March 15, 2017


News and Views


TRUMP TRUTH – TWO FACETIOUS ARTICLES BY ALEXANDRA PETRI, AND SEVERAL MORE SERIOUS ONES AS WELL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.60844b1d7621
ComPost Opinion
The true, correct story of what happened at Donald Trump’s inauguration
By Alexandra Petri January 24, 2017

VIDEO -- President Trump questioned media reports and photographs that showed the size of Inauguration Day crowds, speaking to CIA employees at CIA headquarters on Jan. 21 in Langley, Va. (The Washington Post)

I apologize to Donald Trump. As Sean Spicer so wisely said at his first news conference on Monday (It was the first. The one that happened on Saturday did not happen at all, and I recognize that!), it is unfair to be so mean and negative all the time.

Here is the fair and unbiased story about the inauguration written in compliance with the Trump style guidelines that we should have been obeying all along.

Nothing that has ever happened or will ever happen was as great as Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The crowd was magnificent and huge, bigger than any crowd had ever been before! It stretched all the way to the moon. The Pope, who was there, confirmed it.

“Thanks for being here, Pope,” Donald Trump told him.

“Are you kidding? You’re my best friend,” the Pope said. “I wouldn’t miss your big day for anything!” He gave Donald Trump a big high-five.

[Did you attend the inauguration or a protest? Tell us what you plan to do next.]

Everyone in the world had come there at great expense. They sold all their possessions — their homes, their “Hamilton” tickets, which were worthless to them — to raise money to come and see this great sight. They could not believe that a perfect being such as Donald Trump even existed. They thought that he was a myth or a legend or a decades-long series of fabrications.

But then they saw him, and their doubts fell away.

The media was there, too, and they were very sorry. “Donald,” the newscasters said, “we were mean to you. We used to laugh and call you names. We were no better than all of the other reindeer. How can you ever forgive us?”

“Forgive you?” Donald Trump asked. “I’ve already forgotten.” He smiled a big, beautiful smile. That was just who Donald Trump was: forgiving, like Jesus, but blond.

It was a wonderful start to the day.

Everyone liked Donald Trump’s speech and the words that he used. They liked even more the part where he rolled up his sleeve and showed off his bicep. It was a great bicep. It made the Rock so upset to see it that he threw something down on the ground and said “darn.”

The scene in Washington on Inauguration Day
View Photos Trump supporters and protesters gather in the capital as a new presidency begins.

Donald Trump pulled out a violin and played a solo, and then he pulled out a guitar and played an even sicker solo. The whole ground was soon covered with women’s undergarments. (Millions of women were there to support Donald Trump, and they were all AT LEAST sevens.) Also, every woman that Donald Trump had ever dated was there, and they were not upset with him, just ashamed that they had not lived up to his required standard.

“Trump! Trump! Trump!” the crowd cheered.

Donald Trump touched many people in the crowd in a way that they all thought was welcome and appropriate, and he cured their ailments, from cancer to autism.

“If only we could bottle your touch,” someone said, “children could stop getting vaccinated altogether.”

Donald Trump winked. “Don’t worry!” he said. “I’m on it!”

Sullivan: Undermine the truth, undermine democracy Play Video2:59

Lies, untruths or misstatements? Post columnist Margaret Sullivan looks at how different newsrooms are reporting President Trump's claims over crowd size and voter fraud and how "alternative facts" can damage a democracy. (Erin Patrick O'Connor/The Washington Post)

Then Donald Trump served loaves and fishes to everyone there. There were enough loaves and fishes for everyone, and they all were Made in America and said “TRUMP” on them. It was like the Oscars, but also like Woodstock, but also like the Super Bowl, but also like the Sermon on the Mount. If you were not there, you should just go home and die, because nothing in your life will have purpose or meaning by comparison, not even holding your newborn child in your arms or having health insurance. This is what FOMO was talking about for all these years.

