By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s order to reopen Alcatraz as a maximum-security prison followed the airing of the film *Escape from Alcatraz* on his local television station. His subsequent social media posts and statements strongly suggest the movie influenced his decision, linking the prison to concepts of law and order. This decision, however, has been met with criticism from San Francisco officials who deem it nonsensical. Simultaneously, Trump announced a 100% tariff on foreign-made films, further highlighting the apparent connection between his media consumption and policy decisions.
Read the original article here
Trump’s penchant for seemingly pulling policy ideas directly from television shows has become a recurring theme, and his recent proposal to reopen Alcatraz is a prime example. The idea, clearly inspired by the movie *Escape from Alcatraz*, highlights a concerning pattern of policy-making driven by entertainment rather than informed analysis.
This isn’t an isolated incident; it seems Trump’s policy pronouncements are frequently influenced by whatever happens to be playing on his television screen. One could easily imagine future policy decisions stemming from the plotlines of shows like *Gomer Pyle*, *The Simpsons*, or even *Austin Powers*, leading to utterly unpredictable and potentially disastrous outcomes. The sheer randomness of it all is both alarming and darkly comical.
The implications are far-reaching. Imagine a foreign policy decision based on a misunderstanding of *Power Rangers*, or an economic policy inspired by a misunderstanding of *Gilligan’s Island*. The potential for chaos is staggering. The idea of a national security strategy based on *The A-Team*, or a defense against a moon-based attack inspired by *Mighty Morphin Power Rangers* is ludicrous, yet not entirely unbelievable given past precedent.
The lack of critical thinking is breathtaking. The suggested reopening of Alcatraz, aside from its logistical absurdity, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of prison security and rehabilitation. Trump’s comments about the supposed escapes and shark attacks further underscore this lack of understanding. The focus on sensational details rather than substantive analysis speaks volumes about his approach to policy.
This isn’t just about the Alcatraz idea; it reflects a broader issue of his reliance on superficial sources for policy inspiration. A tariff on raincoats, for instance, feels plucked from thin air, potentially stemming from some trivial observation, rather than any rational economic consideration.
The situation is exacerbated by Trump’s apparent obliviousness to the implications of his actions. He seems unfazed by the potential consequences of his proposals, treating governance as a reality TV show instead of a serious endeavor. The constant spectacle overshadows any sense of responsibility. The suggestion that low-flow shower heads were inspired by an episode of *Seinfeld* further underlines this pattern.
The concerns extend beyond the bizarre policy proposals. It raises the possibility that he is susceptible to manipulation through targeted programming. The notion that carefully selecting and showcasing certain films could potentially influence his policies is disconcerting. The fact that this idea is considered even vaguely plausible is telling.
The comparison to the movie *Idiocracy* is frequently made, and it’s increasingly hard to dismiss. The film’s satirical portrayal of a society decimated by declining intelligence seems to have become a disturbingly accurate prediction. The lack of critical engagement with reality makes this pattern genuinely frightening.
It all paints a picture of a leader whose decision-making process is profoundly flawed, heavily reliant on easily manipulated sources and devoid of proper assessment of consequences. This is not simply a matter of policy disagreements; it’s a matter of competence. It highlights a potential vulnerability in the highest levels of leadership, a vulnerability that could have severe ramifications for the nation and the world. The potential for policy decisions shaped by an episode of *Handmaid’s Tale* or *Backdoor Boyfriend* is profoundly unsettling, and the fact that his actions are harming others magnifies this concern.
Ultimately, Trump’s repeated reliance on television for policy inspiration is not a matter of humorous anecdotes; it’s a serious concern. The potential for erratic and ill-informed policy decisions poses a significant risk, and the lack of rational discourse only amplifies the problem. It’s a situation that deserves more than just amusement; it demands serious consideration and attention. The hope remains that there’s still time for correction.