Trump is president! Still recovering from the shock and awe, many are trying to figure out what happened. Much has been said about the impact of Trump's celebrity status, the democratic campaign failures, Clinton's pro-establishment image, Wikileaks or the obsolete Electoral College. Regardless of the popular vote, Trump won for all of these reasons and many more, you can even blame Russia if you wish. We would like to contribute by looking into different discursive strategies of what appears to be a more polarized spectrum of political communication in the US. On the one hand, far-right media has flourished, nurtured by decades of Republican populist rhetoric scapegoating migrants, minorities and state regulation in the face of economic policies that are unfavourable for the majority. On the other hand, liberal comedy, though not at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, has come out as a sort of response. Both allow for different types of politically incorrect discharges, the latter through comedy and the former through terror: fear and conflict. But what is the difference between “crooked Hillary” and “small hands” Trump? We shall see how, ultimately, the far-right's communication strategy seems to be more effective for mobilizing.

Political communication has changed radically with digital media. Though we now access a massive flow of information, it seems harder than ever to know where to put our trust. With Facebook increasingly becoming a news source, all kinds of news articles, opinion blog posts, “fake” or satirical news, memes, etc., circulate indistinctly. Meanwhile, many of the agendas and power groups behind mainstream media have been exposed, sparking a crisis in an industry that, nonetheless, still responds to certain filters and obligations. The use of trolling, discredit and misinformation are now paramount in political campaigns. 'Fake' news stories circulate faster than 'real' ones, not only because they respond to ideological agendas, but as a short-cut to accumulate or monetize likes. How are we supposed to make sense of all this? In the midst of this profound crisis of credibility, it would seem truth is no longer enough and all that matters is an effective message. To avoid post-factual politics, we not only need mechanisms for 'verified' information, but also to build inspiring mobilizing discourses.

Far-right groups around the world are successfully taking advantage of this crisis of trust and after decades of developing a mobilizing populist discourse, 2016 has been a year of reaping victories. Trump's mobilizing discourse arose against the backdrop of decades of republican populism. With the advent of Reaganomics and the neoliberal agenda, a discourse that could appeal to the masses distracting them from economic policy came in handy. Here enters moralism–centred on abortion and homosexuality–, anti-intellectualism–denying science and academic rigour–and fear, blaming migrants and minorities for unemployment and criminality. This populism led to the consolidation of a more radical faction of the GOP, with the Tea Party and more recently white supremacists rebranded as alt-right gaining political ground over moderate and establishment Republicans. Trump's audacity was to translate this rhetoric into concrete offers like the wall or mass deportation. His “Make America Great Again” slogan, borrowed from Reagan, remains an empty signifier that anyone can fill with their own individual desires. Supporters praised him for “saying it as it is”, which had nothing to do with the truth, but rather with saying out loud what many said in private. For despite decades of liberal effort to impose a 'culture of tolerance' of sorts, the structural problems leading to inequality were far from solved. In fact, living conditions for the working classes have worsened. Trump thus managed to appeal to a general feeling of dissatisfaction through his version of an 'anti-systemic' discourse that attacks political correctness and, in passing, the media that sustains it.

Liberal media, for their part, were laid bare during the 2016 campaign. Prioritizing ratings, they granted an excessive coverage to the celebrity candidate they loathed, even when knowing it would benefit him. Meanwhile, they tried to discredit him in an increasingly explicit and desperate manner, exposing their political bias–less and less removed from Fox News style–, thus fuelling the distrust in the media. Trump capitalized on this exposure, feeding it constantly with scandals, while investing minimum resources on mainstream media to focus on digital media strategies, data mining and rallies. Steve Bannon, Trump's campaign Chief Executive and former CEO of popular far-right portal Breitbart News, played a key role.

If Trump's discourse wasn't in fact all that new, neither was his style. The far-right has been developing an outspoken and aggressive style, linked to organised processes of trolling, disinformation and online intimidation. It had already been around for a while through local radios. Outraged broadcasters have gained widespread access to working families with a clear barely-filtered message of entrenched white supremacy and nationalism, waging a war against political correctness imposed by liberals and their media. For many, these radios had become a main political reference point. This phenomenon migrated very naturally to the social networks, where young celebrities emerge and where anyone can express their unfiltered opinion. In this less regulated space, aggressiveness and disinformation thrive. Fake news flourishes, extrapolating the anxieties nurtured by the republican moralistic, anti-intellectual discourse of fear. Trolling spreads as a way to intimidate and immobilize opponents, as it doesn't allow for any debate thus forcing us to ignore and let be any hatred expressed. Backed by these media, along with many blogs and pages like Breitbart News, a veritable bottom-up communication network has emerged, with their own algorithm-cheating-code-word-hashtags and meme culture, allowing for an effortless instant virality. Trump's campaign was able to take advantage of this efficient channel, unlike liberals and their more top-down communication strategy.

Republican Commentator Tomi Lahren interviewed in the Daily Show by comedian Trevor Noah

Is it a joke or is it serious?

In the face of this powerful right-wing communication machinery, with the left-wing media still marginal and of limited reach, liberal comedy has come out as a sort of counterweight due to its massiveness, approachability and critical stance. Political comedians deriving from Jon Stewart's Daily Show have followed a line of investigative journalism with an attractive combination of critique and satire, understanding critique as denunciation based on serious factual analysis, and satire as irreverent and funny reproach. This format has allowed them to say much of what newscasts can't, exposing, in passing, media biases. Many, specially among younger audiences, refer to these programs for understanding the political landscape.