Bono, and Bruce Springsteen, and Elton John, and the Rolling Stones, and Beyonce, and all the top artists were there. They fought hard over who would be allowed to sing. Finally Bruce Springsteen won. Bono cried and cried, and the other artists had to console him. When Bruce Springsteen had finished singing, he walked over to Donald Trump, extended his hand, and said, “You are the only real hero left in the world.”

The people were so excited that they built a very special stone pyramid just for Donald Trump so that he would not have to wait until he died to see what his monument would look like. But they were silly to be concerned. Donald Trump will never die!

A little child was in the audience, and he started to cry because the emperor was wearing so many clothes. Also, he could tell that he was not and never had been racist.

Donald Trump’s beautiful big family was there. His favorite childhood dog was there, too, back from the farm where he still lives to this day.

Donald Trump can talk to the animals, and his eyes are lasers. When the floor is lava, Donald Trump can walk on it, but only Donald Trump. When Donald Trump points his finger at you, you have to lie down. But when other people point their fingers at Donald Trump, he does not have to. Donald Trump’s block tower is the biggest. He does not need a nap or a snack. He has the longest, biggest attention span. Everyone loves Donald Trump, and what he has to say interests them.

Donald Trump is the star. People love him.

He won the popular vote, too.



ComPost Opinion
How to Cover Donald Trump Fairly: A Style Guide
By Alexandra Petri June 14, 2016

Why did Donald Trump revoke The Post’s media credentials? Play Video2:37

The Post’s Margaret Sullivan explores what might have led Donald Trump to revoke the newspaper’s media credentials. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

This Style Guide to Covering Trump Honestly and Fairly is too late for me, since I work at The Post, which has had its credentials revoked by the Trump campaign.

But it may not be too late for you, other members of the media! Please read and implement!

The Pillars of Covering Trump:

1. Donald Trump is never wrong.

Donald Trump is infallible — like the pope but with more raw sexual charisma. If Donald Trump appears to be wrong in a story, either because of a statement or an action, or some combination of the two, it should be rewritten so that he is not wrong. A good baseline for what is fair and honest coverage is that fair and honest coverage depicts Donald Trump as the shining, golden god he is, envied of men and beloved of women. Unfair, dishonest coverage does not depict Donald Trump this way.

2. Style is as important as substance. A good post about Donald Trump includes at least one of the following words: “huge,” “great,” “manly,” “terrific,” “incredible,” “fantastic,” “remarkable,” “big”/”bigly,” “immense,” “girthy,” “magisterial,” “gargantuan,” “tumescent.” Ideally, this word would be in the headline. A bad post about Donald Trump includes the words or phrases “puny,” “dangerous,” “Godwin’s law,” “cocktail shrimp in a toupee,” “husk of dead skin and hyperbole,” “garbage fart,” “what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave.”

3. Does Donald Trump contradict himself? Very well; he contradicts himself. Donald Trump is large. Donald Trump contains multitudes.

[Watch: Donald Trump’s day of contradictions]

4. Who among us has not been in the position where what he means to say is something wise and temperate and what actually comes out of his mouth is a garbage fart? Equipped with this knowledge, it is often best to take into account what Donald Trump should have said and to report that instead of what he actually did say. (The great historian Thucydides used to do this, which is why Pericles’s Funeral Oration is so lovely.)

5. Remember the transitive property of Trump: Whenever Donald Trump loves something, it loves him back. Donald Trump loves women. Therefore, women love Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Hispanics. Therefore, Hispanics love Donald Trump. Any polls that obscure these truths should be disregarded.


6. Donald Trump’s hair is real. Well, no. “Real” is putting it too mildly. Donald Trump’s hair is a fact that transcends reality or unreality, not to be questioned, merely to be admired, like the triune nature of God or the singular beauty and excellence of a Donald Trump building.

7. Two words: LARGE HANDS.

8. Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.

9. Donald Trump’s word suffices. Fact-checking is at best gauche and at worst treasonous. What is fact? Donald Trump speaks truth, which is bigger than fact. Donald Trump loves you. You love Donald Trump.

