I have been long impressed by the relationship between theater and politics, and am impressed once again in considering the posts and discussion at DC this week. Theater is the art form, according to Hannah Arendt, that most closely resembles politics, and as such it can be of great political significance, for better and for worse.

I have based my intellectual career on this. Theater opened Polish society to major changes, and in the process, it changed my life. It presented alternative visions; it constituted an alternative space, for the Poles and also for me.

The theatricality of public events, particularly when televised as a “media event,” can at least momentarily express the solidarity of a nation state, as was evident to the British this week in the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, real not only for British subjects, but as well for the global audience.

But the relationship is not always a happy one, as events of this week and our discussions at DC show. Theater, broadly understood, especially bad, base theatrical entertainments, can present fundamental challenges to democratic life. Rafael Narvaez examined this in his post. Kitsch entertainment created junk politics in Peru. Like junk food, it provides its immediate pleasures, as Lisa pointed out in her response to Narvaez. But it can also have quite serious negative consequences. In Peru, it was implicated in the political culture of corruption. And perhaps it’s not surprising that the role model of the Peruvian exotic dancer turned politician, Suzy Diaz, was Cicciolina, the porn star turned parliamentarian in Italy, the European country that also has been marked by corrupt anti-democratic politics. Of course, these entertaining figures do not cause the corruption, but are manifestations of it.

Matters are in a way worse in the U.S. The reality show star Donald Trump, who has used his theatrical skills of self promotion to make and lose fortunes, has been playing at being a Republican Party candidate for President of the United States. It seems impossible to take him seriously, but his performance as demagogue has been quite impressive, leader of the Republican pack at this point. DC contributor, Gary Alan Fine, might call this pungent politics. The Trump spiel, as all Americans know all too well, has focused on the eligibility and competency of President Obama, “the worse President in the history of the United States.”  First, Trump took on the mantle of Birther-in-Chief, pushing the issue until the President relented and released the generally unavailable long form birth certificate.

The official document, the short form, released at the time of the election, was not enough for the birthers. But of course for those who can’t imagine a black President now the long form is not enough. Some are convinced it’s a forgery, while others, with Trump as their leader, now turn to the question of whether Obama was a good enough student to deserve admission to Columbia and Harvard Law. Never mind that the Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Just not smart enough. There are those who are driven by suspicion which will never be satisfied. It has Shakespearean qualities, as Paul A. Kottman explored in his post. Suspicion is a powerful force, more powerful than facts, whether it be in the form of Desdemona’s handkerchief or Obama’s long form birth certificate.

One of Obama’s great tasks is to redefine the American Dream by overcoming the great American Dilemma, the legacy of slavery in a democratic society. For a stubborn twenty or twenty five percent of the population, there is resistance led by Trump the clown. This is high drama mixed with comedy. Fine theater reveals the tragedy of racism. It does battle with mediocre theatrical form.

And this battle is not only on the stage, it also appears in everyday life, when we look closely. One of the “closest lookers” died last week. Iddo Tavory’s post on Monday remembered and honored the distinctive sociology of Harold Garfinkel. He died last week, but his intellectual project, avoiding abstractions that turn away from the complicated details of how people make their worlds in interaction, lives on. It is not a disease named racism that denies the President’s eligibility and competency to be President, but it is racism as it is created and recreated in the dramas of everyday life.