Why Trump is not the only con man

The Donald might be a con man, but with many politicians having over promised and under delivered, it's less surprising voters don't seem to care.

David Becker/Reuters
Republican presidential candidates (left to right) Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida, Dr. Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas stand onstage together during the singing of the United States national anthem the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, Dec., 2015.

Let’s posit that Donald Trump is a con man.

Most Trump voters probably know that and don’t really care that much.

They look at all politicians and they think that they are all con men.

How many Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well that they didn’t have the votes to override a Presidential veto?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas, Mr. Trump’s chief rival, is probably the biggest con man out there.

His big con is that he is an outsider. I love when those Princeton/Harvard guys pretend to be Joe Schmo from down the street.

Senator Cruz conned the American people into believing he had a plan to get President Obama to build a repeal of Obamacare and then pay for it, not that dissimilar to Trump’s promise to build a wall on the Mexican border and get the Mexican government to pay for it.

Only a few people actually fell for the Cruz con, but it was enough to force a government shutdown for weeks on end.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida’s challenge in making an issue of Trump’s insincerity as a candidate is to make the case that Trump’s con is any way more substantial than the typical con job played by the typical politician.

And that won’t be easy.

The brilliance of the Trump con is that he is so completely obvious in his insincerity that it seems like he is letting the American people in on his con. He is taking us all for a ride.

Trump made a lot of money in the world of reality television. Like “The Apprentice,” the Donald’s campaign has a reality show feel to it. It’s not actual reality but it sure seems like it.

We live in a reality television world. Reality shows document all aspects of the American society, from hoarders to real dirty jobs to white trash Honey boo-boos to Christian evangelicals to basketball wives to house flippers to the wives of Mobsters to basketball wives to the Kardashians.

All of these shows promise to reveal some aspect of “reality,” but by their very nature, they automatically distort that reality by the process of documenting it.

Donald Trump has captured this zeitgeist perfectly. His campaign has all of the aspects of a real Presidential campaign, but it is built on fraudulent platform.

Trump can’t be a real candidate, because he doesn’t actually know anything. He can’t be a real candidate because a real candidate actually puts forward real ideas, real policies and real proposals.

The brilliance of the Trump campaign is that he doesn’t bother with any substance. His skin deep approach to world of governance hits a bulk of the American people where they currently reside, in a format more fit for a 30 minute Bravo television show.

Had the political class been more honest with the American people about their promises and been more realistic in their proposals, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this position.

My old boss, Denny Hastert, believed firmly in the principle of under-promising and over-delivering.

Donald Trump makes bold promises with no intention of following through on them. But how is that different from some of the other promises made by our political leaders of late?

John Feehery publishes his Feehery Theory blog at http://www.thefeeherytheory.com/.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.