10. Donald Trump believes that criticism is healthy. As Noel Coward put it, Donald Trump can take any amount of criticism, so long as it is unqualified praise.

Some Frequently Asked Questions on Fair Trump Coverage

Q: Can I just print a transcript of what Donald Trump actually said?
A: No. This is very mean and bad. What Donald Trump actually says is, of course, uniformly good and correct. But sometimes if you just write it out and give it to people to see, they will not think so. Therefore, this is to be avoided.

Q: What is a fair question?
A: An example of a fair question is “Donald Trump, why are you so good at business?” An example of an unfair or gotcha question is “Why did Lincoln succeed?”

Q: Can I describe what someone did at a Donald Trump rally?
A: Yes, if that someone is Donald Trump and what that someone did was “be awesome without interruption.”

Q: What if Donald Trump didn’t answer my question?
A: Not true. Donald Trump has given you the answer. Your question was not correct. This isn’t hard, just think of it like “Jeopardy!”

Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?
A: A story about Hillary Clinton.

These Republicans refuse to vote for Donald Trump
View Photos And they’ll tell you why.



ON GODWIN’S LAW, REFERENCED ABOVE IN ITEM NUMBER 2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/?utm_term=.cc52794b658a
PostEverything
Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about.
The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate.
By Mike Godwin December 14, 2015

Mike Godwin is director of innovation policy and general counsel of R Street Institute.

Photograph -- Donald Trump waves to supporters after a campaign rally in Tyngsborough, Mass., in October. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

First, let me get this Donald Trump issue out of the way: If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

My Facebook timeline and Twitter feed have been blowing up lately. And whenever that happens, it’s almost always because someone’s making comparisons to Hitler or Nazis or the Holocaust somewhere. Sure enough, as Trump pontificates about immigrants or ethnic or religious minorities, with scarcely less subtlety than certain early 20th-century political aspirants in Europe did, people on the Internet feel compelled to ask me what I think about it.

Why? Simple: Because 25 years ago, when the Internet was still a pup, I came up with Godwin’s Law. In its original form, Godwin’s Law goes like this: “As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.”

[Trump says he’s not bothered by comparisons to Hitler]

Invoking Hitler or Nazis (or World War II or the Holocaust) is common in public life these days, both in the United States and around the world, and it has been for quite a while. Back in 1990, I set out — half-seriously and half-whimsically — to do something about it.

Through most of the 1980s, I’d been a hobbyist using computer “bulletin-board systems” that connected small local communities by telephone lines. I couldn’t help but notice how often comparisons to Hitler or Nazis came up in heated exchanges, usually as a kind of rhetorical hammer to express rage or contempt for one’s opponent. Once I was back in school to study law, I leveraged my student status to get a free Internet-based computer account. With access to the global Internet came still more hyperbolic Hitler and Nazi comparisons.


The presidential campaign for Ohio Gov. John Kasich released an ad drawing a comparison between Donald Trump's rhetoric and Nazism. (John Kasich)
Despite the Internet’s distractions, I did actually manage to study law. And I was drawn to a particular kind of legal problem: What happens when a nation, although acting consistently with its own laws, behaves so monstrously that other nations, and eventually history itself, are compelled to condemn it? I steeped myself in the history of the Nazi movement and in accounts of the Holocaust, including Primo Levi’s harrowing “Survival in Auschwitz.” I was increasingly troubled by the disconnect between what I was reading about the Third Reich and the way people used that era against debating opponents online.

Could I help close the gap between the glibness and the graphic accounts? I was no historian or eyewitness; I probably knew less about Hitler and Nazi Germany than the average viewer of the History Channel. But I knew enough about science to recast my distaste for these trivializing comparisons as if it were a law of nature. I framed Godwin’s Law as a pseudo-mathematical probability statement, almost like a law of physics. I wanted to hint that most people who brought Nazis into a debate about, say, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s views on gun control weren’t being thoughtful and independent. Instead, they were acting just as predictably, and unconsciously, as a log rolling down a hill.

