By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Corporate consolidation is leading to newsroom closures and a weakening of the free press. The traditional media model is no longer sustainable, making reader support crucial for outlets like HuffPost. Therefore, the article urges readers to become members to ensure the survival of independent journalism.
Read the original article here
The utterance, “How the fuck is this guy our president?”, attributed to Jon Stewart, perfectly encapsulates a sentiment that resonates with a significant portion of the population. It’s a question born from sheer bewilderment, a visceral reaction to a reality that seems to defy logic and expectation. This particular moment, sparked by a bizarre observation Donald Trump made after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, highlights the persistent disconnect between the perceived absurdity of certain political pronouncements and the very real position of power occupied by the speaker.
Trump’s comment about Xi Jinping being “tall, very tall. Especially for this country, ’cause they tend to be a little bit shorter,” was met with a prolonged silence from Stewart, a notable pause that spoke volumes. This wasn’t just a moment of hesitation; it was an almost physical manifestation of disbelief, a testament to the sheer outlandishness of the statement. It’s the kind of remark that makes you question your own sanity, let alone the sanity of the electoral process.
When Stewart finally broke his silence, his expletive-laden question, “What the fuck are you talking about?”, was not just a personal outburst but a collective cry from many who have grappled with similar feelings of cognitive dissonance. The follow-up, “You might be watching this and wondering: How the fuck is this guy our president?!?”, directly addressed the audience, acknowledging their shared incredulity. It’s a sentiment that has become a daily, if not hourly, refrain for many, a constant hum of bewilderment in the background of political discourse.
Stewart then pivoted, suggesting that perhaps the time for exasperation was over, and instead, it was time to learn from Trump’s rise. This shift, while delivered with his signature sarcastic wit, was a profound observation. He sarcastically proposed that instead of honesty and hard work, aspiring individuals should adopt a strategy of being “cocky and super fucking weird,” employing outright lies and insults to achieve their goals. This critique, framed as mock lessons for college graduates, underscored the perceived deviation from conventional paths to success.
The sheer disbelief that this approach could lead to the presidency, and Stewart’s own status on basic cable versus Trump’s position, further fueled the sense of profound disconnect. The question of “how” Trump ascended to the highest office is a perennial one, with many pointing to the gradual decline of discourse, the rise of reality television, and shows like “The Apprentice” as foundational elements in building his popularity. The idea that some genuinely believe he’s been orchestrating elaborate, long-term strategies – “4D chess” – speaks to a certain kind of fervent belief, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The nature of the American electorate itself is often cited as the answer to the persistent “how” question. The notion that Americans voted for Trump, with some individuals casting their ballot for him multiple times, is a stark reality that many struggle to reconcile with their own values and expectations of leadership. The debate over whether to label certain supporters as “fascists” reflects the intensity of this struggle, a search for terminology that can adequately capture the perceived threat to democratic norms.
There’s also the accusation that figures like Stewart, by not unequivocally warning of the dire consequences of a Trump presidency, inadvertently fostered apathy. The argument is that insisting “the world isn’t going to end” can, paradoxically, lull voters into a false sense of security. This perspective suggests that a lack of consistent, urgent opposition can contribute to the very outcomes one fears.
Some observers express a deep disillusionment with the prevailing forms of protest, lamenting that the response often seems limited to clever memes and jokes. The question arises whether the administration is effectively immune to the law, leading to a dismantling of democracy and a replacement by self-serving grifters. The intricate web of personal gain, the influence of figures like Roy Cohn, and a devoted, often misinformed, following are presented as the mechanisms that enable this system to function. The statistic of millions voting for him, or deciding not to vote against him, despite accusations of treason, rape, and other serious offenses, is a chilling indictment for some.
The idea that Trump is merely a frontman, a “king” told he is, for a more powerful, unseen force, is also floated. This suggests that Congress has been intimidated not by Trump himself, but by the financial entities that back him. The subtle, almost childlike imitation of perceived foreign mannerisms, a tactic some attribute to Trump, is contrasted with the more fundamental question of his actions, such as firing inspectors general, which Stewart himself is accused of downplaying at the time.
The blunt assessment that millions of voters were simply “stupid and bigoted” is a harsh but frequently expressed sentiment. Others feel that Stewart himself contributed to Trump’s success by joining the media narrative that questioned Joe Biden’s fitness for office. This perspective suggests a deliberate orchestration, with Trump serving as a convenient figurehead for a larger takeover. The idea that “clowns get elected even when the people don’t want them” points to corruption, specific ideological blocs like anti-abortionists and evangelicals, and a general lack of civic engagement as contributing factors.
The call for direct action, for people to show up in Washington D.C. and demand change, highlights a frustration with passive forms of dissent. The argument that the inability to afford to travel to D.C. is a greater risk than the cost of not doing so underscores the urgency felt by some. The juxtaposition of Stewart’s position on cable news with the possibility of his own presidency is a recurring theme, suggesting that the qualities of intelligence, wit, and a deep understanding of the system should be at the helm, particularly from individuals who might not actively seek power.
The explanation for Trump’s success is often simplified to the presence of “stupid people in this country, and well…stupid people vote.” Yet, paradoxically, some claim Trump has inadvertently taught them to be better humans by serving as a direct antithesis to his character. The concept of consequences simply ceasing to apply to those in power is seen as a more damaging force than any individual speech or headline, eroding trust at a fundamental level.
The enabling role of Republican representatives is also highlighted as equally culpable, with the electorate having “chosen him to be their rightful leader, TWICE!!” The idea that America has become a circus, and its people get what they deserve, is a cynical but prevalent view. For some, Stewart’s continued expression of shock, years into this political landscape, signals a detachment from the underlying realities. His focus, it is argued, is not on understanding but on generating outrage for his audience.
The observation that the rest of the world has “figured it out” – that Trump was indeed elected by the American people – serves as a stark reminder to those still questioning the “how.” The notion that a leader can “do anything and get away with it,” from money laundering to inciting a mob to overthrow the government, points to a perceived impunity. The underlying motivation for this support, for some, is the hope for a white Christian ethno-state, a dream they believe Trump can fulfill because he will “get away with it.”
The frustration with intrusive advertisements on media sites, hindering access to information, is a minor but relatable complaint within the broader context of information consumption. The recurring question, even from non-Americans, about how such individuals can achieve success and fame, speaks to a universal human bewilderment at perceived irrationality in the political sphere. Stewart’s impact on people’s moral compasses is acknowledged, but the idea that he, too, may have played a part in the current situation is also present. The blunt assessment of a “half your nation has an intelligence issue” is a stark, if not entirely constructive, conclusion drawn by some.
Finally, the comparison to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” where the President is a figurehead chosen for “finely judged outrage” rather than leadership, offers a satirical, yet perhaps prescient, lens through which to view the modern political landscape, especially in the context of the “bonkers Trump moment” that left Jon Stewart, and many others, utterly stunned.