The Dark Shadow in the Injunction to ‘Do What You Love’ –

Why do we work? Many of us might give a simple transactional answer to the question: we work in order to make money. For the American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-70), and the management thinkers inspired by his theory of motivation, people’s motives for working could not be reduced to a paycheck. Instead, Maslow and his followers argued in management texts and training seminars that people work to fulfil higher psychological needs. People work to become self-actualised and to find meaning – provided that meaning can be found in the mundane realities of working life.

First proposed by Maslow in 1943, the hierarchy of needs is a grand theory of human motivation that arranges all motives into a ladder, from the basic physiological needs (for food and shelter) upward to needs for safety, for belonging, for esteem and, at the apex, the motive for self-actualisation. At the top rung of the ladder, the self-actualisation motive was a future-oriented striving that drove humans to seek meaning and fulfilment in the world.

Maslow’s work began infiltrating management in the 1950s and ’60s, as the business trade press and management theorists picked up humanistic psychology to adapt managerial theories of motivation for a new era. For Maslow, corporations offered both an experimental site for him to observe human psychology – which he did as a consultant for California companies – and a site for humans to realise their higher-order needs through self-actualised work.

Why was corporate America drawn to the hierarchy of needs? They liked it because it offered both a grand narrative and master explanation for human psychology in a changing society and a practical guide to managing people. It is precisely in the tension between these two visions of the hierarchy of needs – the reductive diagram and the rich social theory – that the hierarchy of needs acquires its power and its politics.

The 1960s, renowned as a decade for social experimentation, was also an era when corporations were experimenting with new structures and styles of work. Against the backdrop of the counterculture, social movements and consumer society, management writers and social theorists alike argued that a widespread transformation in values was afoot – a transformation that required new approaches to managing people and marketing to consumers.

Management thinkers drew on Maslow to develop new theories of ‘participatory management’ that professed to give workers more autonomy and authority in work. Responding to criticisms of bureaucratic conformity and alienation, management gurus wielded the hierarchy of needs to argue that psychological fulfilment was not opposed to but in fact compatible with corporate capitalism. We could work hard, make money, and be happy. Win/win, right?

A burning question, left unresolved in management discussions of the hierarchy of needs, was the extent to which all jobs could offer scope for self-actualisation. The hierarchy of needs does admit a range of differences among individuals and organisations, suggesting that, for some people, work is just a paycheck. Some experiments in redesigning jobs did seek to address all levels of the corporate hierarchy, from janitorial work to executive work, but many substituted rhetoric for real change. One management thinker, the American psychologist Frederick Herzberg, used the hierarchy of needs to argue in The Motivation to Work (1959) that companies needn’t provide better benefits to workers, because better benefits had only made workers entitled, rather than increased productivity. Such is the dark side of motivation.

It is certainly not coincidental that a motivational theory dubbed the ‘hierarchy’ of needs was adopted in companies ruled by hierarchical organisational charts. The hierarchy of needs could all too easily map onto work hierarchies, with jobs at the top providing more scope for self-actualisation (while also commanding higher paychecks). Uneven distributions of work and workers surround the promise of self-actualised work; devalued work, which we don’t expect to bring satisfaction, and on the flipside, overvalued work, supposed to be all of life.

As a theory of intrinsic motivation, the hierarchy of needs emphasises intrinsic motives, not external rewards. It suggests that your boss doesn’t need to punish or reward, because you’ll have your own intrinsic motive to work to achieve meaning and fulfilment. It’s a powerful force, that work ethic. The strength of this work ethic, especially in today’s professional class, is why we find company employees who sometimes take fewer vacations than they’re entitled to.

Maslow didn’t invent the idea of self-actualised work, and nor did the 20th-century management consultants who implemented these ideas. We can go back to the German sociologist Max Weber to find similar invocations of work as a spiritual, more than economic, vocation – an ethic of work that Weber in 1905 argued was central to Western capitalism. Indeed, the work ethic is an ideology at once remarkably tenacious and eminently flexible: while its constitutive claim – devotion to work as the centre of life – remains consistent, the rewards promised by the ethic vary in historically specific ways, from the promise of social mobility to the promise of self-actualisation.

