It is a glaring injustice that the Western mainstream media, predominantly aligned with liberalism, chooses to amplify certain headlines over others. This bias is evident in the relentless anti-Trump narrative that has engulfed the press, with outlets shamelessly churning out derogatory stories about the man. Take, for instance, the distorted portrayal of Trump’s interview with Musk. This was a precise instance of gutter journalism, with outlets jumping to label it a disaster after a glitch distorted the audio. Instead of objectively dissecting the dialogue between Trump and Musk, left-wing mainstream media outlets rallied around a non-story designed to shame and ridicule. A similar warped approach was adopted by the media when it decided to fixate on Tim Waltz’s - Kamala Harris’s running mate – description of Trump and Vance as ‘weird’. But is the same level of scrutiny applied by the media to the Democrats?
In marked contrast, Kamala Harris has received an unparalleled media makeover. Once pigeonholed as the least popular vice president in history, Harris has had her reputation window-dressed by a media that has moulded the narrative in her favour. A woman once chastised by the press for her ineptitude - whether mishandling the Southern border or awkward media exchanges - is now hailed as a heroine of the new left. This stark shift in the media's portrayal of Harris should serve as a reminder of the media's power to shape public perception. If the media is unwilling to report even-handedly about both candidates before a purportedly free and fair election, the deliberation requisite for a democracy to flourish is stymied. It demonstrates that the mainstream media have been disingenuous and selective in their reporting, highlighting the need to challenge the narrative on other issues in the political limelight. One such issue is ‘Project 2025.’
Conceived by the media as a blueprint for authoritarianism, Project 2025 was crafted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank responsible for engineering policy proposals for republican administrations, such as for Reagan in 1981. The proposal is predicated on the belief that effectively executing the MAGA programme requires root-and-branch constitutional reform. Moreover, the project would drain the swamp of the deep state by banishing establishment servants of the global US regime within administrative agencies, such as the FBI, CIA and justice system, replacing them with MAGA apostles. The idea would instate a unitary executive theory, where powers that make up the federal bureaucracy in America, including the Department of Justice, would be transferred to the President. This would stop the deep state from filibustering the process of implementing Trump’s America-first philosophy. Furthermore, the social politics in the plan regurgitate the Christian nationalism proposed by many conservative evangelists in the deep south. It seeks to eliminate the scourge of woke progressivism, instead reviving the family and God-given individual rights. The nationalist elements emphasise the need for strong borders to preserve national sovereignty and protect US jobs through protectionist trade policy.
The problem, however, descends from the document's anti-democratic nature, which concentrates power in the hands of an already influential decision-maker. Its answer to implementing a comprehensive and ambitious agenda is problematic because it involves reorganising the federal system around one political creed. It would make American forefathers - responsible for laying the foundations of the constitutional republic for a peaceful existence post-independence - turn in their graves. Therefore, the project has generated media backlash, with outlets unreservedly dishing out the dirt on Trump, prompting many to question whether democracy under Trump would be in peril. Whilst the media is correct in examining the project ruthlessly, the unrivalled attention it draws to it is politically motivated and grounded on false premises. Despite having disparaged the document as ‘ridiculous and abysmal’, the mainstream media and the Democratic party have proceeded to capitalise on a story that unfairly partners the project with Trump himself. It allows for guilt by association, in which Trump is scolded for the works of an independent think tank. The psychological effect this has on potential voters is harmful because it leads to his mischaracterisation as a tyrant. It then manufactures a political firestorm that perpetuates the false narrative that began before the 2016 election, which sought to caricature Trump’s politics as alt-right, dangerous, and anti-democratic. But where is the empirical evidence to support the claims that Trump intends to rejig the liberal democratic organs of Washington? The answer is that there is none.
Instead, Trump has vehemently disassociated himself from the anti-democratic document, conceding that he doesn’t understand its origins or contents. Ordinarily, a story should be credible to maintain relevance, but Project 2025 is an anomaly. The story, which allows the media to whip up hysteria and equate Trumpism to Nazism, deliberately conceals the truth that Trump never exhibited anything like Project 2025’s anti-democratic spirit during his four years in the White House. Instead he worked within the remits of the structure fortified by the liberal democratic system. Furthermore, the weaponisation of this story by the left to misrepresent Trump as a hardline, anti-democratic, anti-liberal Christian nationalist bears little resemblance to reality. Ever since his failed assassination - a story which the media has slipped conveniently down the memory hole - Trump’s speeches have been remarkably less tribal and increasingly liberal. For instance, he publicly opposed a national abortion ban and recently signalled support for weakening marijuana restrictions and for mass legal immigration. Trump’s decision to liberalise his agenda derives from a rational desire to secure office, which requires capturing the apathetic or centrist voter demographic. This shift to the centre further exposes the extent to which the notion that Trump intends to implement Project 2025 is misinformation, neatly orchestrated by a tribalistic and incensed media intent on stopping a Trump insurgency to Washington at whatever cost.
The optimistic fervour around Trump’s campaign, catalysed by the attempted assignation in July - an event that tugged at many a heartstring dismayed by the 21st century’s political violence - was cut short by Biden’s dismissal and Harris’s ascension. It prompted the media to direct the narrative away from belittling headlines vis-à-vis Biden’s incapacitation, which unhelpfully terminated the discourse that needed to be had. Specifically, the Republican contention that Democrats helped to incite the violence (that led to the assassination attempt) with vicious dialogue, such as when Biden called for Trump to be put in a bullseye. The media narrative on Project 2025 is merely an extension of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, a curse that pervades polite society. If Harris’ media makeover is inefficacious, at least floating voters can be spooked enough by dictator Trump into voting for the only viable alternative. Contrast this with their failure to hold the Democrats and their dangerous mischaracterisation of Trump to account – which may have inadvertently led him to become a target for assassination – and a dichotomy materialises. It is the broadly unfounded allegation of Trump being a threat to democracy that paradoxically promotes the manifestation of anti-democratic activity. Rather than Project 2025, the real danger stems from the post-truth society fostered by the media to maintain its comfortable liberal status quo. By placing a pronounced and disproportionate emphasis on Project 2025 – interlacing it with a second Trump presidency – the press has deserted its obligation to provide reliable information. Access to accurate information is paramount for ensuring the electorate can make informed decisions at the ballot box.
Ultimately, Project 2025 is nothing more than a liberal hallucination dreamt up by elites and weaponised by the media to reincarnate the phantom dictator Trump, a fallacy that re-emerges at each election Trump stands in whenever the present paradigm of liberalism meets its arch nemesis: populist nationalism. At this point, the media mistakenly intrudes on a critical tenet of a healthy democracy - a truth-based society where information derives from positivist origins - to quash what it wrongly perceives as a threat to democracy. Crucially, the one-sided fabrication of media narratives is a genuine threat to democracy, not an imaginary dictator.
Image: Flickr/Gage Skidmore
No image changes made.
Comments