Trump,proto-presidency,and the rise of sane supremacy

This articles opines that America’s far-Left is sowing the seeds of ‘sane supremacy’: first, by unapologetically tarring President Trump as ‘insane’ for political purposes; and, second, legislating for psychiatry to colonize the White House so as to remove Trump on account of his suspected ‘insanity’. This article deploys an anti-sanist lens and uses the notion of ‘prototypicality’ to show how the regressive far-Left portrays Trump as not meeting the ‘normative’, ‘proto-presidential’ standard. Instead of depicting Trump as mentally unfit, we need to focus on his politics and their effects.     

Pandemic in the Time of Trump: Digital Media Logic and Deadly Politics

This paper examines the power of a mediatized President to use reflexive propaganda—the rules and assumptions of digital media—to define a public health crisis. During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, President Trump engaged in attention-based politics, or the use of media to draw attention of the largest audience to himself, at the expense of an efficient response to a major public health crisis. The repetitive tweets, with a common form—vulgar and combative language, usually against journalists—converted Donald Trump into a digital meme and enabled the President to dwell on his distorted accomplishments and TV ratings, to downplay health risks, and initially define the lethal virus as a benign hoax.     

Missed opportunities to make PR great again: How public relations agencies responded to the Trump Presidency

This exploratory study examines approaches the world’s top public relations agencies used to respond to the risks posed by a new U.S. administration during President Trump’s first 100 days in office. Because the goal of this research was to analyze the public thought leadership of public relations agencies as displayed on their websites (not agency-client relationships), both quantitative and qualitative content analyses were carried out to examine their website content. The purpose was to identify whether agencies’ ethical counsel and leadership were demonstrated; and, if they were, through which approaches and themes.Public relations agencies discussed the Trump victory in a few ways. The most popular theme was the Columnist/Blogger/Critic approach, or a personalized reflection of agency staffers on the Trump victory. The second most popular--yet less frequent--approach was as PR Counsel, aimed at providing professional advice to prepare brands for Trump’s attacks and/or take advantages of new opportunities in the Trump era. The third most popular – the Expert approach – was an in-depth analysis of an issue (for example, health care) and a Trump presidency’s implications. This study addresses implications for risk management in the political sphere of public relations. The response of the public relations industry, as evidenced on agency websites, was less than strategic: We do not practice what we preach (or sell). Recommendations are offered for an improved response to future challenges based on issues management and ethical leadership.     

Appropriations update: DOJ and ONDCP now funded

President Trump has signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, which funds the agencies that weren't funded in last fall's spending bill, which included the Department of Health and Human Services. In particular, for ADAW readers, the spending bill signed Feb. 15 includes the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Food and Drug Administration, which weren't funded before due to the government shutdown.     

Race and the Race for the White House: On Social Research in the Age of Trump

As it became clear that Donald Trump had a real base of political support, even as analysts consistently underestimated his electoral prospects, they grew increasingly fascinated with the question of who was supporting him (and why). However, researchers have also tended to hold strong negative opinions about Trump, and have approached research with uncharitable priors about the kind of person who would support him and what they would be motivated by. This essay presents a series of case studies showing how analyses of the roles of race and racism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election seem to have been systematically distorted as a result. However, motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, prejudicial study design, and failure to address confounds are not limited to questions about race (a similar essay could have been done on the alleged role of sexism/ misogyny in the 2016 cycle, for instance). And while Trump does seem to generate particularly powerful antipathy from researchers – perhaps exacerbating negative tendencies – ideologically-driven errors likely permeate a good deal of social research. Presented evidence suggests that research with strong adversarial or advocacy orientations may be most susceptible to systemic distortion. Activist scholars and their causes may also be among those most adversely impacted by the resultant erosion of research reliability and credibility. Ultimately, however, these are problems which all social scientists must remain vigilant against, and which we all have a stake in working to address.     

Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators

Despite growing attention to corporate social-political advocacy, little is known about how publics mobilize and establish relationships in social media when firms are involved in hot-button issues. Using the social network approach, this study examines a network structure which emerged around boycotting and advocating for Starbucks and Budweiser when these two brands responded to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban executive order in 2017. The study identified three unique characteristics in the boycotters’ networks. The boycotters appeared not only in the aggregated brand boycotting networks, but also in the advocators’ networks. In addition, boycotters in Budweiser and Starbucks networks were engaged in boycotting other brands or organizations which were opposed to Republicans or President Trump’s policy. Finally, the network of boycotters was very dense and highly connected among subgroups while that of advocators was sparse. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Twitter,incivility, and presidential communication: A theoretical incursion into spectacle and power

ABSTRACT

By approaching civility as an operational logic for democracy, we ask how incivility is a strategy related to power and domination, particularly from the president of the United States. We propose that Twitter is part of an infrastructure of incivility, through which structures and discursive mechanisms contribute to a devaluation of normative democratic discourses. Spectacle provides a theoretical framework to contextualize the forces at play in mediating our relations. Using President Trump’s Twitter use as a case study, we offer four propositions that together formulate a framework for theorizing the strategic use and deployment of incivility as an increasingly legitimate, yet problematic tool for democratic governance.     