In the decades since Maslow first proposed the now-iconic hierarchy of needs, it has acquired a life of its own. By the 1980s, it had become firmly entrenched in business textbooks and management education. Marketing firms, for example, drew on the hierarchy of needs in both their advertising work and their management training. Depicted in its iconic pyramid form – a pyramid that Maslow himself did not create­ – the hierarchy of needs continues to circulate in management textbooks and as internet memes. Even beyond memes and textbooks, what is most significant is how the ideas and ideologies underpinning the hierarchy of needs continue to resonate with present-day concerns about work, society and the self.

In the span of writing this article, I found myself haunted by the hierarchy of needs; it was referenced on my Instagram feed and in a blog post about writing. Writing about the work ethic while embroiled in academic work culture makes it similarly difficult to escape the ghost of the hierarchy of needs. Academic work, like work in creative industries and the nonprofit sector, is particularly susceptible to the celebratory rhetoric that one’s work should be motivated by passion, not a paycheck. Why else pursue a PhD, or a career in the creative industry, if you don’t love it?

Nothing exemplifies the promises and perils of self-actualised work better than the cultural conversations around ‘do what you love’. The injunction to ‘do what you love’ has had no shortage of critics, who point out its classist nature, advocate for a clearer delineation between work and life, and remind us that burnout might just be the flipside of self-actualised work.

Not all agree that work should be a calling or that we should devote ourselves wholly to work. Calls for a shorter work week, for a better social safety net or more parental leave all demand that we as a society carve out a space of life, leisure and care against work.

My argument is not that work shouldn’t be meaningful, or that pleasure cannot be found in work; my point is that we should think carefully before accepting managerial ideas of fulfilment through work, because they risk detracting from the economic and social structures that govern work. Work is work – no matter how many beer fridges or meditation seminars modern workplaces offer, and no matter how many well-intentioned trainers show slides of pyramids.

Aeon counter – do not remove

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Kira Lussier is a historian of science, technology, and management. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Management and Innovation at the University of Toronto Mississauga and at Rotman’s Institute for Gender and the Economy in Toronto, as well as an affiliated researcher at the Technoscience Research Unit at the University of Toronto’s Technoscience Research Unit. 

Chaney Students Draw Motivation from Community –

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio – Nakaia McRae believes the biggest obstacle to getting through high school is oneself.

“Your teachers don’t give you a grade, you earn your grade,” said the senior from Chaney High School. “Some teachers make it a little bit harder, but they’re preparing you for the rest of your life whether you see it or not.”

Students may face times where they want to go out and have fun, but have to stay home and study for a test or complete an assignment, or risk not passing a class, said McRae, who aspires to be a defense attorney after studying prelaw at Central State University.

“It’s all up to you and your commitment to school and what you decide to do with it,” McRae said during a panel discussion Monday evening.

The panel was part of the City Club of Mahoning Valley’s Views and Brews series and was co-hosted by The Business Journal as part of its Brain Gain program. McRae joined four other students from Chaney — J.R. Tellington, Tylen Hawthorne, Ke’Lynn Dean and Ja’Kiyah Rushton — to discuss their aspirations and goals, obstacles to achieving those goals and resources in the community that helps them along.

While the students agreed they must rely on themselves to achieve their goals, there is a mentality in the area that makes it difficult, they said. For some young people living in the Youngstown area, they feel as if they won’t make it, whether it’s in school or finding success in employment, said Hawthorne, who studies interactive app and game development at Choffin Career and Technical Center.

“That’s one of the main reasons why a lot of kids don’t go to college,” Hawthorne said. “They feel like it’s a waste of money and if they do go, they might fail or the money they spend won’t be used [well] because they may not find a job.”

