By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Musician Jack White criticized the Trump administration’s opulent redesign of the Oval Office on Instagram, calling it “vulgar” and comparing it to a “professional wrestler’s dressing room.” In response, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed White as a “washed up, has-been loser” and criticized his lack of appreciation for the office’s significance. This spat is the latest in a series of anti-Trump statements from White. The Oval Office’s new look features gold accents and other opulent additions mirroring the decor of Trump’s Florida resort, a design choice Trump himself proudly boasts.
Read the original article here
White House Rages at Rocker Who Dissed Trump’s ‘Vulgar’ Oval Office
The core of the matter here is that a rocker, Jack White, had some choice words about the décor of the Oval Office, calling it “vulgar.” This comment, unsurprisingly, ruffled some feathers within the White House. The response seems to have been a mix of outrage and defensiveness, which is not exactly surprising given the subject.
It appears that the criticism stung, as it was met with a flurry of counter-attacks. One of the primary responses seems to have been the age-old tactic of attempting to discredit the critic. Jack White was labeled a “washed-up, has-been loser,” which is a rather standard, albeit unoriginal, retort. This type of response doesn’t really engage with the substance of the criticism. Instead, it resorts to personal insults. The irony, of course, is that the very people accusing White of having “ample time on his hands” seem to spend a great deal of time on social media themselves, including the former President.
The core of the criticism was about the aesthetic choices in the Oval Office. The assessment was that the design was tacky and reflected a poor understanding of class, and many seemed to agree with this. This is in stark contrast to the supposed message of fiscal responsibility preached by the “fuck your feelings” crowd. The comments further stated that there are hard working American families struggling to feed their children, and yet the focus is on adding more gold to a private office. The decor was compared to a “Persian sauna,” and the entire office was predicted to become gilded before things are “finished”.
The underlying sentiment expressed is one of disgust at the display of wealth, particularly when it appears to be in such bad taste. Furthermore, there are some who suggest that the focus on opulent displays is distracting from more serious matters, such as addressing the needs of struggling Americans. These comments strongly suggest that the issue goes beyond mere aesthetics. It seems the real issue is one of priorities and values.
It’s worth noting that the comments don’t just focus on the surface-level appearance of the Oval Office, they dive into darker accusations about the former President. These are serious allegations, that paint a far more troubling picture. The fact that these accusations were made in the context of a discussion about décor underscores the deep-seated animosity towards the former President and his actions.
Furthermore, the reactions to the criticism are seen as highly hypocritical. Some are pointing out the seeming contrast between the government’s rhetoric about cutting government expenses and the alleged former President’s ostentatious spending on personal space. The idea is that, if someone is all about “fiscal responsibility,” they are likely not spending much on unnecessary aesthetics.
One interesting point is the perception of the reaction as a sign of sensitivity. The comments suggest that the White House response has been overblown and emotional, echoing the old adage, “the lady doth protest too much.” Some feel that the response is more befitting of a “fifth grader with wounded feelings” than of a leader.
Jack White himself seems to have struck a chord with his comments. He has a history of political statements and opinions, including a shirt with “ICKY TRUMP” on the front. His critique of the Oval Office décor is viewed by some as a confirmation of what many people are thinking, but are afraid to say. The “fuck your feelings” crowd, as it’s called, has proven to be sensitive.
In short, the White House’s reaction to Jack White’s criticism of the Oval Office has been seen as an overreaction. Some people believe the criticism was spot on, and the reaction only validates the point. The focus on gaudy aesthetics is perceived as symptomatic of a deeper problem, particularly in light of more pressing issues. It is a clash of values, and the response, by some, is a perfect example of being “thin-skinned”.