No, Trump Wasn’t Just ‘Dark’

W hen Donald Trump clinched the presidency again, the headline on the New York Times website read: “Trump Storms Back: Stunning Return to Power After Dark and Defiant Campaign.”

The adjective “defiant” was true enough, but why “dark”?

That was a favorite description of the Trump campaign, which was very often “dark,” or getting “darker,” in journalistic accounts.

There’s no doubt that Trump can be apocalyptic, use blood-curdling language, and disparage his opponents with crude insults. Needless to say, he has never been a kinder and gentler candidate, but neither is it true that he is unrelentingly grim or downbeat.

There was always a madcap, carnivalesque element to the Trump phenomenon and his rallies — joyful, one might say — that the press missed or deliberately suppressed in its coverage. In concert terms, the media wanted to make a Grateful Dead tour sound like it was Altamont every single day.

Take the Madison Square Garden rally, which was pretty universally portrayed as a racist hatefest.

First, there was a jubilant throng inside and outside the arena that was obviously enjoying itself immensely.

Then, there were Trump’s remarks. Yes, he harshly slammed Kamala Harris (this is just politics — she harshly slammed him every day), and he denounced migrant gangs and the like in inflammatory terms (it’s not clear why anyone would want migrants gangs not to be fiercely denounced). But much of what he said was positive and optimistic — to be honest, to a ridiculous extent.

He said, “I’m here today with a message of hope for all Americans. With your vote in this election, I will end inflation. I will stop the invasion of criminals coming into our country. And I will bring back the American dream.”

Indeed, he continued, “We will achieve success that no one can imagine. We will have the strongest economy, the most secure borders, the safest cities, the most powerful military, the best trade deals, and we will dominate the frontiers of science, medicine, business, technology and space.”

Do these words fill you with a sense of darkness and dread?

He went on and on in this vein. He shared incredibly warm words about the dignitaries there at the rally with him; he joked about his teleprompters malfunctioning at a rally; he mused about whether his father is in heaven (or just close); he went on an extended riff about how great the Penn State wrestling team is; he told a self-deprecating story about his awe watching Elon Musk’s rocket returning to Earth; he swayed at the end to “New York, New York.”

The overwhelming sense was that he was having a fantastic time, but you never would have known it if you just read the headlines.

If the Times wanted to focus on one aspect of the Trump campaign to the exclusion of others, as it did with its use of the word “dark” in its subhead, it easily could have said Trump had made a stunning return with a “high-spirited and defiant campaign.” That would have been completely accurate, but since it would have had a positive connotation, the campaign was “dark,” instead.

Or the campaign could have been described as “wildly optimistic,” but that description wouldn’t do, for the same reason.

The media also rarely mentioned that Trump, when he said something supposedly weird or disturbing, was often joking. When he talked about Arnold Palmer’s manhood, he was telling an amusing story. When he said in a final rally that he should have stayed in office, he was joking about how well he’d done securing the border. One of the main counts in the political indictment against him, that he allegedly said he’d be a dictator beginning on Day One, was a joke in an interview that he’d be a dictator only on his first day.

Again, this is not to say that Trump doesn’t routinely say — or post — untoward and unhinged things, but this is not the sum total of Trump as a campaigner.

How overwhelmingly dark can a campaign be when the candidate dons a McDonald’s apron to work the fryer or dances to “YMCA” wearing an orange high-visibility vest? These events tended to be dismissed as mere stunts, rather than signs of a confident candidate who was willing to make himself look a little ridiculous to make a point and entertain himself and his supporters.

The other issue with “dark” in journalistic usage is that it applies only to one side and particular arguments. If a Democratic politician denounces gun violence, with heart-rending stories of tragedy, it is uplifting and passionate; if a Republican politician denounces the open border, with heart-rending stories of tragedy, it is dark and divisive.

Kamala Harris could call Trump a fascist without a wave of news coverage saying her campaign had taken a “dark turn,” because it is assumed that Democratic campaigns can’t be dark — whatever they do or say, their efforts are bathed in a warm light of righteousness.

It’s all immaterial now, though. Trump has won the White House again, and however the press depicted it, he had fun getting there.