[The Philadelphia Daily News goes there on Trump]

After some early energetic seeding on my part, “Godwin’s Law” took off in the early days of large-scale public access to the Internet. Users would see a poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocation of Nazis or the Holocaust and call the arguer to account, claiming the shallow argument had proved (or, sometimes, had “violated”) Godwin’s Law. Soon after, Godwin’s Law propagated into the mainstream media as well. Democrats and Republicans alike invoke it from time to time — so do other political parties in the United States and around the world. Sometimes it’s invoked by a Democratic blogger; sometimes it’s cited by a Republican. The law notably surfaced recently in Canadian politics, too.

So has Godwin’s Law actually reduced spurious Hitler or Nazi or Holocaust comparisons? Obviously not — just sample your own media sources, and you’ll find that Hitler comparisons are alive and well. (My personal favorite this year: the Mets fan who likened Yankees fans to former Nazi Party members.) But I do think the meme gives Internet users a clear opportunity to think critically about shallow references to the Nazis or the Holocaust. And it exposes glib Nazi comparisons or Holocaust references to the harsh light of interrogation.

[We have a Nazi analogy problem]

The idea seems to travel well, adapting itself to new languages and cultures. In French, for example, users sometimes say a debate has reached “the Godwin point” when discussion has degenerated into Nazi comparisons, and one author, François De Smet, subtitled his 2014 book “Reductio ad Hitlerum” (a philosophical essay) as “une théorie du point Godwin.”

To be clear: I don’t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I’m pleased that people still use Godwin’s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. The best way to prevent future holocausts, I believe, is not to forbear from Holocaust comparisons; instead, it’s to make sure that those comparisons are meaningful and substantive. This is something a pleasantly surprising percentage of commentators in this political season have managed to do (like this piece on Trump by New America and CNN analyst Peter Bergen). And I’m pleased in any season to see more people revisiting the history books.

It’s still true, of course, that the worst thing you can say about your opponents, in our culture, is that they’re like Hitler or the Nazis. But I’m hopeful that we can prod our glib online rhetorical culture into a more thoughtful, historically reflective space. In 2015, the Internet gives more and more individuals both the information and the skepticism to question what politicians and others say in their Hitler-centered hyperboles. Just as importantly, the Internet gives us the tools to share our criticisms — including the appropriately appalled reaction to Trump’s statements — with one another more widely.

The one thing we shouldn’t be skeptical of is our right — our obligation, even — as ordinary individuals to use the Internet and the other tools of the digital age to challenge our would-be leaders and check the facts.

And by all means be skeptical of Godwin’s Law, too. But you don’t need me to tell you that.

Read more:
Donald Trump wasn’t a textbook demagogue. Until now.
Donald Trump is America’s Silvio Berlusconi
No, I’m not playing the “six degrees of Adolf Hitler” game