Adolescents’ Evaluations of Political Leaders: The Case of President Donald Trump

The current study explored youths’ views of President Donald Trump using quantitative ratings and open‐ended responses from a diverse sample of 1,432 U.S. adolescents from three geographic regions. Adolescent demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, geographic location) were systematically associated with their views about Trump. Open‐ended responses demonstrated substantial variability in youths’ rationales for approving or disapproving of the president. Adolescents' attitudes were informed by knowledge of the president’s leadership attributes, political views and policies, and their own experiences. Findings indicate that adolescents draw upon and synthesize a broad range of information when formulating their political views and coordinate this knowledge with their own opinions and experiences when evaluating political figures.     

The End of the World as We Know It?: American Exceptionalism in an Age of Disruption

This essay explores the recent election of President Donald J. Trump against the background of the idea of American exceptionalism. It posits that there have been a variety of versions of the notion of exceptionalism, one of which involves the question, “Why is there no fascism in the United States?” It argues that Trump may render invalid the assumption behind that question and that at best during his tenure we are likely to have a continuation of the “bad exceptionalism” associated with the question, “Why is there no socialism in the United States?”     

“Welcome! Oh,wait…” Transgender Military Service in a Time of Uncertainty

In 2014, the Department of Defense began a broad review of transgender military service. Following this review, in 2016, the Obama Administration announced a policy of transgender inclusion in the military. However, in 2017, before enactment of that policy, President Trump announced the reinstatement of a ban on transgender military service. Although, in the last five years, these events have garnered much media attention, sociologists have generally left them unexplored. In this article, I begin the process of incorporating transgender military experience into sociological discussions by examining how transgender service members navigate their uncertain status vis-à-vis military service. In so doing, I explore how transgender personnel might be “doing transgender” (Connell, Gender & Society24(1):31) in the context of shifting norms about who can and cannot officially exist within the ranks of the military as well as possibilities for future research examining transgender military experience more broadly.     

McCance‐Katz urges school reopenings

During a week when more and more schools decided not to open up classes for this fall, concerns about the welfare of children isolated at home, without the benefit of their peers or teachers, mounted as well. Elinore McCance‐Katz, M.D., Ph.D., assistant secretary for mental health and substance abuse of the Department of Health and Human Services, opined in USA Today that not opening schools would harm the mental health of children. In the limelight due to many changes in substance use disorder treatment due to the pandemic, McCance‐Katz sided with President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in saying that ignoring these casualties would harm children more than the risks of COVID‐19. The schools should reopen, and parents should decide for themselves whether they want their children to attend, she wrote.     

Framing the Women’s March on Washington: Media coverage and organizational messaging alignment

Half a million citizens participated in the Women’s March on Washington the day after President Trump’s inauguration, starting a political movement. The march communicated key messages to the public directly and via the media. This study explores how media coverage framed those key messages through content analysis. Media frames mentioned all key messages, emphasizing solidarity and activation at the grassroots, and in a way that both supported and challenged organizational messages. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

A novel way of responding to dissonance evoked by belief disconfirmation: making the wrongdoing of an opponent salient

ABSTRACT

Based on dissonance theory, we predicted that individuals who supported a political figure (Donald Trump), were exposed to information about his wrongdoings, and believed the veracity of this information would be most likely to share social media that points to incidents in which opponents also engaged in wrongdoing. Participants (N = 409) varying in their support for Trump were exposed to information concerning his alleged wrongdoings (or a neutral article). They viewed a meme of a political rival (Hilary Clinton) that alluded to her alleged wrongdoings, and reported how likely they would be to share the meme (and indicated how accurate they believed the Trump article was). Results supported the prediction, suggesting that dissonance may cause individuals to emphasize the wrongdoings of opponents.     

