Jocko Trumpo


Or should it be Jocko Drumpfo? Either way, Matt Taibbi makes a good case: the party that foisted Junior on us — for eight very long years — doesn’t have much of a case when it comes to The Donald…is there really any difference between a free range clod and one that’s totally bought and safely owned? Well…only in how the spoils get distributed.

The Roves of the world used Bush’s simplicity to win the White House. Once they got there, they used the levers of power to pillage and scheme like every other gang of rapacious politicians ever. But the plan was never to make ignorance a political principle. It was just a ruse to win office.

Now the situation is the opposite. Now GOP insiders are frantic at the prospect of an uncultured ignoramus winning the presidency. A group of major donors and GOP strategists even wrote out a memo outlining why a super PAC dedicated to stopping Trump was needed…

Washington is freaking out about Trump in a way they never did about Bush. Why? Because Bush was their moron, while Trump is his own moron. That’s really what it comes down to.




2 thoughts on “Jocko Trumpo

  1. I think Taibbi’s assessment of the situation with Trump is wrong only in his dependency on Bush as the preceding example that set up the nation’s mouthbreathers for Trump. Taibbi ignores (perhaps judiciously) the fact that Reagan was the first real dolt we’ve had in the White House in modern times. Sure, Reagan had some strongly-held convictions (unlike the younger Bush), but those convictions were often rooted in hearsay, mythology, prejudice and willing–if not eager–misapprehension of fact. He was, in fact, one of the most gullible people to ever occupy the office.

    Bush’s public persona was just as much a construction as was Reagan’s–the “ranch” in Crawford was the analogue of Reagan’s “ranch” in Santa Barbara, right down to the chainsawing brush while on “vacation” (hell, they were both perpetually out to lunch). What Bush could not do (and Reagan could) was hit his marks and deliver his lines with a simulacrum of authenticity, and, of necessity, that was propagandized as a working-class sensibility, of which Bush actually had none at all.

    Reagan was the first of those near-miraculous con jobs put over on the public, and it worked so well that it was done again with Bush–and by the same group of neoconservatives.

    Other than that, yeah, Taibbi’s right that the public has been set up to accept yet another glib moron as “authentic,” but, this time, the neoconservatives aren’t pulling the strings. (This may be why there’s been so much talk about getting young Marco Rubiocon to step up his game–he’s the malleable moron left in the race.)

  2. I agree with you that Reagan was the first dolt…but maybe Bush Junior was the first dolt to really emphasize or even take a perverse pride in being ignorant. If I remember, Reagan could be just as much of an asshole at times…and his foreign policy was criminal…but he never reveled in being stupid. On the other hand, the run up to war in 2003…sure, he wasn’t in the government, but I’ll always remember idiot Jonah Goldberg’s “give war a chance” position, and Michael Ledeen’s “every ten years throw a crappy country against the wall” bullshit. I think the best Reagan could offer in contrast was a return of the old guard…not that they’d ever really gone away…but they were able to paint the 70s and Jimmy Carter as a case of…oh, was it the Rand Corporation that accidentally released a report about curbing the “democratic excesses” of the public? By the time Bush came around, there was an entire generation that swallowed, hook, line, sinker…rod and reel…the rhetorical nonsense of supply side. Hell, they still believe it, and are willing to go along with a huckster like Trump…though also being able to get in touch with their inner hatred and bigotry also explains more than a bit of The Donald’s popularity…

Comments are closed.