MY SISTER AND A FEW OTHER GOOD LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, POO POOED MY REAL CONCERN ABOUT THE TRUMP PHENOMENON, IN THE BELIEF THAT “THE PEOPLE” ACROSS AMERICA SIMPLY WOULD NOT ELECT DONALD TRUMP FOR DOG CATCHER. I HOWEVER HAD BEEN FOLLOWING NEWS IN THIS BLOG FOR SOME THREE YEARS BY THAT TIME, AND WAS DISTURBED BY THE NUMBER, THE CHARACTER, AND THE SEVERITY OF THE LARGE AND GROWING NUMBER OF RIGHTISTS WHO NOW ARE BEING GROUPED PROUDLY UNDER THE TERM ALT-RIGHT, THEREBY ATTAINING A NEAR LEGITIMATE STATUS IN THE EYES OF ALL TOO MANY WHITE PROTESTANT AMERICANS. THERE ARE CATHOLICS WITH BELIEFS LIKE THOSE ALSO, BUT NOT AS MANY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LEANS MORE TO THE SIDE OF CARING FOR THE NEEDY THAN DO MANY OF THE MODERN PROTESTANTS, WHO WANT TO ELIMINATE THE NEEDY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING A FINANCIAL DRAIN ON OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN MORE "HARD WORKING" AND "INTELLIGENT." I SUGGEST TO ALL AMERICANS WHO DO WANT TO KEEP A LEGALLY AND MORALLY JUST DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT HERE, THAT YOU LOOK AT THE INFORMATION FROM THE ACLU AND SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER ON HATE GROUPS -- THEIR NUMBERS AND RISE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. ON THE POLICE BRUTALITY ISSUES, GO TO GOOGLE AND SEARCH "POLICE VIOLENCE, POLICE BRUTALITY, ETC." IF YOU FIND A SCHOLARLY ARTICLE, READ IT, ALONG WITH THE WEBSITE, “COPBLOCK.” COPBLOCK MEMBERS DO GO OUT WITH THEIR VIDEO SMART PHONE CAMERAS AND CATCH POLICE DOING ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL THINGS. THAT MAKES MANY TO MOST POLICE OFFICERS HATE THEM, ALONG WITH BLM MEMBERS, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE THEIR VIDEOS INACCURATE. I DO FEEL THAT SUCH VIDEOS SHOULD SHOW THE WHOLE STORY, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE "UNFAIR," AS SOME SUGGEST.

IN THOSE DAYS OF THE 1990S, THE ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE GUN WORSHIPPERS IN GENERAL, FAR RIGHT THEORISTS OF GENETIC DAMAGE DUE TO MISCEGENATION, THE NUMEROUS LOOSELY LINKED “MILITIAS,” THE OUTRIGHT WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS, AND THE MORE BIZARRE GROUPS SUCH AS SOVEREIGN CITIZENS, PROMISE KEEPERS, ETC. GO ON GOOGLE AND SEARCH “TEA PARTY” AS WELL, FOUNDED ON THE NET BY NONE OTHER THAN DAVID KOCH. AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, THEY’RE ALL LAUGHABLE IN THAT THEY DO NOT EVEN TRY TO LEARN AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES, AS OPPOSED TO FOLLOWING SOME DEMAGOGUE OR A CONVOLUTED SET OF POLITICAL-RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THERE ARE A FAIR NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOR WHOM SHEER OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY IS THE CRUX OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP. THOSE PEOPLE LOVE A “STRONG” LEADER AND ARE WILLING TO LITERALLY WORSHIP HIM.

PAINFULLY, HOWEVER, I’M MUCH TOO DISTURBED BY WHAT I SEE THESE DAYS TO LAUGH, BECAUSE IN 1990 THOSE PEOPLE REALLY WERE IN THE MINORITY. NOW THEY ARE LEGION. AND AS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE STATES, JUST BECAUSE A POLITICIAN BEHAVES LIKE A BUFFOON AND IS THE TARGET OF WIDESPREAD RIDICULE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE ISN’T DANGEROUS, AND EVEN ELECTABLE BY THAT SAME UNTHINKING POPULATION. THANK HEAVENS, NOT ALL AMERICANS, EVEN RELIGIOUS AND PATRIOTIC AMERICANS, ARE RIGHT LEANING. MANY ARE POOR OR WORKING CLASS, AND KNOW THEY NEED THOSE SAFETY NET PROVISIONS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY. IN ADDITION, THEY ARE MORE BENIGN AND GENTLE IN THEIR POINTS OF VIEW THAN THE "CONSERVATIVE SIDE." SINCE THE PROMINENCE OF BERNIE SANDERS, HOWEVER, A LARGE COHORT OF PROGRESSIVES WHO ARE POLITICALLY ACTIVE HAVE POPPED UP LIKE CROCUSES IN JANUARY, FEARLESSLY POKING THEIR HEADS UP THROUGH SNOW AND ICE. THAT GIVES ME JOY. THE CASE FOR THE AMERICA THAT I KNOW AND LOVE, IS NOT TOTALLY LOST.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/09/21/donald-trump-is-americas-silvio-berlusconi/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.d46355fa021d
PostEverything
Donald Trump is America’s Silvio Berlusconi
Laughing at a buffoon won't stop him from having an impact on politics.
By Rula Jebreal September 21, 2015
Rula Jebreal is an author and foreign policy analyst.

Photograph -- Donald Trump looks familiar to observers of Italian politics and Silvio Berlusconi’s rise. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill

The lessons of Italian history ought to make Americans a lot more nervous about Donald Trump than they seem to be. Calculated buffoonery is a longstanding tactic for right-wing demagogues looking to alter national political calculations to their own advantage — masking as farce the tragedy they portend.

Ask Italian voters, who spent a total of nine years between 1994 and 2011 being governed by Silvio Berlusconi. Italy’s longest-serving prime minister, Berlusconi started out as a wealthy demagogue on the brink of bankruptcy, whose celebrity was — like Trump’s — rooted in both real estate and popular entertainment culture. Berlusconi presented himself as Italy’s strongman, speaking like a barman, selling demonstrably false promises of wealth and grandeur for all. He made the electorate laugh while stoking fears of communists and liberals stripping privileges and increasing taxes. Presaging Trump, the Italian media mogul cast himself as the only viable savior of a struggling nation: the political outsider promising to sweep in and clean up from the vanquished left and restore the country to its lost international stature. “I am the Jesus Christ of politics. I sacrifice myself for everyone,” Berlusconi said. Now we find Trump promising “to make America great again,” pledging to become the “greatest jobs president […] ever created.”

Like Berlusconi, Trump is running on his claim of being a rich, successful businessman, despite the fact that he was the owner of at least four bankrupt companies — just as Berlusconi promised Italians to make them as rich as he was, while in reality his companies were deeply in debt at the time he first ran, as extensively documented in Marco Travaglio’s book “Clean Hands.” Both men exploited voters’ rage at a discredited, gridlocked political establishment. Trump encourages voters’ fearful nativism and legitimizes racist and sexist anxieties called forth by claims to equality for women and minorities. He styles himself as the man willing to bluntly state “truths” held to be self-evident by fearful white conservatives, abandoning the politeness and political correctness of mainstream candidates who know they can’t win elections if they sound too much like Archie Bunker.

Like Berlusconi in Italy, Trump has built a political campaign employing unvarnished language and jaundiced humor, which has succeeded in the United States, a country that — embarrassingly — ranks second among wealthy industrialized nations, only behind Italy, in terms of being uninformed on key issues of the world.

Trump’s crude attacks on female candidates and journalists — such as characterizing Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her… wherever” and attacking presidential candidate and opponent Carly Fiorina’s appearance — are reminiscent of Berlusconi’s history of misogyny. He once dismissed opponents as “too ugly to be taken seriously” and insulted a fellow European leader during a conversation with a newspaper editor, referring to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as “an unf—able fat bitch.” (Il Giornale, Berlusconi’s own newspaper, characterized the allegation as “gossip.”) Berlusconi was known to advise U.S. businessmen to invest in Italy because they have “beautiful secretaries … superb girls.”

6 times Donald Trump has insulted women Play Video2:38
Here are six times Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has insulted women, from Rosie O'Donnell to Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi. (Sarah Parnass and Nicki DeMarco/The Washington Post)

Like Trump, Berlusconi relied on the fact that Italy’s liberal mainstream would treat him as a joke, using his ugly gaffes as an effective, disruptive campaign strategy to distract both from his lack of well-thought-out policy ideas, as well as his dangerous ignorance on foreign policy. That seems to be Trump’s plan, too. They both turned the jokes on the political elite by stirring up the electorate’s disdain for their critics. Challenged about his complicated personal life, the twice-divorced Berlusconi contemptuously and proudly stated, “it’s better to be fond of beautiful girls than to be gay.” Meanwhile, Trump, who has been twice divorced and thrice married, opposes gay marriage on the grounds that it’s not traditional.

