The Procedural Drama Presidency
Trump is destroying what made America great. But it's *such* good television
The thesis
Broadly speaking, there are two distinct varieties of television drama: procedurals and serials. The former, often set in a courtroom or police station, specialises in predictable structures with self-contained storylines that typically revolve around a different case or crime which neatly resolve themselves within the hour.
Networks and advertisers historically favoured procedurals, because — particularly in the age of linear television — they were primed for viewer retention. If you miss one episode of CSI: Miami, it doesn’t really matter. You’ll still be able to follow the next one. Conversely, serials allow space for narratives to build and characters to develop over multiple episodes or even entire seasons.
As for viewers, they cannot get enough of procedurals. Shows such as Industry and Severance may garner critical acclaim, literary magazine profiles and golden statuettes, but the Nielsen ratings are unambiguous: many more people are watching Matlock and Tracker on CBS1. This dichotomy also helps to explain the second Trump administration.
The misdiagnosis
I don’t live in the United States but I did for several decades enjoy the benefits of a rules-based international order. So naturally, I have some views on its destruction. And I’m sympathetic to foreign policy experts and regular punters alike, who look upon the United States’ new policy of abducting foreign leaders and threatening to annex Nato territory not only with horror, but confusion.
If the Trump administration wanted Venezuelan oil, there was a deal on the table. One that would have granted the US a major stake in the South American country’s oil and mineral wealth. Moreover, Nicolás Maduro had offered to limit Venezuela’s economic relations with China, Russia and Iran, as well as blocking oil exports to Cuba.
Similarly, the US does not need to own or control Greenland for its national security, or to deter Chinese or Russian aggression. Greenland, through Denmark, is a Nato ally. Thanks to its Pituffik Space Base, the US already has permanent military access to the territory. And it gets all this through goodwill, rather than threats of violence.
This diagnosis is undoubtedly correct but it also misses the point entirely.
The attention deficit
Dealmaking (with US universities, foreign countries on tariffs) and air strikes (on Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela) fit the algorithm-first media consumption in a way that legislation does not. That is not to say that legislation doesn’t matter — bills such as the Inflation Reduction Act and American Rescue Plan Act were extremely consequential! But they do not possess the same attentional cadence.
So the Trump administration strikes an agreement with this university or that law firm. It launches criminal proceedings into this high-profile employee, fires that Inspector General, sends ICE agents to flood this particular city. Everything is a news story. And while the networks still broadcast the nightly news, and the newspapers still write them up, this has less impact each and every day.
Dave Weigel, who has covered American politics for two decades, recently observed:
People are scrolling news on X, TikTok, etc, and seeing influencers2 who package the news (or fake stuff) with their slants. The WH [White House] boosts what it wants; there is a cash reward (creator payouts) for X influencers who get boosted.”
I just don't see much of a point in pretending that it's 1993 and newsrooms with reporters who check sources and consult libel lawyers determine what people see. People are seeing a lot of propaganda instead. It is what it is.
The procedural drama presidency
The speed at which events are unfolding is jarring. Trump strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities and declares mission accomplished. He seizes Maduro and pivots to Greenland. Investigative journalist Michael Weiss sums it up thus: Trump doesn’t like war but “he loves acts of war”.
Of course, Trump attracts epithets as honey attracts bees. He’s a demagogue, a fascist, a businessman, a showman. But he is above all a media figure. From the New York City gossip columns of the 1980s to The Apprentice, the man is an attentional black hole. Sure, he is in this for himself — personal enrichment, revenge, political grievance — but he also understands what a lot of people crave.
Not just cruelty, though there is always a constituency for that. But that something is always being done. That government is not enfeebled. An executive order, or an ad hoc press conference, or a military strike on a faraway land — can smash up the status quo. This is certainly more satisfying to short-term egos than explaining how a bill becomes a law, or why precedent prevents him from doing something equally banal.
The conclusion just in time for commercials
In Venezuela and Greenland, Trump could have secured all sorts of strategic benefits without sacrificing the rule of law, American reliability or the Western alliance. In the same way that he could deport undocumented migrants without terrorising Democratic-held cities, but this would betray the need for drama and social-first messaging that fuels his presidency and delights his base.
In Trump’s procedural presidency, every air strike, trade deal and incoherent interview is content for immediate release. Unfortunately, Greenland is not a plot point, Maduro is not a drunk cop with a heart of gold and the Nato alliance cannot be brought back to life with a last-minute rewrite.
No, I hadn’t heard of them either
I liked your piece today, Jack. But the problem with the idea of a procedural presidency is that Greenland, for instance, could just be episode 6 out of xx. No matter if you are luxuriating in Bora Bora or some such, consciously oblivious. There’s another issue to consume down the line.
This feels a tad trivial. This issue alone, if not resolved, could shatter the alliance. And as you imply, no alternative meets that man’s psychological need. He probably might say: “I don’t like bases. I want territory. I want to go down in the history books.”
And it’s not as if another impeachment (that over-hyped stage 1 of a process which sounds far more pregnant with consequence to the uninitiated, than it is) will resolve anything.
I really believe he is unconsciously following the Thucydidean dictum (put into mouths of Athenian ambassadors, when Athens was trying to subdue neutral Melos):
The strong do what they can,
The weak suffer what they must.
At least by his threats, he has avowedly given up on Nobel.