theguardian.com
The Aesthetics of MAGA: Sprawl, Beauty, and Political Affiliation
Talia Lavin's Substack essay "Who Goes Maga?" analyzes the aesthetic appeal of Trumpism, contrasting it with the values of those who reject it, arguing that the homogenous, sprawling landscape of the US contributes to the appeal of simplistic ideologies.
- What is the connection between the aesthetic qualities of the American landscape and the appeal of the MAGA movement, as argued by Talia Lavin?
- In her Substack essay "Who Goes Maga?", Talia Lavin examines why certain individuals gravitate towards the MAGA movement, highlighting the case of "Mr. I," an academic who values beauty and rejects the movement's anti-aesthetic nature. Lavin contrasts this with the aesthetic of Trumpism, characterized by sprawling, homogenous landscapes devoid of artistic merit.
- How does Lavin's analysis of "Mr. I" contrast with her critique of the aesthetic of Trumpism, and what does this contrast reveal about the values underlying political affiliation?
- Lavin argues that the physical manifestation of American sprawl—characterized by endless chain stores and uniform architecture—mirrors the ideological emptiness of Trumpism. This sprawl, she suggests, fosters a sense of atomization and disconnectedness, creating a breeding ground for movements that reject beauty and embrace uniformity.
- What are the potential long-term societal consequences of the aesthetic environment described by Lavin, and what role might art and beauty play in countering its negative impacts?
- The essay suggests a connection between the aesthetic environment and political affiliation. The lack of beauty and the prevalence of homogenous sprawl in the US landscape may contribute to the appeal of movements that offer a simplistic, uniform worldview, rejecting complexity and nuance in favor of easily digestible narratives.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The essay frames Trumpism's aesthetic as "sprawl," associating it with negative qualities such as ugliness and desolation. This framing predisposes the reader to view Trumpism negatively, potentially overshadowing other aspects of the movement. The headline, while not explicitly stated, implies a critical viewpoint of those who support the movement.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded language such as "moribund ideology," "peculiar desolation," and "deadening, ugly, fake" to describe Trumpism and its aesthetic. These terms carry negative connotations and could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives might include "declining ideology," "unappealing landscape," and "lacking aesthetic appeal.
Bias by Omission
The essay focuses primarily on the aesthetic aspects of Trumpism and its connection to American sprawl, neglecting other potential contributing factors to the movement's appeal, such as economic anxieties or social grievances. While the author acknowledges the limitations of focusing solely on aesthetics, a more comprehensive analysis might have included these other perspectives for a fuller understanding.
False Dichotomy
The essay presents a dichotomy between beauty and the aesthetic of Trumpism, implying that those who appreciate beauty cannot support Trumpism. This oversimplifies the issue, as individuals can hold complex and potentially contradictory views.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article critiques the sprawling urban development in the US, highlighting its negative impacts on community life, environmental sustainability, and overall well-being. This sprawling development pattern is linked to the lack of connection between people and the environment, promoting isolation and hindering the creation of sustainable and vibrant communities. The aesthetic of sprawl is described as "deadening, ugly, fake", lacking beauty, truth, and art, all critical components for a sustainable community.