Skip to main content

The Con Man and His Marks

We don’t need Trump’s tax records to know he’s a con man.

It's no secret that he’s a scam-artist, bamboozler, swindler, hustler, bunco artist, flimflam man.

All his life, he has cheated, duped, rooked, squeezed, milked, hoodwinked, bilked, and hornswoggled gullible marks all over the world. Some of them banks. Some of them governments.

The language of grift is almost as colorful as the language of money. Or sex. The number of synonyms for a word tends to be a leading indicator of our cultural fascination with the subject.

And our fascination with fraudulent behavior goes back centuries. How many grifters, embezzlers, and other reprehensible types have we turned into Hollywood heroes? How many handsome actors have talked old ladies out of their life savings?

Like all good con men, Trump puts on a beautiful presentation. He paints an enticing picture of a good life, a better life, a life you’d have made for yourself if only those other people hadn’t rigged everything against you. But now you’re in good hands. You’re with the best people. People like you.

The con man carefully cultivates your need to believe in him. Just listen to the confidence in that voice. You bask in that confidence. You know he can make all your problems go away. All you have to do is believe him. And just do him this one little favor.

This has worked for Trump all his life. Ask Michael Cohen. Ask Mary Trump. So why should he think it will be any different now?

Because it doesn’t just work on his base. It works on us.

He thinks he can smooth-talk his way out of this mess. And he might be right. He’s throwing up a mountain of bullshit, in hopes of paralyzing us, of freezing us into inaction, of convincing us not to vote in what he assures us is a futile cause.

When he says mail-in ballots will rig the election against him, we know it’s not true. We know he’s the one rigging the election. But since he’s completely out front about it, we just assume he can make it happen. We give him the benefit of so many doubts. We talk ourselves into buying what he’s selling.

Guess what that makes us? The mark.

We know we can’t believe anything he says. So why do we keep believing anything he says?

We have to remember that stealing an election isn’t the same thing as saying you’re stealing an election. One is a monumentally difficult thing to do. The other is a con man scamming a sucker.

If Trump could do even half the sinister things he talks about doing, he’d be doing them instead of talking about them. Yes, he’s a master grifter, but he’s incompetent at everything else. He’s not convincing as a dictator, a mob boss, or an evil genius. There is nothing in his past to indicate he has either the temperament or the management skills to pull off something as complex as an election theft. Of course, he’ll try. And he’ll talk the entire Republican party into going down that road with him. But that’s only because he has no choice.

The real problem is us. We bite every time. We cede him the narrative. Every time we respond to his lies, we play on his turf. We cringe. We go into a defensive crouch. We give him super-human powers. It’s as if we’re the ones ten points behind and staring at the wrong end of a wave election.

And yes, he’ll keep on coming. He’ll make the longest of longshots sound like sure things. He’ll convince us that the fix is in, that there’s no point in even trying. He’ll plant just enough doubt, that maybe we’ll think twice about our ballots.

Oh wait, he did that already. I’m already torn between mail-in and in-person. I’m not sure which is the safer activity. Or which is the safer vote. Or whether the postal service can be trusted. And I live in Michigan, where a confluence of shenanigans is likely.

My confidence in the voting process — a simple thing I’ve done all my life — has taken a hit.

I know he’s blowing smoke. I know I’m listening to a con man. I know he’s playing a really weak hand. Still, everything about this election has me on edge and cranky.

That’s how a good con works.

 


Comments

  1. When there is dog s
    hit on your shoe you scrape it off. You have to do it or you stink the place out. It isn't fun, but it must be done. That is what voting is this time around. Scrape that shit OFF!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I personally listen to none of it. I just helped lead a project in my little community, where we sent about 20,000 out of 15 million letters to unlikely democratic voters in swing states (mostly Michigan since that is my original home state) begging them to get out and vote. I believe it will be a landslide for the democrats. I believe in my country. The day dump was elected, I proposed “the great American Ignorathon”. I figured if we ignored him, he would go away. But even I have been caught in the drama.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling