The old adage “birds of a feather flock together” has endured, not for its poetic appeal but for its perennial insight into human nature. The company one keeps speaks volumes. In the case of Donald Trump, the former president, this adage begs the question: What kind of birds inhabit his peculiar flock? And what does it say about Trump that he attracts such a mélange of curious companions?
Let us first survey the aviary. Among the notable figures in Trump’s orbit, we find Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose wealth and connections once cloaked his appalling predations.
We find Kanye West, a once-celebrated artist now infamous for antisemitic tirades and erratic behavior, seeking the limelight as an aspiring politician.
There is Nick Fuentes, a figurehead of white nationalism and Holocaust denial, whose association with Trump, whether direct or indirect, reflects the sort of ideological sewage from which democracy recoils.
Laura Loomer, the self-styled firebrand of right-wing extremism, also makes the list with rides on Trump’s plane more times than most can count. Her conspiracy theories and divisive rhetoric have gained her little more than infamy, yet her presence is a reminder of the extremism Trump has emboldened.
Add to this bizarre menagerie the likes of Hulk Hogan, an erstwhile wrestling icon with a past marred by racism, and Amber Rose, a personality more known for her reality-show theatrics and only fans performances than her political acumen.
There is, of course, Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s lieutenant governor and a man whose speeches teeter dangerously close to bigotry disguised as “straight talk.” A man so bold he feared nothing which lead to him sharing his darkest desires on the internet. His relationship with Trump speaks to a certain shared worldview, one where grievances are spun as virtues and demagoguery masquerades as leadership.
And then there are the unnamed legions, the “whole bunch” of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers who have taken comfort in the Trump phenomenon. These are not birds on the periphery, mind you. They are the nucleus of a toxic movement emboldened by Trump’s indifference—or worse, his tacit encouragement.- the “Stand by” remarks to the Proud Boys.
What, one may ask, unites this disparate coalition? Is it mere coincidence, or does it speak to a deeper flaw in Trump’s character? The answer lies in Trump’s unique ability to exploit the undercurrents of fear and resentment that plague certain segments of society. His demagoguery feeds off the insecurities of those who see themselves as victims of modernity, globalization, and cultural shifts. In Trump, they find a leader who, though born to privilege, speaks their language of discontent.
Yet, the question remains: What does it say about Trump that he is so comfortable with such a flock? Is it mere political opportunism—his notorious willingness to consort with anyone who offers him power, attention, or loyalty? Or does it reveal something more sinister about his worldview, a world in which principles are discarded in favor of convenience?
The answer is both, and neither. Trump is a man who governs by instinct, not ideology. He understands that his political success depends not on consistency but on his ability to appeal to the disaffected. If that means embracing those on the fringes of decency, so be it. His genius, if one could call it that, lies in his ability to make the fringe seem mainstream, to legitimize the illegitimate by sheer force of personality.
But history will judge Trump by the company he keeps. And when it does, it will not look kindly on the sordid collection of white supremacists, conspiracists, and opportunists who have found a home under his wing. History will not look kindly on the regular Americans who lifted him and his flock up.
About the Creator
Joseph McCain
I love my wife. I love my children. And I had a 30 year love affair with newspapers.
Keep reading
More stories from Joseph McCain and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
A potential presidency built on shifting sands
A potential presidency built on shifting sands In the ever-turbulent seas of American politics, we find ourselves approaching a storm that could reshape the landscape of our nation's leadership. The 2024 election looms large, with the Republican ticket presenting a vice-presidential nominee that is a man of contradictions and opportunism. At the helm stands Donald Trump, the oldest presidential nominee in our history, a man whose controversial tenure continues to divide the nation. But it is his choice of running mate that may truly give one pause. J.D. Vance, once a vocal critic of Trump, now stands poised to potentially ascend to the highest office in the land through a path paved with political expediency and calculated maneuvering. Vance's metamorphosis from "Never Trumper" to presumptive heir apparent is a testament to the malleability of political conviction in our times. This is a man who, not long ago, likened Trump to "America's Hitler" and derided Trump supporters as akin to drug addicts. Now, he eagerly awaits his turn at the throne, betting on actuarial tables and fast-food diets of Trump to accelerate his ascension. The danger here is not merely in Vance's breathtaking reversal of stance, but in the fundamental lack of core principles it reveals. This is a man who has changed his name twice, altered his biography to suit his political ambitions, and shifted his policies like sand in the wind. Such a chameleon-like ability to adapt may be admired in the animal kingdom, but it should give us great pause when considering the potential leader of the free world. Another quality, he and Trump have in common are rage issues. On the August 2 Full Send podcast, Vance was bragging about telling “Shut the hell up” to his 7-year-old. What kind of father brags about yelling a curse word at their 7-year-old? What we witness in Vance is the embodiment of a political opportunist, a man willing to trade the very soul of the nation for the glitter of power and the jingle of coins in his pocket. The prospect of such a figure ascending to the presidency not through the will of the people, but through a calculated gambit, should send shivers down the spine of every American who values the integrity of our democratic institutions. Moreover, this Faustian bargain reflects poorly on Trump's current judgment. By selecting a running mate who once denigrated him and his supporters, Trump demonstrates either a dangerous quick decision or a cynical disregard for loyalty and consistency. As we approach this crossroads in our nation's history, we must ask ourselves: Are we willing to entrust the future of America to a man who views the presidency not as a sacred duty, but as a prize to be won through political shapeshifting? The answer to this question may well determine the trajectory of our nation for generations to come.
By Joseph McCainabout a year ago in The Swamp
More Than 500 Dead in Iran Protests — U.S. Considers Military Options
Iran is facing one of its most intense periods of unrest in years as widespread protests continue across multiple cities, drawing global attention and growing concern. Human rights organizations and international observers report that more than 500 people may have been killed since demonstrations began, marking a devastating toll that has intensified diplomatic pressure on Tehran. As the situation deteriorates, the United States is openly debating possible responses, including military options, raising fears of further escalation in an already volatile region. A Nation in Turmoil The protests, which began amid economic hardship and political frustration, have evolved into a broader movement challenging government authority. Demonstrators have taken to the streets demanding accountability, improved living conditions, and greater personal freedoms. While the Iranian government has described the unrest as foreign-backed destabilization, protesters and activists portray it as a grassroots expression of public anger. Reports from inside Iran remain difficult to verify due to media restrictions and internet shutdowns. However, international human rights groups estimate that hundreds of civilians have died during clashes between security forces and demonstrators. Thousands more have reportedly been detained, adding to fears of widespread repression. The rising death toll has transformed what began as domestic unrest into an international crisis. Government Response and Crackdown Iranian authorities have responded forcefully, deploying security forces to suppress protests and restore order. Officials insist their actions are necessary to maintain national stability and protect public institutions. State media emphasizes incidents of violence and vandalism, framing the protests as a security threat rather than a political movement. Critics argue that the heavy-handed response has only fueled further anger. Images and testimonies shared by activists show security forces confronting unarmed civilians, intensifying global outrage. Calls for independent investigations have grown louder, though Iranian leadership has rejected external interference. International Reaction Grows As reports of rising casualties spread, international condemnation has increased. Western governments, including the United States, have expressed deep concern over the situation. Statements from U.S. officials emphasize support for the Iranian people’s right to peaceful protest while condemning the use of lethal force against civilians. The United Nations and several human rights organizations have urged restraint and called for accountability. Diplomatic efforts have so far yielded limited results, with Tehran dismissing many criticisms as politically motivated. U.S. Considers Military Options Amid mounting pressure, discussions within the United States have taken a sharper tone. While no formal decision has been announced, U.S. officials have acknowledged that “all options remain on the table” should the situation worsen. This language has sparked intense debate over what role, if any, military force should play in responding to Iran’s internal crisis. Supporters of a tougher stance argue that continued violence against civilians demands a strong response. They believe that clear consequences could deter further abuses and demonstrate international resolve. Others caution that military intervention could escalate the conflict, potentially destabilizing the entire Middle East. Historically, U.S.–Iran relations have been marked by distrust, sanctions, and limited diplomatic engagement. Any military action, even symbolic, would likely have far-reaching consequences beyond Iran’s borders. Risks of Escalation Analysts warn that increased U.S. involvement could trigger retaliation from Iran or its regional allies. The Middle East is already navigating multiple conflicts, and further escalation could disrupt global energy markets and threaten regional security. There is also concern that military threats may strengthen hardline factions within Iran, undermining internal reform movements. Critics argue that external pressure often allows governments to shift focus away from domestic grievances by framing unrest as foreign aggression. For this reason, many experts advocate for diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, and international monitoring rather than direct military involvement. Voices From the Iranian Diaspora Outside Iran, members of the Iranian diaspora have organized demonstrations and advocacy campaigns, urging global leaders to take action. These voices emphasize the human cost of the crisis, sharing stories of families affected by violence and detention. While opinions differ on the best course forward, there is widespread agreement on one point: the loss of life is unacceptable, and the international community cannot ignore the situation. A Critical Moment Ahead The unfolding crisis places Iran and the United States at a dangerous crossroads. With more than 500 deaths reportedly linked to the protests, the pressure for decisive action continues to build. At the same time, the risks associated with military involvement remain high. What happens next will depend on a combination of internal developments within Iran and the choices made by global powers. Whether the situation moves toward dialogue or deeper confrontation will shape not only Iran’s future but also the stability of the broader region. Conclusion The reported death toll from Iran’s protests represents more than statistics—it reflects a nation in distress and a world struggling to respond. As the U.S. considers its options, the challenge lies in balancing accountability with restraint. In moments like these, the consequences of action—and inaction—carry profound weight.
By Saboor Brohi a day ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.