Encouraging People to Debase Themselves: How Trump Is Like Borat

By Michael Kelman Portney

Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat remains one of the most incisive pieces of satire ever produced, not just for its humor but for the way it exposes the dark underbelly of human behavior. Watching the infamous scene where Borat sings "Throw the Jew Down the Well" to a cheering crowd, I was struck by the unsettling resemblance to Donald Trump’s ability to give people permission to act in ways they might otherwise suppress. Both Borat and Trump create environments where social norms crumble and people feel free to unleash their basest instincts.

Let’s dive into how this phenomenon plays out in Borat and in Trump’s public performances, drawing clear connections between the two.

Borat’s Satirical Mirror

The genius of Borat lies in his ability to create a "safe space" for terrible behavior. In the scene where he sings "Throw the Jew Down the Well," the setup is simple but devastating: Borat, the clueless foreigner, performs an anti-Semitic folk song in a crowded bar. What starts as awkward laughter quickly escalates to patrons clapping along and even joining in the singing. The scene reveals how easily people will embrace prejudice when they feel it’s socially acceptable—or worse, expected.

This isn’t an isolated moment in Borat. Consider the gun shop scene, where Borat casually asks what gun is best for killing Jews, and the shopkeeper answers without hesitation. Or the rodeo scene, where Borat says he hopes "George Bush will drink the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq," and the crowd cheers, oblivious to the absurdity of the statement. In each case, Borat acts as a catalyst, creating an atmosphere where the unspoken ugliness of his surroundings rises to the surface. His provocations reveal that the real punchline isn’t him—it’s the people around him.

Trump’s Rhetorical Permission

Trump, unlike Borat, is not playing a character. But he employs a similar strategy of creating environments where people feel emboldened to act on their worst impulses. At his rallies, he lowers the bar for decorum with inflammatory rhetoric, opening the floodgates for others to follow suit. When he referred to Mexican immigrants as "rapists," the effect wasn’t just to express his own views—it was to give a signal that such views were acceptable. The crowd’s cheers mirrored the bar patrons clapping along to Borat’s hateful song.

The dynamic becomes even clearer when Trump encourages violence. During his 2016 campaign, he infamously told rally-goers, "If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?" or when he suggested that his supporters might not act "politically correct" when dealing with protestors. Like Borat, he creates a space where the norms of civility and restraint are suspended.

The Dangerous Connection

The key similarity between Borat and Trump is their ability to shift responsibility. Neither directly tells people to be awful—they simply create an environment where people feel like it’s okay. Borat achieves this through satire, playing the fool to see who will follow him into the abyss. Trump does it through rhetoric, by presenting himself as the unfiltered voice of a frustrated populace and letting his followers fill in the gaps.

Both also rely on plausible deniability. Borat can claim he’s just a character, and his fans laugh it off as “just a joke.” Trump does the same with his off-the-cuff comments: when called out, he often insists he was joking or that his remarks were taken out of context. This deniability creates a feedback loop where the audience feels empowered to act out, knowing the instigator will never take the blame.

Why It Matters

The difference, of course, is intent. Borat’s goal is to shine a spotlight on societal rot, to make us confront our complicity in prejudice and ignorance. Trump’s goal, whether calculated or instinctual, is to harness that rot for political and personal gain. The results, however, are similar: both lower the threshold for acceptable behavior, creating spaces where people feel free—or even encouraged—to express their worst selves.

The challenge for society is recognizing when we are being handed a license to be awful and refusing to take it. Borat’s satire can serve as a tool for self-reflection, but Trump’s rhetoric shows how easily that same mechanism can be weaponized for division and harm.

Both serve as stark reminders: the ugliness is already there, waiting for someone to open the floodgates. Whether we laugh or cheer is entirely up to us.

Michael Kelman Portney is a philosopher, satirist, and critic of societal norms. You can find more of his work at misinformationsucks.com.