Abe Lincoln in the Age of Obama and Spielberg

Writing of Abe Lincoln after the Civil War, Frederick Douglass foreshadowed a natural divergence when evaluating the 16th president. ‘Viewed from the genuine abolitionist ground’, observed Douglass, ‘Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country … he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined’. Douglass himself concluded that ‘Great Emancipator’ had largely failed to imagine anything approaching a biracial America, remaining ‘pre-eminently the white man’s President’. Taking their cue from Douglass, scholars in our own time have largely concurred. A central tenet of Civil War history since the 1950s has revolved around the notion of a great chasm dividing the ‘dull and indifferent’ Lincoln from the zealous and idealistic abolitionists. Only recently, almost coterminous with the ascension of Barack Obama to American presidency, this divide seems to have shrunk and the evaluation of the radicals and the reformer president shown signs of what I call ‘convergence’. Prominent historians now view the radicals and the Republican leader more synoptically. Hollywood has reinforced the new Lincoln in the public eye. Stephen Spielberg has joined the scholars in giving us a Lincoln for the Age of Obama. How long this convergence view will last is open for debate, with the Trump era already reminding Americans that the stark divisions of the present suggest fundamental rifts in the past.     

A media framing analysis of a U.S. presidential advisor: Alternative flacks

Political public relations became headline news when Kellyanne Conway, Advisor to U.S. President Trump, described provable falsehoods as alternative facts. Other memorable/misstatements became part of the cultural zeitgeist even as journalists continued to interview her. Public relations professionals are inextricably connected to the journalists who shape public opinion. The author therefore conducted a qualitative framing analysis to understand how journalists framed her occupational role and job performance. Articles from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal revealed that journalists assigned Advocacy and Gendered framing for her occupational role. Analysis also indicated that journalists alternately depicted her performance as adequate, unreliable, and manipulative. The author considers implications of findings for public relations professionals.     

Media use and political learning: Comparing Trump supporters to celebrity candidate voters

This study examines whether political media use behaviors of voters who supported Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election align with those of “celebrity candidate voters” portrayed in the literature. The study used a national online survey (N = 1,608) conducted during the 2016 primary, and findings reveal that Trump supporters, more than other voters, are driven by entertainment motivations and follow campaign news using entertainment media: specifically, the video-sharing site YouTube. Although Trump voters are interested in the campaign, their level of political knowledge is lower than other voters, and no one media outlet made a significant contribution to their learning. A comparison group of other voters showed significant knowledge gains from news websites and Twitter. Results for Trump voters are consistent with scholars’ characterization of the celebrity candidate audience, particularly in studies suggesting that celebrity politicians may increase citizens’ engagement through entertainment gratifications rather than by a desire to become informed.     

President Trump vs. CEOs: a comparison of presidential and corporate agenda building

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the agenda-building influence of President Trump and CEOs in communicating about a number of political and social issues. Through a content analysis of the president’s (N = 63) and business leaders’ (N = 234) information subsidies and news coverage (N = 270), evidence was found repeatedly supporting the president’s first, second, and third levels of agenda-building influence on news media content. In comparison, CEOs’ agenda-building influence was found at the first and third levels, and this influence was not consistent across issues. Furthermore, an argument was made in light of the study’s findings that direct communication by business leaders generally had a more significant impact on the media agenda than indirect messages from other organizational actors such as their companies or corporate spokespeople.     

Reading the Feedback; An Interview with Doug Breunlin

Doug Breunlin is Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of The Family Institute, Chicago and an Associate Professor at Northwestern University. He was formerly the Director of the Family Systems Program at the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago, and he is Associate Editor of the Journal of Family Therapy (UK), and an editorial member of the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. I first met him in 1975 when he joined the staff of The Family Institute, Cardiff, Wales for a period of three years. I remember those years as the most creative during my time at the Institute (and we also had a lot of fun). At one point, we were joined by a certain social work lecturer on sabbatical from the University of NSW by the name of Max Cornwell, who also contributed much to the creativity and the fun. Doug has published widely and, in 1992, was the joint author of a seminal work entitled Metaframeworks: Transcending the Models of Family Therapy. Doug recently visited New Zealand and also made his second trip to Australia to present workshops on dealing with complex cases using the metaframeworks. While in Melbourne, he gave the second biennial memorial lecture in honour of Geoff Goding. I interviewed Doug while he was in Sydney.     

Reflections on Donald J. Trump’s First 100 Days

The arrival of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States is frightening to U.S. intellectuals on many grounds, not the least of which is his narrow conception of who and what is an “American.” This essay explores this broad worry but also reflects more personally on those dangers. It contrasts visions of ‘America’ and argues that the U.S. is indeed a house divided unto itself, but not in terms of geography or citizenship. And, contrary to much wishful thinking over the years, that right-wing of the U.S. population is not a fringe element of U.S. society.