Katz is a visiting lecturer in sociology at the University of Pittsburgh. Katz's research interest is the relationships between politics and media, specifically how political processes and movements shape the creation of media. Nathan is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
Images used in political advertisements and campaign finance law impact campaign communications. With the creation of Super PACs, candidates have developed unofficial wings, where they can put more money into creating advertisements with less accountability. My research looks at advertisement content as a form of impression management-where candidates and Super PACs shape images that not only reflect their values, but also those of who they see as their potential voters. They too, engage in a shared impression management, helping to create what I call “performance types,” character archetypes that shape the different types of performances and impressions seen in political advertisements.
Political advertisements are also shaped by their sociological context. The social and political conditions of the world during any given election will influence the nature of political advertising both in terms of production and content. Therefore, the “performance types” are not simply a reflection of the values of candidates, but also a reflection of the symbols and ideas that they believe their voting base wishes to see. As a result, they can be seen as a reflection of an attempt to parse out how the party’s political values are characterized. With all of this in mind, I framed my research on “how impression management techniques in the 2012 Republican primary changed for the 2016 primary and outlined what can be expected in 2024.”
New Performances, New Threats
When focusing on the more pragmatic performances, candidates refocused the idea of getting “results” to being about polling rather than policymaking, aligning with other driving discourses in the 2016 primary. Additionally, both candidates and Super PACs ended up using much more footage from debates than stock footage in 2016, cutting down on ad cost and allowing for more cohesive messages. The cohesiveness and complementary nature of candidate and Super PAC advertisements also remained just as strong.
The radical differences, however, appear in the changing of performance types. Gone is “The Saint,” a character that focused far more on the notion of a moral purity of candidates. In its place is “The Warrior,” used by both candidates and Super PACs, further demonstrating the cohesiveness of messages from candidates and organizations they cannot legally coordinate with.
“The Warrior” is unique based on two characteristics. First, its willingness and eagerness to use violence and second, the violence is explicitly targeted toward non-U.S. citizens, and overwhelmingly those living abroad. During the 2016 elections both candidates and their Super PACs flaunted their desire to use violence within the Middle East and on undocumented citizens. In one ad Ted Cruz highlighted his opposition to the World Court’s stay of execution to an undocumented immigrant convicted of murder. Regularly, these advertisements included images of military invasions and missiles being fired into the air to show a willingness for strength, as well as a lack of concern for human rights, as Marco Rubio openly bragged about tossing people into Guantanamo Bay, known for its use of torture. This is something that was not present in 2012, demonstrating a result in the ideological shift of the Republican party in the four years between elections.
What makes this so unsettling is not just the violence, but what it is couched in. It is combined with messages associated with conservative ideals associated with the notion of “taking our country back” and a new trend in attacking fellow Republican candidates. Prior advertisements in past elections attacked fellow Republicans for working with democrats and being insufficient in terms of policies. The new attack ads now focused on their opponents being opposed to a conservative social order. Combined, what appears is apparent: a shift toward pro-fascist messaging with the Republican party. This was not something that came from Donald Trump (in fact for methodological purposes, there were no Trump advertisements in the analysis as he did not have a Super PAC during the primary) but from Republican candidates involved.
What is Next for a Fleeting Democracy
Moving into 2024, the shift in messaging will continue to be amplified. While "the Warrior” performance type focused on non-Americans, I anticipate it being used in relation to American citizens in 2024. Specifically left-leaning and liberal groups such as Black Lives Matter, Pro-Choice, and Trans-rights advocates being the inevitable targets. Additionally, since the completion of my study, we have seen warrior-oriented messaging in midterm advertisements, not targeted toward Democrats but towards Republicans. Missouri Senate candidate Eric Greitens released a primary advertisement about “RINO-hunting” where an armed SWAT-team invades a house to go after people who are not truly loyal to GOP positions. The ad ends with Greitens saying to "join the MAGA crew and get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn't expire until we save our country." While the ad was publicly condemned, the truth is that it fits nicely within the greater trend of GOP advertisements: a support for violence toward political opponents in the name of ideological purity, that will not cease any time soon.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.