However, betraying their irreverence towards power, liberal comedians fell for polarization by uncritically supporting the candidate of the establishment since the primaries, acting just like the media they mocked. Samantha Bee still performs as Hillary's “angry translator”, while John Oliver made a questionable depiction of candidate Jill Stein, not to mention the overall coverage of Sanders. The fact that they all stuck to the same discourse (often replicating the exact same jokes) in part revealed panic at the idea of Trump as president. But their efforts to warn against the dangers behind Trump's proposals and rhetoric were watered down by the jokes about his hands, his orange skin, his hair or his 'dumb' supporters. Comedians had a hard time reconciling the logic of fear with that of comedy, for how can we be afraid of Trump if he makes us laugh so much? As we have seen, the alt-right remains the master of the message of fear.

What was the difference between “crooked Hillary” and “small Hands” Trump? The first conveyed a clear message of political corruption, backed by an orchestrated real and fake news campaign. The second is just a childish insult that continues to be endlessly exploited without providing any insight. What is the difference between Trump calling Mexicans rapists and Amy Schumer saying in a stand-up that she doesn't date Mexicans because she prefers it consensual, or their denigrating portrayal in series like American Dad or Family Guy? The underlying message is the same, the first expressed in a code of terror to generate fear, and the latter in one of humour that naturalizes stereotypes. The 2016 campaign managed to disrupt comedy's flirtation with political incorrectness by putting a finger on these parallels, not only by Trump supporters but also by comedians themselves. Lewis Black claims his job is done, for when reality has exceeded absurdity “how do you satirize what is already satirical”? Trevor Noah made a Trump compilation to claim he is a perfect stand-up comedian: the tone, the rhythm, the punch lines, all that is missing is the laugh track.

Tweets discutiendo el contrato de libro de Milo Yiannopoulos

(Breitbart News)

Comedians have traditionally made fun of their respective minorities, showing vulnerability by assuming and reinforcing stereotypes, as a way to alleviate tensions between cultures. Yes, us Jews are stingy, us blacks are lazy, us Latinos are cheats, but we're also fun, we can relate, we are similar though not too much, we have a series of defects for your own comfort, we are the perfect Other. Humour has proven useful to create bonds in addition to its disruptive potential. It has played a historical counter-hegemonic role, particularly when power has been surrounded by an aura of sacredness. The problem arises with saturation, when we have all become satirists, when humour has become the 'acceptable' way to speak the unspeakable, no longer to mock power or oneself, but to reproach the Other. At a time when it has become much harder to desacralize power, for power itself is the first to ironize as a means to appear more appealing and harmless, comedy needs to be far more creative in order to act as a critical counterweight, beyond feeding into today's culture of cynicism. With the upcoming of a new individualistic and uncommitted neoliberal subjectivity, cynicism has thrived. In this world of cynics, every politician is corrupt, every state is perverse, every news story is fake and we seek pleasure in disgrace, for it is impossible to change anything and all we have left is mockery. We have become so self-indulgent that even to engage with news and politics we have to be entertained. In this world of cynics it is much easier to call for a vote against anything than to inspire a vote in favour.

On social networks, satire has become a way to moralise society through mockery. Just like trolling, it is a means for immobilizing. While white supremacists have become experts in trolling and disinformation, liberals, boasting coolness and intellectual superiority, ridicule conservative thinking and dismiss any criticism of identity politics. The far-right has always known how to displace social conflict towards the Other, it doesn’t need comic relief to skip political correctness: it is truly irreverent. Through fear and conflict it manages to arouse passions and mobilize actions. Meanwhile, liberals have tried to pacify social conflict without really tackling its underlying causes, partly for their own peace and comfort. Its satire has thus tended to encourage cynicism and inaction, for mockery is enough to feel politically active. Donald Trump was a perfect fit for the cynicism of both the far-right and of comedians: the master irreverent for the first and endless comedy material for the latter. Trump is a cynic but not of the funny type. He is a cynic that blatantly lies to our faces, scams us and abuses his power. He elevates political incorrectness to a monstrous dimension of the Real, shattering the game of comedy and the simulacrum of tolerance.

It is important to point out that, despite the far-right's victories worldwide, their outreach rarely surpasses 25% of the electorate. While they don't represent the great majority, they are very effective at mobilizing their supporters to the polls, amongst a generalised absenteeism. Though liberal comedy has played an important role in denouncing many wrongs in front of a massive audience, it has fallen short as a response to the far-right's communication strategies. Even when trying to call for action, it usually achieves little more than clicktivism or ephemeral outbursts. On the one hand, because it is an entertainment business and operates under this logic, without generating or being part of an actual bottom-up grassroots communication network. On the other hand, because it fails to formulate a mobilizing discourse, mostly feeding into the culture of cynicism that leads to apathy and disenchantment. Cynicism is the triumph of TINA (there is no alternative), it crushes utopia. Yet political mobilization needs a horizon, it feeds on hope. Liberalism's weakness has been to cling to its comfort zone and so called “pragmatism”, which is in fact a lack of faith in deep transformation. The democrats lost by choosing the candidate that embodied continuity and their own interests, in an election where the keyword was change. But the success of Sanders in the primaries, a socialist using grassroots strategies like crowdfunding and attracting massive rallies, shows the enormous mobilizing potential on the left. To counter the enraged discourse of the far-right and lift cynic asses off their couches we need an encompassing utopia that arouses passions. Yet not of the visceral fleeting type social media provokes, but rather a sustained moving emotion that generates commitment. A more creative and radical comedy, one that is truly disruptive, could be a great asset.