PRAGMATIC ISSUES

A Day in American Absurdity

Americans debated policy one upon a time. Now we debate whether the The White House is workshopping monarchy branding for Donald Trump.

Headlines once competed for credibility.

Now they seem to compete for how quickly they can make you check if you accidentally opened a satire site.

Let’s start with the The White House apparently flirting with the idea of referring to Donald Trump as a “king.”

A king.

Not a president.

Not a leader.

Not even a “strongman,” which at least carries some geopolitical weight.

No, just king.

The kind of title usually reserved for countries America fought wars to avoid resembling.

But maybe it’s fitting. Because what follows feels less like governance and more like a court drama where loyalty matters more than competence and optics matter more than outcomes.

This is the kind of language you test when you want to see just how far people will go before they stop pretending this is all normal. Spoiler Alert, we’re still pretending, because nothing says “healthy republic” like casually floating royal titles in a country that was literally built to reject them.

And just when you think the branding exercise couldn’t get more on-the-nose, we’re treated to the idea of putting Trump’s face on U.S. passports.

At this point, why stop there?

Currency.

Courthouses.

Maybe carve it into the Rockies while we’re at it, why not just go full legacy mode here?

But if they really want public buy-in, here’s the honest play, they would use a photo of him asleep in a cabinet meeting or any meeting. We have so many to choose from, literally.

Not out of disrespect but rather, out of accuracy.

If we’re going to stamp one man’s image onto the identity of every American traveler, the least we can do is make sure it reflects the energy being brought to the job.

Nothing builds global confidence like handing over your passport and silently wondering if your country is being run or merely performed.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has decided the best way to respond to criticism is to lean harder into the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

It’s become the political equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” a catch-all diagnosis for anyone who dares to criticize, question, or even observe.

A term that started as a talking point has now matured into a full-blown institutional reflex:

Don’t answer the criticism diagnose the critic.

It’s efficient.

It’s lazy.

And it’s wildly revealing.

Because here’s where it gets uncomfortable and not a single soul invoking it wants to answer:

If questioning power equals “derangement,”
what do you call blind loyalty to it? Yes try looking into a mirror once in a while.

At some point, the label stops describing opponents and starts exposing the environment it thrives in, one where dissent is framed as dysfunction and devotion is mistaken for stability.

And let’s not ignore the irony here, the same ecosystem pushing “derangement” rhetoric is also entertaining the idea of placing a single leader’s face on national documents like a monarch’s seal.

That’s not patriotism.

That’s packaging.

Then, right on cue, Jimmy Kimmel steps in and does what Washington increasingly refuses to do, he says the quiet part out loud.

After Melania Trump made comments about curbing violent rhetoric, Kimmel suggested that perhaps that effort should begin with her husband.

Kimmel, has the timing of someone who understands irony better than most in Washington. And to be fair, it’s a brutal observation, but not an unfounded one.

What Kimmel said landed because it’s obvious.

Calling for toned-down rhetoric while orbiting one of the most combative communicators in modern politics isn’t hypocrisy it’s just performance at this point.

It’s the political equivalent of asking for calm while holding the microphone at a screaming match.

This Isn’t Left vs. Right Anymore

This is something else entirely.

This is:

• Elevating individuals above institutions
• Rebranding criticism as mental instability
• Turning governance into spectacle
• Testing how far narrative can stretch before reality snaps

And the answer, so far, is, pretty far.

Because Americans aren’t just consuming politics anymore, we’re enduring it. Watching headlines stack up like punchlines in a joke no one remembers writing.

The Real Question

Not whether any single headline is true, exaggerated, or spun.

But how many of them it takes before people stop laughing with the absurdity and start recognizing they’re living inside it.

Because when:

• leaders are floated as kings
• their faces are proposed for national identity documents
• criticism is labeled a disorder
• Something more troubling comes out of the politics of Trump as everyone well knows by now, reports that someone tried to assassinate Trump is met with laughter, no one cared nor did they take it seriously, many claimed it was staged.
• and comedians are left to connect the dots

…the issue isn’t messaging anymore.

It’s direction.

And right now, the direction feels less like a democracy correcting course and more like a country seeing how far it can drift before anyone seriously tries to steer.

Trump and his administration and his wife now apparently love to stir the pot, then act surprised when the rest of the world watches with raised eyebrows and lowered expectations.