Berlusconi sold an impossible dream, convincing Italian voters that all that stood between them and the sort of wealth and grandeur he enjoyed was a hapless, self-serving political class. He promised to amend the constitution, deregulate markets and shrink government, thus packaging a billionaire’s dream agenda as if it offered salvation to “the average Giuseppe.” Trump has been vague about his economic policies, other than to bluster that his business experience means voters should trust him. But, like Berlusconi, he responds to tough questions with scandalous insults so as to focus the conversation on those insults rather than on his platform.

Trump’s political path has been carved by a media culture that favors entertainment over news. Political debate and discussion on TV have been reduced to mud-wrestling, with the recent “Trump vs. Rest of GOP” debates being a perfect illustration. Berlusconi’s opponents fell into his PR trap in the same way in Italy, rushing to condemn his gaffes and his deliberately provocative statements calculated to rouse the far right. Like Berlusconi, Trump has already succeeded in making himself the center of the conversation.

Trump being Trump in second round of GOP debates Play Video3:01
Here are Donald Trump's most memorable moments from the second GOP debate. (CNN)

Berlusconi may have been even more shameless than Trump. In 2005, I was one of five journalists from the Middle East invited to brief Berlusconi on how to improve his relationship with the Muslim world — whose civilization he had dismissed as inferior and backward. Berlusconi feared that Italy would be targeted for terrorist attacks similar to those seen in London and Madrid, the latter of which immediately preceded the ouster by Spanish voters of Berlusconi’s ideological analog, José María Aznar. My journalist colleagues and I unanimously advised him to distance himself from the Iraq invasion, of which he had been an enthusiastic backer. The following day, Berlusconi appeared on my TV news show and proceeded to deny having ever supported the Iraqi war, going as far as to claim that he had tried — in vain — to dissuade President George W. Bush from undertaking the ill-fated venture. If necessary to avoid a potential pitfall, Berlusconi was willing to deny in the evening precisely what he had stated that same morning.

Before the interview, in an apparent effort to ingratiate himself to me, Berlusconi cited the fact that he had dated Arab women as “proof” that he did not actually believe Muslims to be inferiors. (That was before it was made public that one of those Arab women was “Ruby the Heartstealer,” an underage Moroccan prostitute whose services Berlusconi had previously engaged.)

As with Trump, Berlusconi’s antics make mockery of the idea of politicians being guided by convictions. Nonetheless, Italians were endlessly entertained by the comedy he brought to politics. Trump’s bullying of Univision’s Jorge Ramos also has a Berlusconi antecedent — Italy’s best journalists, such as Marco Travaglio, Michelle Santoro and Enzo Biagi, were either sued or fired from their jobs because they dared to challenge Berlusconi’s policies. Even comedians like Daniele Luttazzi were not spared. Trump, meanwhile, sued HBO’s Bill Maher for mocking the tycoon’s hairdo.

It is precisely that authoritarian demagoguery wrapped in comedy that Trump has brought to American politics. So it’s now urgent that America learns the lessons taught (and havoc wrought) when Italy’s political and media establishment underestimated Berlusconi. They viewed him as a joke, an ignorant buffoon, and he was widely dismissed as a comical figure, unfit to lead a serious country. None of that stopped him.

Trump has managed to tap into real anger and disillusionment with an American political class owned by billionaires like him. He’s taken populism to new depths, tacitly embracing a call to “get rid of” all American Muslims. Even worse, he communicates his backward views with a tone and tenor that screams of rejection and disregard of America’s civil rights achievements of the past century. The gridlocked political system is incapable of taking action to relieve the plight of middle class Americans, much less help the poor.

In Italy, it was their own poor reputations in voters’ eyes that prevented established politicians from fending off Berlusconi’s challenge. They were viewed as inept, corrupt, boring and uninterested in the concerns of ordinary Italians. Berlusconi appealed to their most base instincts and sanctified their prejudices, rendering them willing to overlook the obvious hypocrisy and fallacy of his promises. So effective was Berlusconi’s narrative that the electorate was willing to forgive — repeatedly — his utter failure to deliver on his economic promises.