Trump perceived as simultaneous monarch and fool by Sloterdijk - Trump portrayed as monarch and court jester by Sloterdijk
In an intriguing comparison, German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk has drawn parallels between US President Donald Trump and British politician Boris Johnson, suggesting they are media phenomena who have mastered the art of shaping public narratives.
Sloterdijk, renowned for his critiques of modern society, philosophy, and media, offers a unique perspective on these political figures. His work delves into the interconnected nature of media, politics, and society, providing insights into how figures like Trump and Johnson use media to build their political personas.
Trump, according to Sloterdijk, is reminiscent of Shakespeare's Falstaff, a ruffian. His persona, Sloterdijk argues, merges court reporting and cabaret into a new genre, revolutionising political discourse. Johnson, too, is known for his media savvy and ability to leverage populism, though their methods and styles differ.
Sloterdijk's critique of cynical reason might be applied to both Trump and Johnson, as both have been accused of leveraging cynicism to achieve political goals. However, while Trump's cynicism is often seen in his divisive rhetoric, Johnson's is more nuanced, often masked by a charismatic persona.
Sloterdijk's work on "Spheres" explores how humans create and inhabit different kinds of spaces, both physical and metaphorical. This can be applied to understanding how political figures like Trump and Johnson create and inhabit their own spheres of influence through media and public discourse.
Moreover, Sloterdijk critiques the notion of modernity and its impact on society, offering insights into how figures like Trump and Johnson navigate and exploit the complexities of modern society for political gain.
While Sloterdijk does not provide a direct analysis of Johnson's character evolution, he suggests that it has progressed further. He views Trump as a combination of King and Court Jester, perfectly serving a media-addicted society because he has been trained as a clown.
The Queen, according to Sloterdijk, exercises her royal office with great discretion in a mediatized world, serving as the antithesis to Trump. Sloterdijk compares the Queen's quote "I have to be seen to be believed" to a line from Shakespeare, highlighting the contrast between traditional and contemporary approaches to public image in politics.
In conclusion, while Sloterdijk does not offer a comprehensive analysis of Trump or Johnson, his philosophical work on media, politics, and culture provides a framework for understanding how these figures operate within the modern media landscape. By applying his critiques of cynicism, media, and modernity, one can gain deeper insights into their populist strategies and the broader societal contexts in which they thrive.
In light of Sloterdijk's analysis, it can be argued that entertainment elements have seeped into the political discourse of both Trump and Johnson, transforming traditional politics into a blend of pop-culture and general-news. Furthermore, the Parliament resolution on the Commission communication on the European Union's role in the fight against racism and xenophobia could potentially scrutinize the use of questionable tactics in shaping public narratives by these political figures.
