This morning on “This Week,” ABC News’ George Will called Donald Trump a ”bloviating ignoramus,” questioning why presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is associating with the real estate mogul, who once again falsely questioned President Obama’s birthplace this week.It doesn’t matter who says it as long as it gets said, although it sounds funny coming from a staunch supporter of the Citizens United decision. This country has always been Valhalla for wealthy mediocrities. Save for a few sparkling exceptions, people who have more money than brains have been setting the American agenda since John Quincy Adams died. Romney himself is redundant evidence that a high enough net worth, absent any other virtues, is enough to let you intrude into American politics.
“I do not understand the cost benefit here,” Will said on the “This Week” roundtable. “The costs are clear. The benefit — what voter is gonna vote for him (Romney) because he is seen with Donald Trump? The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me.”
“Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low, and you can still intrude into American politics,” he continued. “But, again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?”
Romney is seeking the support of a second-rate rich man because he, too, is a second-rate rich man. They’re from the same tribe. They have the cut of each other’s jib. It’s a case of like seeking like, a collusion of dull minds for transient political gain. Besides, it’s embarrassingly clear that Romney would eat the peanuts out of a circus elephant’s shit if he thought it would help him in November. That’s sort of what he’s doing anyway, isn’t it?
The Donald is a coarser, crasser, non-Mormon version of Mitt. Strip them down to their essentials and they’re practically brothers: rich, assertive ego-maniacs who think they’re entitled to anything they want precisely because they are rich, assertive ego-maniacs.
If it wasn’t for their rich daddies, they’d probably be middle managers in some faceless corporate hive. Mitt would probably be able to rise, but the Donald’s boorishness would keep him permanently locked out of all the top slots. He is, after all, a bloviating ignoramus. He’s the kind of domineering lout who would browbeat his subordinates but suck up to his bosses, whom he would accost in the elevators with loud suggestions about how to do things better. They would politely pretend to listen, ignore every word he said, and then slip away at the first opportunity for a tactful escape. He’d get drunk at office parties and paw at the women. His hair would be all wrong. He’d find himself being mysteriously thwarted in all of his attempts at advancement, and his inflated self-regard would blind him to the fact that it was deliberate strategy on the part of his superiors and that it was quite personal.
(An English commenter to the above article says that Trump is common slang for fart in the UK. I think we should spread that around in America. Trump is an excellent synonym for fart.)
What political benefit does Mitt gain from Trump? The Donald is going to be Mitt’s proxy for keeping the birther issue alive. This will help keep the wingnuts in tow while giving cover to Romney. He can disclaim any responsibility for it but still reap the benefits, however marginal they are. There are other con$ideration$, of cour$e.