By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst a global stock market downturn triggered by President Trump’s tariffs, Fox News host Laura Ingraham urged viewers to disregard negative reports, asserting that Trump’s economic policies, though causing significant market volatility, ultimately benefit the U.S. economy. She cited positive comments from Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon and downplayed the market’s recent plummet as a temporary “transition.” However, a CNN/SSRS poll revealed that 56% of Americans disapprove of the president’s economic handling, highlighting a stark contrast in public opinion. This economic uncertainty follows retaliatory tariffs from the EU and Canada in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs.
Read the original article here
Laura Ingraham’s recent exhortation to Fox News viewers to disregard the current stock market downturn is a striking example of how political commentary can overshadow economic realities. She directly urged viewers to ignore the evident market instability, framing it as inconsequential compared to the supposed overall positive economic impact of a specific former president’s policies. This assertion, presented with unwavering conviction, highlights a tendency to prioritize loyalty to a political figure over objective economic data.
The suggestion to simply ignore a significant economic event like a stock market meltdown is, at its core, a call to disregard readily available evidence. This approach disregards the very real financial anxieties many people are experiencing as their investments decline. It’s a strategy that prioritizes unwavering allegiance to a particular political narrative over the demonstrable impact of economic fluctuations on ordinary people’s lives.
Instead of acknowledging the potential anxieties and financial difficulties many viewers might be facing, the message subtly shifts the focus away from economic concerns. By emphasizing the long-term benefits – or at least, the claimed long-term benefits – of a particular political administration, the immediate economic reality is downplayed as a temporary inconvenience. This approach attempts to reframe personal financial anxieties as a secondary concern, dwarfed by the supposed larger vision of a politician’s overall success.
The assertion that a particular former president is inherently “good for business” is a broad claim that lacks concrete substantiation within the context of the present economic downturn. Such statements often lack the necessary nuance to address the complexity of economic factors. The implied argument is that the president’s policies, despite the current market volatility, will ultimately lead to improved economic conditions, regardless of any immediate negative impact.
However, this ignores the immediate hardship faced by those experiencing losses in their investments. The dismissal of these genuine concerns suggests a prioritization of a specific political narrative over the lived experiences of individuals and families directly affected by economic instability. In essence, it encourages a form of willful ignorance concerning personal economic realities.
This call to ignore the current economic climate directly contrasts with previous commentary from the same sources, which frequently highlighted positive stock market performance as a key indicator of success under previous leadership. This inconsistency underscores the often selective use of economic indicators to support pre-existing political narratives. The emphasis shifts depending on which narrative serves the political aims of the moment, highlighting a lack of consistent, objective economic analysis.
The recommendation itself might be perceived as a risky approach to financial decision-making. Ignoring significant financial indicators can lead to poor investment decisions and potentially exacerbate financial difficulties. The implicit suggestion to trust in political figures rather than professional financial advice is a departure from sound financial practice and potentially irresponsible.
Ultimately, the message to “ignore” the market meltdown represents a significant departure from responsible economic commentary. It prioritizes allegiance to a political figure over the financial well-being of viewers, reinforcing the potential dangers of accepting unsubstantiated claims in matters of personal finance. It implicitly advocates for a selective acceptance of reality based on political loyalties rather than a careful consideration of verifiable data and its potential consequences. Ignoring verifiable economic challenges in favor of unwavering political loyalty presents a risk to individuals’ financial security and underscores the potential for misinformation to impact personal decision-making.