Although it’s a mindset that they see reflected in their peers, the students have found ways to maintain their motivation through their struggles. For Hawthorne, hearing stories of those who have found success in Youngstown inspires him to pursue his goal of working in video game development, he said. And coursework at Choffin is giving him the skills he needs to take the first step toward doing what he wants to do for the rest of his life, he said.

There are many success stories that come out of Youngstown, but no one knows about them, McRae said. So, people assume Youngstown is a bad place, she said.

“Youngstown is not a giant hole,” McRae said. “Youngstown has a lot to offer and it’s a good city. It’s just the mindset that makes it bad. Youngstown is not a bad place, it’s an amazing place and I just want everybody to know that.”

McRae and Dean are involved with Inspiring Minds Youngstown, which they say provides mentors to help keep them on the path toward their goal. It also gives them an opportunity to pass on their experiences to younger kids in their community.

Dean says having other people of color as teachers and mentors goes a long way to connecting with youth facing struggles such as single-parent households and mental health issues — problems Dean has faced in his own home. Dean plans to study education at Youngstown State University and become a teacher in Youngstown City Schools so he can use his experience to connect with younger members of his community, he said. It’s something he’s already putting into practice by volunteering with kids around the community, including mentoring youth with Inspiring Minds and working as a counselor at Camp Fitch.

Inspiring Minds has been particularly beneficial to Dean, he says, because the mentors stress the importance of graduating high school and moving on to college.

“I’m glad that I found the Inspiring Minds program because without that I’m not sure how I would’ve managed,” Dean said. “It’s just preparing you for after high school. Not a lot of schools do that because they’re focused on getting you out of high school.”

All five students on the panel said they eventually would like to come back to the Youngstown area to live and work. Rushton plans to major in psychology at Ohio State University and is getting a head start through its Young Scholars program with Youngstown City Schools.

If she follows through with the college classes she’s taking now, she can earn a scholarship to OSU, she said.

However, course material can be a challenge, forcing Rushton to find her own way of learning things in schools, she said. She says one-on-one tutoring has helped her with difficult material and teachers at Chaney are always accessible.

McRae has been taking college courses since her freshman year of high school through Upward Bound, a college readiness program at YSU. For six weeks during the summer, students in Upward Bound “take college courses from an actual professor at the college,” she said. In addition to preparing McRae for the college experience, the program gives her college credits she can take with her after graduating high school.

“I would say I have maybe six college credits already with Upward Bound,” McRae said.

Adding to the pressure of graduating high school and getting accepted to a university is the fact that many of the students would be the first generation of their families to attend college. Their families support their dreams, they say, including Tellington, who plans to leave to attend the University of Kentucky to play sports. Should sports not work out — he currently plays three at Chaney — Tellington said he would want to come back to Youngstown to pursue a career in construction.

“What motivates me is knowing that my parents have my back,” Tellington said.

Pictured: Jeremy Lydic, content manager for The Business Journal, moderates the panel with Chaney High School students Tylen Hawthorne, Nakaia McRae, Ke’Lynn Dean, J.R. Tellington and Ja’Kiyah Rushton.

Copyright 2020 The Business Journal, Youngstown, Ohio.

Want to be a better employee? Try desire, motivation and engagement – The San Diego Union-Tribune

We always talk about managing our own career and the need to make things happen for yourself.

A good friend of mine, business book author Don Phin, recently produced a series of videos about what employees can actively do to excel in their jobs. They were so well done that I want you to hear what he had to say.

Follow Don’s guidelines below and you will be favorably noticed by management. The effort spent will move your career along faster than you ever thought possible.

1) Be trustworthy


Trust is the most important fabric in any relationship and for employees, that equation is based on two essential factors.

First comes skills and knowledge.

Generally, this is something you can be tested for. For example, half of the JAVA programmers are more skilled than the other half. Without proper testing, you’ll never know how your own job performance stacks up.

