Roasted When You Order
Get 10% off and FREE shipping on your first coffee subscription order.
Use code “BREW” at checkout.
Shop Now
Get 10% off and FREE shipping on your first coffee subscription order.
0
Photo: ©FatCamera from Getty Images Signature via Canva.com
You may want to read:
On September 26, 1960, the timeline for politics changed forever after John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off for the first-ever nationally televised political debate. The handsome but unknown Kennedy was going up against the political machine and seasoned warhorse Richard M. Nixon. This event was supposed to be a quick night’s work for Nixon. Kennedy was not even his dad’s first choice to be the first Catholic President of the United States, but it fell to him after the death of his elder brother.
By the end of the sixty-minute time-limited match between these two combatants, Nixon was sprawled out on the mat unconscious, hyperbolically speaking. At the same time, Kennedy became the new heavyweight champion of the world. It was on that night the political season was over, and what was going to happen a few weeks later in November was anti-climatic. Here is how Time magazine reflected on that history-changing event on its 50th anniversary:
On the morning of September 26, 1960, John F. Kennedy was a relatively unknown senator from Massachusetts. He was young and Catholic—neither of which helped his image—and facing off against an incumbent. But by the end of the evening, he was a star.
It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised debate—fifty years ago Sunday—Kennedy would never have been President. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media, and America’s political history.
It’s one of those unusual points on the timeline of history where you can say things changed very dramatically—in this case, in a single night, says Alan Schroeder, a media historian and associate professor at Northeastern University, who authored the book, Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV. — Time Magazine
The two things Kennedy understood (or stumbled into) were the medium and the mind of the American public. Though nobody could tell you today what they debated, everyone who watched it could tell you what they saw. The sweating, stammering Nixon, who was recovering from a recent stay in the hospital, cowered under the bright lights while the calm, cool, and collected Kennedy seemed to tower over his opponent as the seconds ticked by. What they were saying became less important than how they presented themselves until it didn’t matter any longer that Kennedy was a Catholic, too young, and didn’t have enough experience.
It also didn’t matter that Nixon had spent his entire adult life in the political arena dusting off foe after foe. Sitting next to Dwight D. Eisenhower for eight years was not enough political cred to carry the election. 1960 was a transition point. The percentage of Americans owning televisions jumped from 11% the year before to 88% when the debate aired. A bright, shiny, omnipresent experience was sitting in our living rooms, where we could watch the world like never before. I realize it is hard for us to imagine the power of television because our ubiquitous friend has always been one of our favorite family members, babysitters, diversionary strategists, worldview sculptors, and sleep agents. Not so in 1960. It was a first-time event.
Imagine seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. You walk to the rim and look over. Then you look to the left and right. As far as the eye will travel, there is no end to its wonder. Then you try to capture in a word what the eye is straining to see—the right word. You can’t. Years later, you may not remember the details of your vacation, but you’ll never forget that time you first looked over the rim. That was the television in 1960. Kennedy embraced the medium in September and narrowly beat the old warhorse in November. We had a new president, and television became the marketing means of choice to persuade the masses. Instructively, most of the people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. The lesson is that sight is more persuasive than sound or substance.
Donald Trump is the second coming of John Kennedy from a political and marketing perspective. He took what John Kennedy did to a new, surreal level in 2015. Kennedy’s generation buried their heads in books and their ears tuned to a radio. Trump’s generation reads far fewer books but spends excessive time watching television or hanging out in their favorite social media communities. You can pick any random stat about TV viewing, and it will always be more than other mediums. One New York Daily News report said the average American watches over five hours daily. That is a staggering number, considering the average American does not read for five hours daily. The shaping influences provided by the people behind the TV camera have been in full swing for over fifty years.
To what degree Donald Trump knows this, I do not know. I know he is the primary political figure who knows how to act out what we have grown accustomed to seeing in the movies and television. Think hyperbole. Think WWE—World Wrestling Entertainment. Donald Trump is WWE personified. He is not real—in that sense. He’s an entertainer who entered the political arena, a fictitious Marvel movie played out on the political stage. He’s a WWE character whooping it up before the masses. Do you know why wrestling has been so historically popular for decades? It’s vicarious.
Wrestling is the arena where you can watch live hyperbolic action heroes do what we can’t do—beat up other people. Whether it makes the fan feel affirmed to see good triumph over evil or the grappling lets off a bit of mundane steam, wrestling has proven to persuade the will of the masses. In the early days of wrestling, good triumphed over evil, but over the last few decades, even the villains have been celebrated because they are given better storylines. The scripts between good and evil are so blurred that no one discerns or cares. It’s not about who they are or their virtues but how they perform.
