintained.
The body itself, then, becomes what performance theorist Richard Schechner calls "twice-behaved behavior"—not the organic body moving through space but a body trained to repeat certain gestures, certain expressions, certain configurations. The thumbs-up pose, the pointed finger, the particular cant of the head during applause—these are not spontaneous physical responses but elements of a repertoire, refined through repetition until they appear automatic. Photography captures this particularly well: the pose is already struck before the shutter clicks, the body pre-positioned for its own documentation. This is a body that knows it is being recorded and has internalized the camera's demands so thoroughly that surveillance has become second nature.
V. Controlled Chaos and the Rally as Environment
The act also depends on controlled environments that feel uncontrolled. Rallies, press scrums, and call-ins simulate the chaos of a live set, yet the beats remain predictable: a provocation, a call-and-response, a signature aside, a coda that tees up the next installment. Even missteps are repurposed as material—blooper-as-bait—because in this genre, error does not end the show; it extends the run.
The rally format represents perhaps the purest expression of this aesthetic. From the outside, it appears raucous, spontaneous, barely managed. The audience shouts, the candidate deviates from any prepared text, tangents accumulate, time dilates. But the underlying structure is rigorously consistent. There is the warm-up, usually featuring local officials and surrogates who establish the baseline energy. There is the extended entrance, often accompanied by specific music that functions as leitmotif. There is the initial roar, held long enough to be captured in its full volume, then the settling into rhythm. The speech itself operates less as linear argument than as improvisational jazz on established themes, each riff recognizable to returning audience members, each variation minor enough to feel fresh without requiring actual novelty.
The unpredictability is itself scripted. The candidate will veer off topic, seemingly distracted by a passing thought, but these digressions follow patterns. They allow for the testing of new material, the insertion of topical references, the creation of "you had to be there" moments that reward attendance and generate post-event circulation. The format has been described as "stream of consciousness," but that formulation grants too much to the unconscious. This is more accurately described as strategic incoherence—the deliberate cultivation of a loose, associative style that permits maximum flexibility while maintaining core message discipline on the themes that matter most. The chaos is a designed affordance, not an accident of poor preparation.
Call-and-response, borrowed from both evangelical tradition and hip-hop performance, transforms the audience from spectators into participants. "Build the wall!" "Lock her up!" These chants are not spontaneous outbursts but rituals, cued and repeated until they become part of the event's expected choreography. They serve multiple functions: they create the impression of grassroots enthusiasm rather than top-down messaging; they provide ready-made clip material that demonstrates crowd fervor; they establish a feedback loop where audience and performer mutually escalate energy; and they create social pressure within the venue, where refusing to participate marks one as outside the collective experience. The line between attending a political rally and attending a revival meeting blurs, not because the content is religious but because the formal structure of collective arousal and release is shared.
The deliberate incorporation of error is perhaps most revealing. A conventional politician's gaffe is a problem to be managed, apologized for, walked back. In this performance practice, the gaffe becomes content. Misspeaking a name, mangling a fact, veering into apparent non sequitur—these are not failures of execution but opportunities for extension. They generate response, clarification, defense, attack, counter-response, each cycle producing more attention than the original statement would have commanded if delivered flawlessly. The controversy is the point. The correction becomes its own news cycle. The refusal to apologize transforms the error into a test of loyalty: will you defend the performance even when it breaks its own internal logic? For committed audience members, the answer is yes, because the performance's value lies not in informational accuracy but in affective consistency. The feeling it produces matters more than the facts it conveys.
VI. The Franchise Model and Transmedia Continuity
Seen this way, the career is less a linear biography than a franchise, each venue a spinoff of the same character IP. The art lies in continuity editing across mediums: tabloid to TV to politics without ever breaking the fourth wall of "being Trump." If performance art often asks what counts as real, this asks what counts as stage. The answer—everywhere—explains both the durability of the persona and the difficulty critics have in "fact-checking" a role written to thrive on the argument over whether it is a role at all.
The franchise concept, borrowed from media industries, offers a more precise framework than traditional biographical narrative. Marvel's cinematic universe demonstrates the model: a core character definition that remains consistent even as settings, supporting casts, and story particulars shift across installments. The key is maintaining continuity of characterization while exploiting the affordances of each new platform. Tony Stark behaves like Tony Stark whether he is in a solo film, an ensemble piece, or a cameo in someone else's story. Similarly, the Trump character maintains core attributes—the combativeness, the superlatives, the grievance, the boastfulness—across wildly disparate contexts: real estate, casinos, beauty pageants, steaks, vodka, education, television, politics. The specific venture may fail, but the character persists, undamaged by any individual project's collapse.
