Trump’s strength among undecided voters can be viewed as a manifestation of the anesthetic impact of social media, drawing from the old debate between Orwell’s totalitarian world in 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World.
In Orwell’s totalitarian world, power is maintained through overt repression, surveillance, and control of information—an authoritarian regime stifling dissent and ruling through fear. Huxley’s vision, by contrast, suggests that people could be subdued not by coercion, but by pleasure, distraction, and a constant feed of trivial entertainments, symbolized by “soma,” a drug that numbs the public’s awareness of their subjugation.
Social media’s role today more closely resembles Huxley’s world than Orwell’s. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram, and TikTok feed users with a constant stream of emotionally charged content, tailored to their biases, interests, and immediate gratifications. This creates an environment where critical engagement is discouraged, and deeper issues are overshadowed by sensationalism, outrage, or the next viral trend. In such a world, Trump’s appeal, especially to undecided voters, may not be grounded in a coherent political ideology or policy platform but in his ability to dominate this ecosystem of distraction.
Trump thrives in this media environment because his persona, shaped by reality TV and social media, taps into the need for entertainment, controversy, and emotional reaction rather than substantive discourse. His polarizing style creates a constant spectacle, keeping him at the center of attention. This mirrors Huxley’s warning that society might not need overt oppression when it can be distracted and entertained into passivity. Undecided voters, caught in the flux of rapid information cycles, may find themselves swayed less by the content of his policies and more by his ability to command the attention of a fragmented and overstimulated media landscape.
Social media acts as a digital form of “soma,” keeping people from fully engaging with the complexities of governance, policy, and their civic responsibilities. In this environment, Trump’s strength among undecideds can be seen as less a result of totalitarian control (à la Orwell) and more a result of a Huxleyan “anesthesia”—a public lulled into complacency by spectacle, distraction, and emotional gratification. The undecided voter is less likely to be swayed by reasoned argumentation and more by the figure who keeps them engaged in the dopamine-driven cycle of social media, which Trump has mastered like no other contemporary politician.
In essence, Trump’s appeal among undecideds highlights how the anesthetic qualities of social media foster a political environment where engagement is superficial, decision-making is impulsive, and voters are influenced more by spectacle than by substance—a scenario much closer to Huxley’s warnings of a “Brave New World” than Orwell’s dark vision of totalitarianism.
