By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Jon Stewart argues that the media misinterprets Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks, overlooking their intended purpose: dismantling government agencies. Trump’s nominees, like Linda McMahon at the Department of Education, are not chosen for their administrative skills but rather for their willingness to dismantle their respective departments. This strategy aligns with Trump’s stated goals and reflects a broader desire, echoed by some Democratic voters, for government reform and increased responsiveness. Stewart ultimately blames the Democrats’ failure to reform bureaucratic inefficiencies for creating this environment.
Read the original article here
Jon Stewart knows why Donald Trump picks the worst people for his cabinet, and it’s not because of incompetence alone. It’s a deliberate strategy to dismantle government agencies and consolidate power. This isn’t about finding the most qualified individuals; it’s about selecting people who will readily disrupt established norms and willingly support Trump’s agenda, regardless of their expertise or experience.
This calculated choice of loyalists, often figures known for their controversial views, allows Trump to maintain tight control over his administration. It also serves to distract the public, keeping the focus firmly on the drama unfolding within his administration rather than on any potential policy failures.
The strategy is undeniably effective at garnering media attention, something Trump has always mastered. The constant headlines surrounding his unconventional choices serve as a diversion, obscuring potentially damaging revelations and keeping the narrative firmly under his control.
Beyond loyalty and media manipulation, there’s a significant financial element to this strategy. The appointments are often seen as paving the way for the privatization of public institutions. By choosing individuals who favor dismantling government programs, Trump opens the door for his allies and wealthy friends to profit handsomely from the ensuing chaos.
This isn’t simply about replacing competent officials with unqualified ones; it’s a calculated move toward dismantling governmental oversight, creating opportunities for privatization and ultimately, personal enrichment. The process might involve reducing funding for various agencies, creating an environment ripe for private sector takeover by Trump’s associates.
Consider the past, where an anti-public school advocate headed the Department of Education and an oil executive ran the Environmental Protection Agency. These were not accidental appointments; they were strategically chosen figures who reflect Trump’s priorities and objectives. Think of it as a calculated demolition of established structures to build a new, more lucrative system.
This plan also aims to decrease public trust in government. By appointing people who perform poorly or who actively undermine their respective agencies, Trump fuels a narrative that government is inherently ineffective. This fuels a justification for his administration’s actions and ultimately allows him to further consolidate power under the guise of “fixing” a broken system.
Furthermore, this approach speaks volumes to Trump’s base. His voters are likely to interpret the ensuing dysfunction as evidence of the government’s failures, unknowingly playing into Trump’s grand design. This effectively creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the chaos itself becomes a testament to the need for his leadership.
The end goal is not merely to weaken or even destroy specific agencies, but to undermine the very fabric of the federal government itself. This creates a power vacuum that Trump and his network of billionaires can readily exploit for personal gain.
This tactic is not without precedent. History is replete with examples of leaders employing similar strategies to consolidate power and enrich themselves at the expense of their nations. Trump is not unique in his approach; he is simply another chapter in a disturbingly familiar playbook.
The long-term consequences are potentially catastrophic, with a weakened federal government struggling to provide essential services. This scenario could lead to a drastic widening of the gap between affluent and poor states, leaving some regions to resemble third-world countries.
In conclusion, Jon Stewart’s observations highlight the strategic brilliance — or perhaps the terrifying effectiveness — of Trump’s cabinet selections. This isn’t about simple incompetence or bad judgment, but a calculated dismantling of democratic institutions aimed at consolidating power and enriching a select few, leaving the nation vulnerable and the majority of its citizens far worse off. It’s a calculated move, and one that bears serious consideration.