Some of the essays we read for today touch on American ideals, Americanness, and the American Dream.  Atul Gawande sees the impending revocation of health insurance for poor people as a threat to American ideals. Toni Morrison writes that “for many people, the definition of ‘Americanness’ is color.” According to Hochschild, Trump supporters in Louisiana define the American Dream as gainful employment and social mobility unhindered by federal bureaucracy.  In contrast, some of the New Yorker essayists ask whether their version of the American Dream, which values tolerance, diversity, and human rights, is sustainable in Trump’s America.

How is your sense of American ideals, Americanness, and/or the American Dream impacted by the 2016 election?  Do you find your own understanding of present-day challenges to American ideals, Americanness, and/or the American Dream reflected in any of the essays we read for today?

A lot of post-election analysis has focused on Hillary Clinton’s weakness as a candidate, noting not only that she is a Washington insider, but that she is unforthcoming and inauthentic.  Surely such criticisms have some merit, but does anybody want to make an argument for or against the importance of sexism as a factor in Clinton’s unfavorability with some voters?

For today’s class, I have offered a small selection of articles that have helped me to partially understand why the U.S. polling organizations and media misunderstood what was going on in the minds of so many voters.  These articles are some of my selections, but what kinds of articles, public statements, political demonstrations, messages from politicians, activists, friends, or family have you found helpful?  Feel free to include any relevant links in your response and I will do my best to read them.

Since November 8, a lot of media analysis has focused on the question: How could so many supposed experts get the outcome of the election so wrong?  One possible explanation has to do with the “media bubbles” that divide both journalists and the electorate they write about. Max Read and Jon Keegan both discuss the impact of partisan social media in shaping and dividing media consumers.  What do you think?  What did you learn from the exercise of comparing “Red Facebook” and “Blue Facebook”?

According to some of the articles you read for today, the U.S. electorate is significantly divided not only by race, gender, and ethnicity, but by class and economic circumstance.  Many white, working-class voters cast their ballots for Trump because he promised to curtail free trade, fight Wall Street, and bring back jobs to financially troubled regions of the nation.  Has Trump’s election prompted you to think differently about the social and economic factors dividing the electorate?  Had is prompted you to think at all about the various groups who benefit (and who do not) from the economic and political status quo?

Some people argue that “fake news” shows like The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver engender cynicism and disengagement with the political process, particularly among the younger demographic that typically watches such shows.  Amber Day takes a different point of view in Satire and Dissent.  What do you think?

Amber Day discusses the impact of late-night comedy shows on U.S. national politics.  Clearly, some late night comedy shows are more politically pointed than others.  Day suggests that it is useful when the comedy host can invoke some kind of separateness from the establishment (e.g., Jon Stewart’s references to Jewishness). It is also worth noting that some programs have ties to media corporations that constrain their political content.  In September, Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal on TBS, criticized Jimmy Fallon and NBC’s The Tonight Show for going easy on Donald Trump. Here is a New York Times article about Bee’s criticism of Fallon.

Here is Bee’s discussion of Trump, and of Fallon’s interview with Trump, from September 19:

How effective do you find Samantha Bee’s performance?  Do you find her brand of political humor more or less congenial than that of Jimmy Fallon? How does the controversy make you think about the role of corporate sponsorship in determining shows’ political content?

Zach Galifianakis’s “Between Two Ferns” interview with Hillary Clinton on Sept. 21, 2016 received a lot of press at the time.  Commentators thought that the interview, which was published on Funny or Die on Sept. 22, was a smart move for Clinton in her efforts to reach out to younger voters. Critics commended Clinton’s relaxed self-presentation in the interview and suggested that she might carry that demeanor into the debate on September 26.  (Clinton’s intense affect in the Commander in Chief Forum on Sept. 8 had been widely criticized.)  This suggests a kind of slippage between “real” political events (e.g., debates) and satirical appearances (e.g., “Between Two Ferns”).  Watch the interview.  Do you think it is politically effective, and if so, why?

See also this New York Times article about the interview.

In Satire and Dissent, Amber Day argues that satiric newscasters such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and others do important political work because they “engage the political issues of the day, provide context and background to contemporary dilemmas, dissect [political discourse], and encourage the development of solutions” (94).  Do you agree with her optimistic assessment?  In your opinion, to what extent do “fake news” programs contribute to and/or detract from purposeful civic engagement?

Both of our readings for today ponder the impact of digital storytelling and social media on the democratic political process.  Having just watched the third and final presidential debate, do you feel that social media and/or digital storytelling impacted your experience of the debate positively or negatively?