The Role of Spectacle in Trump’s Approach to Power
A political speech can make an argument. A memorable image can give that argument a life beyond the room in which it was delivered.
This article explores power, politics and influence, a theme developed in depth in My Trumpology by Dr Sam M Attia.
Donald Trump’s public career offers a useful case study in the relationship between visibility and authority. His approach invites attention to the setting, the performance and the reaction, alongside the substance of what he says.
This article examines spectacle as a form of political communication. It is an interpretation of public events, rather than a claim to know Trump’s private intentions or an explanation of every reason people support him.
The central question is how a moment designed for an audience can contribute to the exercise of power.
A stage can make an argument before a speech begins
Trump announced his presidential candidacy at Trump Tower on 16 June 2015. The transcript records him beginning with the size of the audience, praising the gathering and comparing it with those of other candidates.
He then linked that comparison to their ability to confront a national security threat. Crowd size became part of his presentation of political capability.
That opening illustrates how a public appearance can carry several messages at once. The venue associated the candidate with his established brand. His remarks presented the audience as evidence of strength, before much of the policy discussion had begun.
The interpretation matters here. A large audience does not establish competence. But calling attention to it can encourage viewers to connect popularity, momentum and authority.
Spectacle gives a message a recognisable form
Political communication competes with everything else people see and hear. An event with a clear visual identity is easier to describe than a long sequence of policy qualifications.
Trump’s visit to a Pennsylvania McDonald’s in October 2024 provides an example. The Associated Press reported that he briefly worked at the fry station and answered questions through the window. The restaurant was closed to the public for the visit, and McDonald’s said the appearance did not amount to a political endorsement.
The scene offered an immediately recognisable image of a candidate in an everyday workplace. Viewers could interpret it as approachable, artificial, entertaining or cynical. Those competing readings did not prevent the image from circulating.
Its communicative value lay partly in how quickly someone could understand and recount it. The picture supplied the subject of the conversation.
Reaction can extend the life of the event
A spectacle does not depend on universal approval. Criticism can also give an appearance further visibility.
Supporters share the moment because they like it. Opponents share it to challenge its credibility. Commentators discuss what it means. An image can travel through all three groups while retaining the same central figure.
This is one reason the relationship between criticism and political advantage can be complicated. A rebuttal may contest the message while repeating its visual form.
That does not mean every controversy benefits Trump. Attention can expose weaknesses, deepen opposition or distract from a campaign’s priorities. The narrower point is that visibility and approval are different measures. An event can dominate discussion without persuading everyone who encounters it.
Performance can create an impression of command
The ability to hold an audience’s attention can become part of how a leader is perceived.
A confident delivery, a dramatic setting or a forceful exchange may encourage some viewers to see decisiveness. Others may see exaggeration or aggression in the same performance.
In Trump’s case, his earlier television career is relevant background. Reuters describes The Apprentice as a programme that made him internationally famous for dismissing contestants competing for roles in his businesses.
That format repeatedly placed him in the position of judgement. He evaluated people and delivered a verdict. It provides a useful lens for considering a public persona built around being the person who decides.
The connection is interpretive. Television familiarity does not prove political ability, and it cannot account for an election result by itself. It can, however, supply an established image through which an audience encounters a candidate.
The audience helps produce the meaning
A spectacle is shaped by what people bring to it.
Someone who already admires Trump may interpret an unconventional appearance as evidence that he understands ordinary people or refuses established political conventions. Someone who distrusts him may interpret the same scene as a distraction.
Those responses reflect existing beliefs as well as the event itself. It would be too simple to describe audiences as passive recipients of a performance.
People discuss the scene, argue about it and place it within their own account of the candidate. The event becomes material for political identity and disagreement.
For an analyst, this makes a useful question: what does the appearance allow different audiences to say about the leader and about themselves?
Attention can influence the agenda
Power involves the ability to shape what others spend time discussing.
A highly visible appearance can require opponents to decide whether to respond. Journalists must decide how prominently to cover it. Supporters gain something to circulate and defend.
The event may therefore influence the agenda even when it offers little new policy information. It creates a moment around which other people organise their reactions.
This is an important part of spectacle as political communication. The performance generates decisions for everyone observing it.
Still, controlling a conversation for a day is different from controlling institutions or delivering a policy. The influence of a memorable moment needs to be judged alongside what follows.
A memorable scene leaves practical questions unanswered
Spectacle is particularly effective at presenting confidence, conflict and belonging. Those impressions can matter to political judgement, but they leave other questions open.
What was promised? What authority is available to deliver it? What would it cost? Who would be affected? What evidence would show that the intended result had been achieved?
These questions move the discussion from the appearance towards the decision or policy behind it.
The same discipline applies to praise and criticism. A convincing analysis should examine the factual record and the consequences, rather than treating its reaction to the performance as sufficient evidence.
Looking beyond the image
Trump’s approach to public communication shows why spectacle deserves serious attention. A setting can reinforce a brand. A recognisable scene can travel widely. An audience’s reaction can give the moment additional meaning and reach.
Understanding those processes helps explain how political authority is presented and contested. It also helps readers distinguish an impression of command from evidence of effective leadership.
The useful task is to watch the performance carefully, then follow the questions it raises into the substance of power.
For a broader exploration of Trump’s branding, communication and approach to political power, discover MyTrumpology by Dr Sam Attia.