Let’s get out of the obvious early: Trump won, Biden lost. The format worked. The microphones turned off at key moments, according to the agreed rules and the at-bats as we say in these vulgar, ordinary and so despised “third world” countries – to which President Donald Trump refers with so much disdain – and where we love so much baseball that we use it as a metaphor for anything, were effective in, at least, showing a tiny part of the thought? ideas? of this duo that no one wanted to see debating but whose exchange was more urgent than urgency. Or at least, what is buzzing in the head of each of the two oldest presidential candidates in the history of the youngest American nation in history.
Baseball is the sport that looks to the sky the most because it is the one that most pursues the ball to go far, to the top, to the horizon and it is the most effective metaphor to deal with the experience of watching for almost two hours these two gentlemen try to demonstrate to their country and the world that they are capable of presiding over the nation with the most influence on a global level. Although, in economic, innovation and almost military matters, it has begun to falter, at least in concrete terms, although not entirely in its capacity to influence the future of world history.
It was evident that this debate belongs to the moment in which it happens: years after the advent of the term post-truth and with the two least attractive candidates for the mass American electorate in decades. Not because they do not have a base and sympathizers, but because they reflect a face of the United States, a mirror in which very few want to look. On the one hand, there is the very tired Joe Biden, who took care to remind us that in his time he was the second youngest congressman to serve his country and that he was used to being the youngest of the group but who, at his current age of 81 years, shows in his behavior the setbacks typical of age. And it is not about gerontophobia, every society and culture would be better off valuing the wisdom of its elders, but it is not unreasonable to say that a relatively young democracy requires a level of stamina that the figure of Biden is incapable of providing. He seemed erratic on some occasions, it was difficult for him to complete some sentences, he closed his eyes like someone searching for an idea or a thought. If the Democratic and undecided electorate sought assurances of his cognitive ability to lead the nation, his execution was not particularly convincing.
On the other hand, the public saw a Donald Trump almost in his element but making a tremendous effort to contain the most outrageous aspects of his speech. It was obvious that he was well aware that he was not in one of his notorious rallies and he knew how to take advantage of his verbal execution. He won. And he won not because we are facing a high-caliber debater. He won because it is very easy to win in the era of politics. likewhere the content doesn’t matter, what matters is the sensation it provokes. How do I feel when I hear that? It doesn’t matter if it’s true, what matters is the sensory. In the post-post-truth era, the urgency to verify data, to confirm approaches, to establish that one or the other is lying has little or less and less weight in the electorate that has come tonight to this stage (everything is a stage) to feel things, rarely to think things.
Trump is a master of the emotional. His speech is always fueled by absolutes or all-encompassing euphemisms: “horrible things happen here.” What things? With what statistics? What does that look like? Does not matter. Horror is enough to name it and everyone has an image of it in their head. During the debate he insisted that everything he did under his presidency was “the best ever,” “never seen in history.” If one gets carried away by his rhetoric, he would think that no one knows more about the history of the United States than that man. What happens is that history without much effort overthrows each, if not all, of his postulates.
What happens is that in the era of the politics of emotion and like None of that matters in the feelings of the electorate. And it is fair to insist, people are not stupid. They read him well—except for his most intense fans—and can discern and confirm that he is a despicable figure in his moral foundations but useful in breaking and putting an end to those standard bearers of democracy that have failed so many dispossessed people. It hurts to see it, say it and write it, but it is useless to insist on explaining a country that does not understand itself and understanding Trump is the most relevant thing at this moment to understand the status of American democracy.
He like It is a powerful tool of the digital revolution (post digital revolution) that social networks represented. It simplifies the human experience to the maximum power: you either like something or you don’t. There are no nuances, no room for ambiguity or half measures. Something deserves a like or he doesn’t deserve it and that’s it. Marriages—and much more dramatic human things—have broken down for a like. And when Trump is on stage he uses that simplification of reasoning and emotions to execute. In the post-post-truth era, the data is immaterial, what counts is how what he said makes you feel even if deep down you know—or at least suspect—that it is not true. With the creeds dead, democracy as we know it will hardly survive. That alone can take away one from this debate.
Regarding migration and basically all topics except abortion, the script remained intact. “I did the best thing in the world.” “He lies, I did it.” “The United States is a clown in the world. Nobody takes us seriously.” “The United States is an aspirational benchmark for the world.” “We are the best”. “We are the worst.” For moments he did not know if he was watching a presidential debate that, shamefully, belongs to the already tainted but honorable tradition of American presidential debates in the past, or a reggaeton song. The kind in which snoring, as we call the act of mouthing off, of haranguing, of feeling joy in saying that I am better than you for whatever reason, prevails over any corroborable data or falsehood said.
In this narrative register, information, data, confirmation of verifiable truth is immaterial. Politics is based on how I feel when I read what I read, how I feel when I hear what I hear. Democracy is in danger when the blind, fluttering heart rules, the one who likes what he likes, without the possibility of reasoning. Democracy is in danger if I like more than I understand, I demand, I claim. American democracy is in danger and ours or the illusion of democracy that we have is irremediably in danger. Taste becomes a trend and is contagious. Democracy is in danger. It has aged badly.
