The role of cultural production in celebrity politics: Comparing the campaigns of Jesse ‘The Body’ Ventura (1999) and Donald Trump (2016)

Abstract

This article draws out the significant similarities between the political insurgencies of Jesse Ventura in 1999 and Donald Trump in 2016, charting their own premillennial political collaborations as members of the Reform Party, before identifying wider lessons for studies of contemporary celebrity politicians through a comparison of their individual campaigns. Its analysis is based upon the concept of the ‘politainer’, introduced by Conley and Schultz, into which it incorporates Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of the carnival fool. The heterodox nature of both Ventura and Trump’s political campaign styles, it argues, is in part explained by the nature of the cultural spheres within which their public personas were produced; specifically, the fact that these personas, which they carried over from the entertainment to political spheres, were produced within genres of popular culture generally positioned as having ‘low’ cultural value. This, it argues, furnished both with an anti-establishment ethos as ‘no bullshit’ straight-talkers, marking them as outsider candidates able to act as conduits for political protest by an electorate alienated from mainstream political elites. It concludes by emphasising the potential importance that political celebrities’ specific cultural production can play in shaping a subsequent political campaign in general.

Ambiguous specificity: The production of foreign policy bullshit in electoral contexts

“…Even candidates who did not originally have a pronounced foreign policy vision had to declare themselves: Carson and Fiorina both fell in line, with the latter suggesting the no-fly zone is ‘a tricky manoeuvre, it’s a dangerous manoeuvre, but it’s a manoeuvre that we must undertake’ (Kaplan and Andrews, 2015; Washington Post/Team Fix, 2015). Even Donald Trump, banking on his ‘politainer’ persona rather than convincing voters of his foreign policy credentials, was drawn into the no-fly zone debate (Moon, 2019: 2). When prompted, he commented: ‘[A no-fly zone] does not sound like me very much, but I want to sit back and I want to see what happens’ (Kaplan and Andrews, 2015).…”

Populism and President Trump’s approach to foreign policy: An analysis of tweets and rally speeches

“…The ‘people’ are pure and share an identify through belonging to one nation, or ‘heartland’ (Taggart, 2000), from which minorities and immigrants are often excluded (Bonikowski, 2017; Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser, 2013). In the Trump campaign, these storylines and personas tightly linked with popular culture and an anti-establishment ethos (Moon, 2020). Seen as the silent majority whose interests are overlooked in favour of arrogant economic elites, corrupt politicians and minorities (Canovan, 1999), the ‘people’ are promised a return to an imagined golden age of racial and ethnic purity, unlimited prosperity and protection from self-interested politicians (Lacatus, 2019).…”

Introduction to the special issue: Elections, rhetoric and American foreign policy in the age of Donald Trump

“…Indeed, it may not be rational argumentation but emotive narratives and ‘stories’ that win elections (Marcus, 2010). In the Trump campaign, for example, these storylines and personas tightly interlinked with popular culture and an anti-establishment ethos (Moon, 2020). This also usefully complements relevant literature focusing on Trump’s supposed charisma (Aswad, 2019).…”