Self-Trauma by Trump: Corporate Dissonance in the 2016 Campaign

When Trump announced that he was going to run for candidacy in June, many people speculated that it was more of a business move than it was a legitimate attempt at a campaign. Although this notion has fallen into the background as election season has progressed, the conversation surrounding Trump’s business has not. In fact, Trump’s business savvy has become one of the cornerstones of his campaign, as noted by profound quotes such as, “Here’s good news, I’m very rich.”

Recently, however, it has come to light that Trump’s venture into the political realm may be hindering the growth of his brand, stagnating the development of his golf courses, hotels, and various other properties. With these developments in mind, in addition to the several other losses that have come to light during this campaign, it has occurred to many that the foundation of Trump’s candidacy may be invalid. The rhetoric surrounding Trump’s business endeavors has obviously been skewed by both parties. The left wing pushes that Trump is a flop and the right wing asserts that he is a business leviathan. These massive differences in the perception of Trump, Inc. can be interpreted as a version of Bernstein’s corporate dissonance.

In essence, corporate dissonance is the difference between the way in which a business says that it runs and the way in which it actually runs. The ramifications of Trump’s businesses being in the red not only include his net profits being down, but his image as a candidate and as a mogul being diminished as well. This campaign may prove to be a detrimental move for Trump in regards to both politics and business alike, as he is down in both business development and the poles.