Abstract
Trumpism poses a difficult challenge for counterpublic scholarship: should forms of right-nationalism dissenting against dominant publicity be analysed using the same concepts as other types of dissent? This article argues that Trumpism demonstrated counterpublic dissent against dominant campaign finance publicity by criticising the influence of wealthy donors in both political parties. Trumpism also offered an alternative to the dominant logic of necessary ethical compromise shaping publicity about campaign finance in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United US Supreme Court decision. However, Trumpism failed to foster greater democracy because of the way it posed Trump himself as the only necessary solution to the problems of plutocracy. Counterpublic theory should revisit the way it balances its normative and empirical dimensions to account for the rise of radical-right nationalisms and their publicity outlets.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
