Capitulation

 I have little to add beyond the obvious by way of commentary on the repulsive sequence of events in the Paramount-Skydance deal. Here is a media conglomerate with a pending merger before the FCC. They entered into a craven settlement agreement with Trump that compromised their editorial independence. Then, when a late night talk show host criticized them for their capitulation to government censorship and bullying—he was suddenly fired (supposedly for "economic" reasons). 

And now—lo and behold—according to the most recent reporting—their merger deal has been approved. Apparently, it pays to bribe the President—to the tune of $16 million dollars. Especially if you include sweeteners in the deal like punishing Trump's critics for him. 

I see no silver lining in the story—apart from the fact that Trump's and Paramount's blatant (if roundabout) censorship of Colbert is itself a damning admission. As the Salvadoran poet Roque Dalton once wrote: "One can judge the moral character of any regime / By the degree of danger it attaches / To being observed through the eyes of a satirical poet." Or—through the eyes of a satirical late night host; as the case may be. 

In other words: the fact that Trump and Paramount attach so much danger to the mere fact of Colbert speaking itself tells us everything we need to know about them. 

Of course—Trump doesn't really have legal power to censor his foes or imprison his critics—much as he would apparently like to have it. Why—then—do companies, universities (ahem, Columbia), and law firms keep capitulating to him? This—as Matthew Yglesias recently pointed out in a column—is what's really disturbing about our present political moment. It's not that Trump has become a dictator—because he hasn't (not yet, at least). It's that all these powerful institutions keep acting like he has.

Which, of course, is the sort of assumption that risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. "The very fear of this malady will end by bringing it on, if this continues"—to quote a phrase from Des Esseintes—in Huysman's Against Nature (Howard trans.).

Yglesias's point was that powerful people need to realize that Trump does not actually possess the unlimited power he seeks to exercise. We need to realize that our system—flawed as it may be—does still impose some checks on his actions—and will continue to do so, for as long as we all believe they still do. Don't be afraid of Trump—Yglesias is saying—he's a paper tiger. He's only a real tiger if we declare him one. 

I've quoted lines from D.H. Lawrence and Archibald MacLeish before on this point—that is, the anticipatory obedience people show before Trump: He's an empty suit of armor—he only inspires the fear we endow him with. He's an old mushroom in the forest—seemingly upright and strong, but "Touch him, and you’ll find he’s all gone inside [...] all wormy inside, and hollow." (Lawrence.) Just ignore his empty threats—his hollow clanking armor—and move on.