By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump family’s extensive monetization of the presidency far surpasses that of any previous administration, accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars through various ventures including cryptocurrency deals and overseas real estate transactions. This unprecedented level of personal enrichment, including a reported $28 million payment to Melania Trump for a promotional film, contrasts sharply with past scandals like the one involving Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures, which received significantly more public attention and scrutiny. The lack of widespread outrage or formal investigations is attributed to several factors including the President’s dismantling of accountability mechanisms and a potential shift in public tolerance for such actions. Experts suggest that either the public never cared about such ethical breaches or is now overwhelmed and desensitized, while some recent polls reveal growing public concern.
Read the original article here
The Trumps are monetizing the presidency in unprecedented ways, yet a significant portion of the public seems strangely unconcerned. This isn’t a new phenomenon; the blatant disregard for ethical boundaries has been escalating, yet the outrage feels muted, even absent in mainstream narratives.
The scale of this monetization is breathtaking. Consider the stark contrast between the relatively minor controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures investment decades ago and the multi-million dollar deal Melania Trump secured for a promotional film, funded by an Amazon executive with a clear vested interest in her husband’s administration. The lack of widespread outrage in the latter instance is striking.
This isn’t just about individual transactions; it’s about a systemic pattern of leveraging the presidency for personal financial gain. Instances like Donald Trump openly promoting cryptocurrencies while using the presidential seal at his private club highlight the brazen nature of this activity. Such actions, ostensibly official acts given the context, highlight the lack of accountability.
It’s a deeply troubling reality: the very institutions designed to uphold the rule of law and maintain ethical standards seem powerless, or perhaps unwilling, to act. Supreme Court decisions seemingly condoning certain actions further embolden the belief that such practices are permissible, or at least, unpunishable.
The lack of significant outrage, however, isn’t simply a failure of the public conscience. It’s a complex issue fueled by several factors. The media, particularly those outlets controlled by billionaires, are complicit in downplaying or ignoring the story. This isn’t surprising; suppressing negative news ensures they continue benefiting from the ongoing corruption, keeping their own share of the pie intact.
Further, decades of political corruption have normalized the unacceptable. The application of the law has been demonstrably uneven, benefiting the wealthiest and most powerful while harshly punishing those with fewer resources. This ingrained inequality makes blatant displays of wealth and power feel almost expected, even commonplace.
Political polarization further exacerbates the issue. On one side, the reality of the situation is readily apparent and alarming. On the other, denial, deflection and a willful blindness dominate public perception. The Trump base seems largely immune to any concerns of potential corruption. The idea that it’s just “libs looking for something to complain about” is a common refrain, while any criticism is dismissed as partisan attacks.
The mainstream media’s failure to adequately address this also contributes significantly to the lack of public outcry. They have a track record of aggressively pursuing perceived indiscretions by opposing figures, yet often appear strangely silent when faced with undeniable evidence of malfeasance by others.
Beyond political affiliations, the sheer volume of scandalous activity can also cause a kind of “outrage fatigue.” The constant stream of corruption, often barely acknowledged by institutions, numbs the public’s response, making it difficult to generate sustained, meaningful outrage. It becomes easier to simply accept things as they are.
This isn’t to say outrage is entirely absent. Many individuals and groups are actively voicing their concerns, but their voices are often drowned out by the broader indifference and the deliberate silence of powerful entities. What is missing is collective, organized action and consistent, fearless reporting from investigative journalists capable of piercing the fog of misinformation and apathy.
Ultimately, the question of “where is the outrage?” isn’t about the lack of feeling among those who understand the gravity of the situation. The more pressing question is, “Where is the courage to act?” The challenge isn’t just about sparking outrage; it’s about overcoming the systemic issues that allow such blatant abuses of power to occur with such little visible consequence. Without that, we’re simply destined to endure a continuation of this insidious pattern of monetization.