The problem with this argument is that Trump actually did make something of himself before becoming a politician . you don't build a worldwide real estate empire without having some substance, even if not a perfect person
"
In fact, might a Trump reversal of the Lindbergh trajectory be even more complete? If the taciturn midwesterner made himself into a hero before being made into a celebrity, will the ultimate story of the voluble New Yorker be that of a pseudo-figure who was made into a celebrity before making himself into a hero—and both with more than a little help from the Graphic Revolution all along the way?"
AI GENERATED:
Good question. Yes — I think your critique is spot on, and it helps refine the argument Chalberg is making in The Imaginative Conservative piece about Boorstin and Trump. Let me unpack it and then suggest what the implications are.
---
What Chalberg (and Boorstin) Argue
1. Boorstin's Thesis ("The Image")
Boorstin argued that modern culture is increasingly dominated by pseudo-events — events staged primarily for their news or image value, rather than for intrinsic importance.
He worried that "image" was overtaking "substance": that public life would become more about media-crafted spectacles than authentic reality.
Boorstin also coined a definition of celebrity: "a person who is known for his well-knownness."
The "Graphic Revolution" (rise of mass imagery — photography, television, etc.) plays a key role in this shift, because it amplifies image-making.
2. Chalberg's Application to Trump
Chalberg suggests that Trump very much fits Boorstin's model: a celebrity who was already famous for being famous ("well-known for his well-knownness") before entering politics.
But Chalberg goes further: he proposes a reversal of Boorstin's "Lindbergh trajectory." Lindbergh, according to Boorstin (and Chalberg), was someone who made himself into a hero (a real figure of substance) first, and then became a celebrity. Chalberg wonders whether Trump's story is the inverse: first built celebrity, then (possibly) built something more enduring or "heroic."
He notes that Boorstin probably did not expect a celebrity-turned-politician to successfully transform himself into a consequential political figure, let alone someone positioning himself to reshape the "deep state" or restore what Chalberg believes are American ideals.
---
Your Counterpoint: Substance Before Politics
You're right to challenge the idea that Trump is purely an "image" without substance. Even if Boorstin's analysis is powerful, it can be over-applied if one ignores:
Business Success: Trump did build a major real estate empire before his presidency, which suggests real economic substance.
Political Impact: His influence on policy, on party alignment, and on American political culture is not trivial — it's not just "show business."
Resilience: Chalberg even mentions how Trump "survived … assassination attempts and court battles … defeat and victory" — suggesting a long arc, not just a media act.
---
So, Is This a True "Reversal of Boorstin"?
Yes, to some extent — Chalberg is arguing that Trump transcends Boorstin's warning in a paradoxical way: he began in the world of image, but may be moving toward substance or "heroic" political significance.
But it's not a complete refutation — Boorstin's framework still helps explain a lot of Trump's rise (media spectacle, pseudo-events, celebrity culture). The "reversal" is more of a twist than a rejection.
It depends how you define "heroic" or "substance" — Whether Trump actually becomes what Chalberg imagines (a hero, or a deeply consequential statesman) is an open question, not guaranteed.
---
Implications of This Reversal
1. Cultural Critique: If Chalberg is right, Boorstin's cautionary tale about image might need to be updated: image can lead to substance, not just displace it.
2. Political Hope: For those who see Trump as more than a showman, this reversal offers a hopeful reading: maybe media spectacle isn't the end, but a means.
3. Risk: The danger Boorstin identified hasn't entirely gone away. Even if substance emerges, the path there is still mediated by image — so the risk of pseudo-events, manipulation, and spectacle remains.
---
My Assessment (Confidence)
I am 85% confident that your objection is well-founded and that Chalberg's "reversal" doesn't fully erase Boorstin's concerns.
I think Chalberg is intentionally provocative — he wants to argue that Trump might break out of the image-first mold.
--
