Trump is president! Still recovering from the shock and awe, many are trying to figure out what happened. Much has been said about the impact of Trump's celebrity status, the democratic campaign failures, Clinton's pro-establishment image, Wikileaks or the obsolete Electoral College. Regardless of the popular vote, Trump won for all of these reasons and many more, you can even blame Russia if you wish. We would like to contribute by looking into different discursive strategies of what appears to be a more polarized spectrum of political communication in the US. On the one hand, far-right media has flourished, nurtured by decades of Republican populist rhetoric scapegoating migrants, minorities and state regulation in the face of economic policies that are unfavourable for the majority. On the other hand, liberal comedy, though not at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, has come out as a sort of response. Both allow for different types of politically incorrect discharges, the latter through comedy and the former through terror: fear and conflict. But what is the difference between “crooked Hillary” and “small hands” Trump? We shall see how, ultimately, the far-right's communication strategy seems to be more effective for mobilizing.

Political communication has changed radically with digital media. Though we now access a massive flow of information, it seems harder than ever to know where to put our trust. With Facebook increasingly becoming a news source, all kinds of news articles, opinion blog posts, “fake” or satirical news, memes, etc., circulate indistinctly. Meanwhile, many of the agendas and power groups behind mainstream media have been exposed, sparking a crisis in an industry that, nonetheless, still responds to certain filters and obligations. The use of trolling, discredit and misinformation are now paramount in political campaigns. 'Fake' news stories circulate faster than 'real' ones, not only because they respond to ideological agendas, but as a short-cut to accumulate or monetize likes. How are we supposed to make sense of all this? In the midst of this profound crisis of credibility, it would seem truth is no longer enough and all that matters is an effective message. To avoid post-factual politics, we not only need mechanisms for 'verified' information, but also to build inspiring mobilizing discourses.

Far-right groups around the world are successfully taking advantage of this crisis of trust and after decades of developing a mobilizing populist discourse, 2016 has been a year of reaping victories. Trump's mobilizing discourse arose against the backdrop of decades of republican populism. With the advent of Reaganomics and the neoliberal agenda, a discourse that could appeal to the masses distracting them from economic policy came in handy. Here enters moralism–centred on abortion and homosexuality–, anti-intellectualism–denying science and academic rigour–and fear, blaming migrants and minorities for unemployment and criminality. This populism led to the consolidation of a more radical faction of the GOP, with the Tea Party and more recently white supremacists rebranded as alt-right gaining political ground over moderate and establishment Republicans. Trump's audacity was to translate this rhetoric into concrete offers like the wall or mass deportation. His “Make America Great Again” slogan, borrowed from Reagan, remains an empty signifier that anyone can fill with their own individual desires. Supporters praised him for “saying it as it is”, which had nothing to do with the truth, but rather with saying out loud what many said in private. For despite decades of liberal effort to impose a 'culture of tolerance' of sorts, the structural problems leading to inequality were far from solved. In fact, living conditions for the working classes have worsened. Trump thus managed to appeal to a general feeling of dissatisfaction through his version of an 'anti-systemic' discourse that attacks political correctness and, in passing, the media that sustains it.

Liberal media, for their part, were laid bare during the 2016 campaign. Prioritizing ratings, they granted an excessive coverage to the celebrity candidate they loathed, even when knowing it would benefit him. Meanwhile, they tried to discredit him in an increasingly explicit and desperate manner, exposing their political bias–less and less removed from Fox News style–, thus fuelling the distrust in the media. Trump capitalized on this exposure, feeding it constantly with scandals, while investing minimum resources on mainstream media to focus on digital media strategies, data mining and rallies. Steve Bannon, Trump's campaign Chief Executive and former CEO of popular far-right portal Breitbart News, played a key role.

If Trump's discourse wasn't in fact all that new, neither was his style. The far-right has been developing an outspoken and aggressive style, linked to organised processes of trolling, disinformation and online intimidation. It had already been around for a while through local radios. Outraged broadcasters have gained widespread access to working families with a clear barely-filtered message of entrenched white supremacy and nationalism, waging a war against political correctness imposed by liberals and their media. For many, these radios had become a main political reference point. This phenomenon migrated very naturally to the social networks, where young celebrities emerge and where anyone can express their unfiltered opinion. In this less regulated space, aggressiveness and disinformation thrive. Fake news flourishes, extrapolating the anxieties nurtured by the republican moralistic, anti-intellectual discourse of fear. Trolling spreads as a way to intimidate and immobilize opponents, as it doesn't allow for any debate thus forcing us to ignore and let be any hatred expressed. Backed by these media, along with many blogs and pages like Breitbart News, a veritable bottom-up communication network has emerged, with their own algorithm-cheating-code-word-hashtags and meme culture, allowing for an effortless instant virality. Trump's campaign was able to take advantage of this efficient channel, unlike liberals and their more top-down communication strategy.