This explains the apparent paradox of resilience in the face of failures that would destroy conventional political careers. A scandal or policy disaster that would end most politicians barely registers because the frame is not "competent executive" but "controversial protagonist." The narrative expectations are different. We do not judge Tony Stark's effectiveness as an engineer by whether his inventions cause collateral damage; we judge his character consistency by whether he learns the appropriate lesson by the third act. Similarly, this performance is not evaluated by governance outcomes but by whether it maintains character integrity. Did he fight? Did he refuse to back down? Did he dominate the news cycle? These are the relevant metrics, and by these standards, most apparent failures are actually successes.
The transmedia aspect is crucial. In Henry Jenkins's formulation, transmedia storytelling involves the systematic dispersal of narrative elements across multiple platforms, each contributing uniquely to the whole. The tweet functions differently than the rally speech, which functions differently than the interview, which functions differently than the executive order. But all are recognizable as emanations of the same source, all maintain character voice, all contribute to the larger project of persona maintenance. The audience can encounter the work at any entry point and immediately orient themselves because the core attributes remain stable. This is not multimedia—using multiple platforms to say the same thing—but transmedia—using each platform's affordances to extend the performance in medium-specific ways while maintaining overall coherence.
The refusal to break character, to acknowledge the constructed nature of the performance, is what separates this from more conventional performance art. Laurie Anderson or Marina Abramovic might blur the line between art and life, but they eventually step out of the piece to reflect on it, to frame it within art discourse. This performance never breaks frame. There is no post-show discussion, no artist's statement explaining the work's conceptual foundation. The insistence that this is not a performance, that this is simply "being who I am," is itself the most sophisticated element of the performance. It places the audience in a permanent interpretive bind: you can argue that it is an act, but the act includes claiming that it is not an act, so your argument is always already incorporated into the work as another form of attention.
Critics often express frustration at the impossibility of "getting through" with fact-checks or logical refutation. But this frustration stems from a category error. You cannot fact-check a performance in the same way you cannot fact-check a novel. The question is not whether the claims are true but whether the performance is effective, and effectiveness is measured not in accuracy but in audience retention, affective intensity, and memetic spread. By these measures, the work has been extraordinarily successful. It has sustained attention across four decades, survived countless predictions of its demise, and generated a volume of response—positive and negative—that vastly exceeds what most performances achieve. The criticism is not external to the work but part of its circulation strategy. The controversy is not a problem to be solved but the medium through which the work propagates.
VII. The Stage That Is Everywhere
To ask "what counts as stage?" in this context is to confront the possibility that the stage has become coextensive with the public sphere itself. Traditional theater requires separation—the demarcated space where performance happens, distinct from the world where people live their actual lives. But when the performance refuses to confine itself to specific venues, when it insists on operating wherever there are cameras, microphones, or an audience of any size, the distinction between stage and world begins to collapse. Every interaction becomes potential performance, every utterance a possible script, every observer a potential audience member.
This has profound implications for how we understand political performance more broadly. If everywhere is potentially stage, then there is no backstage, no green room, no space of unperformed authenticity to which the performer might retreat. The traditional expectation that politicians have "real" positions behind their public presentations assumes a separation between performed role and authentic self. But what if the performance has been so continuous, so totalizing, that no such separation exists? What if decades of unbroken performance have fused persona and person into something that resists traditional categories?
The work challenges us to consider whether "authenticity" in politics might be less about depth—accessing the true self beneath the public mask—and more about consistency—maintaining recognizable character across time and context. In this reading, the politician who polls their positions, who triangulates and adjusts based on audience response, is less authentic than the one who performs the same character regardless of setting. The test is not whether the character corresponds to some interior truth but whether it remains reliably itself. The paradox is that artifice, if sustained with sufficient commitment, becomes its own form of authenticity.
