Carville's 'play dead' plan: A death knell for democracy
There comes a time in every political strategist’s career when they should recognize their analytical compass has lost its
5 min read
In today's newsletter: First, a short (3 minute) analysis of how the New York Times used a troubling physical metaphor to frame Trump's escalating power grab. Second, a link to my analysis of Elon Musk's Nazi salute and the media's hesitation to characterize the incident accurately. Third, a link to my essay on how certain Silicon Valley billionaires are framing their support for Trump in religious terms.
Summary: Metaphors have immense power to shape political perception. A recent New York Times headline framed Trump’s actions as physical strength and dominance, ignoring his threats to the Constitution and democracy. This short piece explores how such language reinforces authoritarian narratives and calls for framing that defends democratic values.
Metaphors play a crucial role in shaping how we perceive the world. As such, they significantly impact our politics. The metaphors employed in politics – consciously or unconsciously – often establish a moral point of view.
Here’s a poignant example from yesterday: “Trump Asserts a Muscular Vision of Presidential Power As He Takes Over.”
This headline from the New York Times applies a metaphor of physical strength and dominance – “muscular vision” – to our political system. The verb “asserts” then adds even more muscle to the frame. The headline also frames power as something Trump “takes.” All of it adds up to an image of Trump using physical power to dominate the political system.
The story itself explains how Trump is trying to once again define the presidency in ways that violate the laws, norms, and the Constitution. The first sentence describes Trump’s actions as “norm-breaking.” It depicts him as trying to claim “sweeping and inherent constitutional clout” for himself.
From the story:
Among a blizzard of executive orders, Mr. Trump instructed prosecutors not to enforce a law that bans the popular social media app TikTok until its Chinese owner sells it. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had signed the measure into law after it passed with broad bipartisan support, and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it.
Whatever the law’s merits, the Constitution says presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Trump offered no clear explanation for how he has any legitimate power to instead suspend the law, making only a vague gesture toward his “constitutional responsibility” for national security, foreign policy “and other vital executive functions.”
The headline does not hint at these deeper issues or the threat Trump poses to the Constitution, democracy, and the very idea of law. It does not mention checks and balances or democratic accountability. Instead, it portrays governance as an act of pure force.
Such language gives Trump an advantage. It promotes his preferred frame of personal power. Further, it portrays him as a strongman flexing his “muscle,” asserting his dominance over American democracy. “Strong” is exactly how Trump wishes to be seen.
This “muscular” metaphorical framework aligns with the “strict father” model of moral politics. In this model, authority flows from strength. The president becomes a strongman, not a public servant. He is the ultimate authority – a leader who does what he pleases regardless of what anyone else thinks.
The NYT headline play into this framing. Worse, it erases the main issues of concern identified in the story: Trump’s efforts to overturn norms and challenge Constitution.
Here are some alternative headlines that frame the issue in terms of what’s at stake:
“Trump Resumes Efforts to Vastly Expand Presidential Power.”
“Trump Pushes Vision of Unchecked Presidential Control.”
“Trump Seeks to Expand Executive Power Beyond Constitution.”
“Trump, Who Once Promised to Be a Dictator, Challenges Constitutional Limits.”
“Trump moves to overturn constitutional rules and democratic norms.”
These headlines frame democracy and the Constitution, not “muscle,” as the central issues of the story.
One bad headline isn’t the end of the world. Unfortunately, American journalism is full of bad headlines that unwittingly serve the purposes of authoritarianism. For example, when Trump tells a big lie, most headlines make a point of repeating the lie. It’s not necessarily because journalists want to help Trump lie. On the contrary: Most journalists have no idea how propaganda works and, therefore, do not understand the key role they play in helping propagandists spread lies.
Similarly, most journalists do not seem to think about the power of metaphors and the meanings they carry. If journalists don't get smarter about the effect of language and metaphors on the brain, they will be as responsible as anyone for the demise of American democracy.
Some good news: As I was finishing this piece, I saw that the headline had changed. The new headline: “How Trump Is Pushing at Limits of Presidential Power in Early Orders.” Much improved.
We keep FrameLab free of paywalls, but our work is made possible by paid subscribers. If you value this work, please join hundreds of fellow readers in becoming a paid subscriber today. Click here to join us. Or click here to leave us a tip.
'That is a Nazi salute'
On the day of Trump's inauguration, Elon Musk performed a Nazi salute – the straight-armed gesture historically associated with Hitler and other fascists. The incident, which media outlets struggled to characterize accurately, drew sharp criticism from Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, fascism expert Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and others. Read my analysis of this shocking moment and what it signals for democracy's future.
‘That is a Nazi salute.’ Elon Musk steals Trump’s show
On January 20, the wealthiest man in the world stood behind the Seal of the President of the United States and gave the straight-arm fascist salute, commonly known as the Nazi salute. Some call it the “Roman salute,” but the Nazis called it the “Hitler salute,” and most of us
Gil Duran
Tech Dreams of 'Apocalypse'
In a startling Financial Times essay on January 10, tech billionaire Peter Thiel framed Trump's return as an “apokálypsis” – an apocalypse. The op-ed was widely mocked as bizarre, but I took it seriously and conducted a deeper analysis.
I believe Thiel's religious-themed essay reveals how some Silicon Valley elites are positioning themselves as prophets of a new tech movement with religious overtones. The goal is not just political upheaval, but a complete restructuring of civilization's foundational beliefs in a way that reflects traditional hierarchies. Read my full analysis here:
Silicon Valley’s New Religion: Peter Thiel’s Tech Apocalypse
A strange essay reveals how Silicon Valley elites are creating an apocalyptic techno-religion to rule the future of civilization
Gil Duran