By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump’s cabinet selections notably prioritize individuals with television and entertainment backgrounds, a departure from traditional government appointments. This includes prominent figures from Fox News such as Pete Hegseth (Defense Secretary), and others from various media platforms. Several nominees, including Dr. Mehmet Oz and Mike Huckabee, bring unconventional experience to key roles overseeing health and foreign policy, respectively. This trend contrasts sharply with President Biden’s focus on cabinet diversity, highlighting a significant difference in leadership approaches.
Read the original article here
Trump’s picks don’t look like America. They look exactly like Fox News. It’s a striking observation, one that highlights a disturbing trend in political appointments. The individuals selected seem to have emerged directly from the television screen, embodying the very image and rhetoric promoted by the network. This isn’t a matter of mere coincidence; it reflects a calculated strategy.
Trump’s appointments weren’t drawn from a diverse pool reflecting the nation’s multifaceted demographics. Instead, the selection process appeared heavily influenced by a particular media landscape – one dominated by a specific ideological viewpoint and presentation style. This raises concerns about representation and the potential for bias.
The argument isn’t simply about visual similarities. It’s about the alignment of ideology, rhetoric, and overall approach to governance. The chosen individuals often echoed the talking points and narratives commonly presented on Fox News, reinforcing a partisan agenda. This lack of diversity in perspective is concerning in a government designed to represent all citizens.
The observation that “they literally *are* Fox ‘News'” points to a deeper issue: the blurring lines between entertainment, news, and political decision-making. The reliance on a single media source for shaping political appointments underscores a troubling level of influence, one that prioritizes loyalty over expertise or broader representation.
The statement, “I saw it on television,” attributed to Trump, encapsulates this phenomenon perfectly. It suggests a decision-making process driven by media consumption rather than a comprehensive evaluation of candidates based on qualifications and experience. The reliance on television as the primary source of information for such critical choices raises serious questions about governance.
The comparison to Trump’s previous television show is also telling. The transition from a seemingly legitimate production to a more sensationalized, celebrity-driven format mirrors the evolution of his political career and his apparent choice of advisors. This parallel suggests a pattern of prioritizing spectacle and loyalty over substance and expertise.
The comment about Trump’s cabinet looking like “the America that voted for them” is complex. It suggests that the choices made reflect the electorate’s preferences, yet acknowledges the significant disparities in wealth, privilege, and power between the appointees and the average American. This raises questions about the extent to which the electorate’s preferences actually align with the selected individuals’ backgrounds and experiences.
The claim that Trump “sold exactly what they wanted to see and then switched the product after he won” underscores the perception of a deliberate manipulation of public expectations. This implies that the initial appeal relied on promises and representations that were ultimately unfulfilled, and that the subsequent choices reflected a different set of priorities. This points towards a disconnect between campaign promises and post-election actions.
Describing Trump as America’s “anal sphincter” is a provocative metaphor, but it touches upon the idea of control and limited representation. It suggests a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, with the broader population having limited influence. The metaphor evokes feelings of powerlessness and frustration.
The argument that Fox News keeps conservative minds “in perpetual darkness” is a powerful statement about the role of media in shaping political ideology and perceptions. It highlights the potential for misinformation and the manipulation of public opinion. It suggests a manufactured reality that isolates viewers from alternative viewpoints and critical analysis.
The statement that “Vote for a dickhead, get a dickhead cabinet” is a blunt but effective summary of the perceived consequences of voting patterns. It emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making and the need to consider a candidate’s potential choices and policies, beyond mere slogans or personality.
The observation that Trump’s picks “look a lot more like the kind of deep state Trump’s warned us about” is ironic. It suggests a failure to recognize the actual nature of power structures and the self-serving actions that may undermine promises of transparency. This highlights the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
The conclusion that Trump “literally just picking people that he’s seen saying nice things about him on the television” is a stark indictment of the appointment process. It paints a picture of shallow assessments and a lack of rigorous evaluation based on merit, expertise, or suitability for the role. It exposes a potentially problematic basis for governmental appointments.
The final point underscores the fact that this pattern of appointments reflects not just the choices of one individual but also the preferences and choices of a significant portion of the electorate. This highlights the role of the voting public in shaping the political landscape and the potential consequences of uninformed or biased choices.