This also explains why traditional scandal often fails to disrupt the performance. Scandal assumes a gap between public presentation and private reality, assumes that revelation of that gap will damage credibility. But when the performance consists of visible artifice, when the constructedness is part of the appeal, revelation of "backstage" behavior that contradicts public statements does not function as exposure. It is simply more content, more material to be integrated into the ongoing work. The performance is anti-fragile in Nassim Taleb's sense: it gains from disorder, from attack, from attempts to undermine it. Each controversy generates attention, each attack requires response, and response means continued engagement with the work on its own terms.
The audience, too, is transformed by this dynamic. Spectators at a traditional political event understand themselves to be assessing a candidate's fitness for office, evaluating claims and promises against their own interests and values. But spectators at this kind of performance understand themselves to be participating in an ongoing cultural event, a shared experience that derives meaning partly from its own scale and intensity. The rally attendee in their ninth rally is not there to learn new policy information; they are there for the ritual, for the communal experience, for the affirmation that comes from being part of something larger than themselves. The relationship is not transactional—I give you my vote, you deliver this outcome—but affiliative. The support is not contingent on specific deliverables but on the continuation of the performance itself.
VIII. Performance Without Resolution
Most performances end. The play finishes its run, the exhibition closes, the artist moves on to new work. But durational performance of this scale operates under different temporal logic. There is no planned conclusion, no final curtain, no moment when the performer and audience mutually acknowledge that the work is complete. Instead, there is only continuation, the perpetual promise of next time, the insistence that the most important act is still to come. This refusal of resolution is not a failure of dramaturgical structure but its organizing principle.
In Bertolt Brecht's epic theater, the goal was to prevent audience identification, to maintain critical distance through techniques like breaking the fourth wall or displaying the mechanisms of theatrical production. This performance inverts that logic. It aims for maximal identification, for the collapse of distance between performer and audience, but it achieves this not through naturalistic immersion but through the opposite: by making the performance so obvious, so stylized, so openly constructed that arguing about its constructed nature becomes a form of participation. You cannot stand outside it to critique it because your critique is already incorporated as part of its circulation. The work is anti-Brechtian in method but achieves a similar result—the audience cannot forget they are watching something performed—yet instead of producing critical detachment, this awareness intensifies investment.
The durational aspect also means the work accumulates history differently than discrete performances. Each new appearance carries with it the residue of all previous appearances, each statement exists in dialogue with the archive of previous statements. This creates extraordinary density of reference for long-term followers, who experience each new iteration as both novel and familiar, both surprising and expected. The pleasure lies not in resolution or development but in variation-within-continuity, in seeing how the core character navigates new situations while remaining fundamentally unchanged. This is the pleasure of seriality, of returning to a familiar world with familiar rules, of knowing what to expect while still being entertained by the execution.
For critics and opponents, this same quality produces a sensation of futility. How do you counter a performance that incorporates criticism as content? How do you expose contradictions when contradiction is built into the character? How do you demand accountability when the performance explicitly rejects accountability as a relevant metric? The answer is that you probably cannot, at least not using tools designed for conventional political discourse. The work operates in a different register, mobilizes different affects, serves different functions than the politics it superficially resembles. Treating it as failed politics misses the point; it is successful performance, and the fact that it has occupied political space does not transform it into politics as traditionally understood.
What we are witnessing, then, might be less the degradation of political norms than the colonization of political space by performance norms, the replacement of one set of evaluative criteria with another. Where traditional politics asks "is this true, is this good, does this work?", performance asks "is this compelling, does this sustain attention, does this generate affect?" These are not the same questions, and they do not necessarily produce the same answers. A statement can be factually false, ethically questionable, and practically unworkable while still being highly effective performance. The confusion arises when we try to judge the performance by standards it never accepted, when we demand that it conform to rules it never agreed to follow.
The ultimate question the work poses is whether performance and politics can be meaningfully distinguished once performance has achieved this scale, this duration, this level of institutional power. Can we still call it "just" performance when it commands nuclear codes, deploys federal agents, and shapes the lives of millions? Or does the acquisition of state power transform performance into something else, something for which we lack adequate vocabulary? The work itself refuses to answer. It simply continues, generating more content, commanding more attention, insisting on its own centrality to whatever conversation is happening. In that refusal to resolve, to explain itself, to acknowledge the stakes of its own existence, it achieves perhaps its most complete expression. The performance is not about anything beyond itself. It is, tautologically and totally, about continuing to be performed.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
