The Outrage Machine and Manufactured Consent
When outlets like The Hill decry the 'normalization of cruelty and bigotry' in the context of Donald Trump, they inadvertently perform a crucial function for the political establishment. This framing elevates individual temperament over institutional action, turning political analysis into a psychodrama. The spectacle of Trump's 'outrage' becomes the story, allowing the press to appear critical
while avoiding more fundamental critiques. Yet, the same institutions often remain silent or even complicit when 'cruelty' is dispensed through policy mechanisms, often with bipartisan support. Consider the bipartisan consensus around crippling sanctions regimes, such as those imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, which contributed to the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children – a statistic Madeleine
Albright notoriously deemed 'worth it.' Or the ongoing economic strangulation of nations like Iran, which impacts daily life for ordinary citizens, framed invariably as a consequence of their 'regime' rather than deliberate foreign policy instruments. The media's selective outrage creates a convenient double standard. They excoriate a politician's rhetoric while largely ignoring the methodical,
bureaucratic cruelty of a foreign policy apparatus that disproportionately targets non-white populations globally. The focus on Trump's 'bigotry' thus becomes a red herring, diverting attention from systems of oppression that predate his presidency and will likely persist long after he leaves office. This pattern is not about holding power accountable but about managing dissent, channeling public