Donald Trump knows how to embrace the debate stage. In 2015, Jeb Bush looked lost fumbling around on stage. The only thing we remember about Trump and Hillary is that he threatened to put her in jail. The one-and-only debate between Trump and Biden in the summer of 2024 was a no-contest. Joe Biden was Richard Nixon all over again, but far worse due to his dementia. The script has changed, and the viewing audience is different. Donald knows it’s not a political debate. He is marketing as much as he is politicking. I’m not assessing his motives because I have no idea what they are. I’m stating that Donald Trump has adapted his message to today’s high-octane medium and resonates like no other political figure has since Ronald Reagan. Imagine these kinds of debates in 1960. They would have been replaced with sixty minutes of commercials or clips of Elvis from the waist up.
Donald Trump is entertaining to a large portion of America because he says things that a pent-up and angry culture has been saying from a smaller stage for decades. The person who taps into the American consciousness on a grand scale will be hard to beat. “Who cares what he’s saying!” That’s not a question searching for an answer or a statement up for debate. “He’s saying it like it is. That’s exactly what I think about our political system.” When an entertainment medium (WWE) can motivate grown men to paint their faces and yell obscenities in front of their children in a public venue, why are you surprised that the political medium can capture the mind of the politically frustrated to where it does not matter who the person is as long as they feel vicariously affirmed?
As a pragmatic supporter of Donald Trump, my endorsement of his presidency is rooted in a calculated assessment rather than personal admiration. While I acknowledge the positive aspects of some of his policies, I am profoundly aware of the numerous character flaws that make him a contentious figure. My support stems from a pragmatic analysis of the current political landscape, where the available choices necessitate focusing on policy outcomes over personal virtues.
Donald Trump is undeniably a product of the media age, where optics, marketing, and public persona wield significant influence over public perception. His presence in the political arena has been shaped by a media environment prioritizing sensationalism over substance, contributing to the polarization and spectacle defining modern politics. This media-driven dynamic has elevated Trump to a position where his personality often overshadows the content of his policies, making it challenging to reconcile his public behavior with the gravity of the office he has held and might hold again.
My reservations about Trump are substantial and multifaceted. He has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that includes multiple instances of adultery, crude remarks, pettiness, and a general disposition that often appears at odds with the decorum and dignity expected of the President of the United States. These character flaws are not trivial; they reflect a broader cultural shift towards the normalization of debauchery and a decline in leadership standards. Trump’s conduct is emblematic of a political class that has devolved into degeneracy, power hunger, and greed, creating a landscape where candidates like him can thrive.
This pragmatic approach reflects a broader trend in contemporary politics where the criteria for voting centers increasingly on policy pragmatics rather than the personal virtues of candidates. The degradation of the political class has created a scenario where voters are often faced with choosing the lesser of two evils, focusing on practical outcomes over ideal leadership qualities. With all its flaws, Trump’s presidency highlights the urgent need to reevaluate the standards and expectations we hold for our leaders. In essence, Donald Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of the current state of American politics.
His rise to power underscores the deep-seated issues within the political system that have allowed for the normalization of behavior previously deemed unacceptable for public office. As a pragmatic supporter, my vote for Trump is not an endorsement of his character but a strategic decision to achieve policy objectives in a flawed political environment that shows more concern for manipulating clicks, censoring the dissenter, and gaslighting the masses into passive subjugation. This perspective necessitates a sober recognition of the limitations and challenges of the current political landscape, where pragmatism often takes precedence over idealism in the pursuit of governance.
We are all guilty of where we are today. We have embraced the new medium and refuse to step away from our social toys. Donald Trump and his political ilk would not have been our ubiquitous entertainers if we had made different choices. It was not all Kennedy’s fault that millions sat enthralled and enamored with the medium. He stepped into it and gave us what we wanted. Based on the growing power of social media, it’s easy to understand why we have Donald Trump. I pray that we recognize what we’re doing to ourselves and make proactive changes before the next culture shift comes along and a worse-than-Trump steps into it to lead us to where only God knows.
Rick launched the Life Over Coffee global training network in 2008 to bring hope and help for you and others by creating resources that spark conversations for transformation. His primary responsibilities are resource creation and leadership development, which he does through speaking, writing, podcasting, and educating.
In 1990 he earned a BA in Theology and, in 1991, a BS in Education. In 1993, he received his ordination into Christian ministry, and in 2000 he graduated with an MA in Counseling from The Master’s University. In 2006 he was recognized as a Fellow of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC).