The second part of the trust conversation centers on desire, motivation, and engagement. If you lack desire, what good are your skills? Remind yourself that it’s your choice whether to have a positive attitude or not.


Then ask yourself to define how you are doing in these critical trust factors:

· Accountability: You understand your job

· Responsibility: The buck stops with you

· Honesty: You’re willing to do the “right thing”

· Integrity: You do what you say you’ll do

· Confidentiality: You keep private what should be

2) Be productive

In Don’s executive workshops, he often has a CEO invite their HR executive to be a guest. Then they both go through a simple exercise.


He asks them to take out a blank sheet of paper and write down what each believes are the three most important strategic objectives of that HR executive.

He has them show their lists to each other. Guess what? They rarely match.

Getting yourself on the same page as the company is where to start. Whether you call it bottom-line results, objectives, key indicators or some other name, what quality and quantity benchmarks define great results for you? Are they the same as the company’s?

All employers want their employees to be responsible for their performance. They want you to know your job, and know whether you are succeeding or failing, without having to be asked or without having to be told, because you understand your job so well.

To be productive, make sure you manage your time, follow performance agreements, and focus on results.

3) Have a plan with goals

As Mary Kay Ash famously said, “Most people plan their vacations better than their careers.”

And this is true. When people don’t have a plan for their career, they are working in what Don calls “the gray zone.” That’s not who I want working for me.


He encourages employees to define short-term performance goals (90 days) and longer-term career goals (3 to 5 years out). He also stresses the importance of having defined deadlines and provided tools they can use for long-term career planning and short-term, 90-day “rolling” plans.

4) Keep learning

It is a sad fact that only a handful of employees make a concerted effort to educate themselves once they’ve graduated from school.

Many do the same job, at the same level, year after year. Given tight budgets and time constraints, many employers have backed off their training initiatives which further reduces continuing education.

To combat that, Don likes to remind employees of one of the great truths of success — to earn more, learn more. And doing so is the employee’s responsibility.

5) Be a team player

Like life itself, running a business with at least one employee and more is a team sport. Same with being an employee. Helping foster a spirit of teamwork gives your fellow employees a sense of belonging to a bigger cause than themselves.

Cooperation, collaboration, and contribution really do work wonders.

There it is, a condensed version of Don Phin’s Holy Grail of career success.

If you are in management, what will you do to help employees embrace these truths? If you are an employee, what are you waiting for?

Phil Blair, co-founder of Manpower San Diego and author of “Job Won;” [email protected]

Twitter: @PhilManpowerSD

Shaq is trying to sell his $2.5 million Los Angeles mansion on Instagram, and he’s just the latest celebrity homeowner using social media to entice potential buyers

Former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal has taken to Instagram to market his multimillion-dollar home in Bell Canyon, California.

The five-bedroom, five-bathroom home has been on the market for 86 days, according to Zillow. The home was initially listed with the real-estate brokerage Compass, but as of February 7, it was moved to The Agency.

That same day, O’Neal posted a video tour of the $2.5 million mansion on his Instagram account.

“The house is walking distance from the community center, state of the art gym, and tennis courts. It can be all yours for $2.5M. For SERIOUS buyers please send an email to [email protected] for more information,” he wrote in the caption.

So far, the post has nearly 3 million views and over 16,500 comments. The home is located in Bell Canyon, a gated community in Ventura County where the median home value is $1,541,904. Along with over 5,000 square feet of interior space, the property boasts a range of perks including a pool and a master suite with two walk-in closets.

In January 2019, Shaq was also selling a lakeside Florida mansion, with an asking price of $22 million. Per Zillow, that property listing was removed from the market as of June.

O’Neal isn’t the only celebrity that has advertised a home on Instagram

Back in October 2019, Justin Bieber posted a series of photos of his Beverly Hills mansion on his Instagram account saying he was thinking about selling the place.

“I’ll sell it with all the furniture. MAKE AN OFFER,” Bieber wrote as one of the captions.

While the photos got over one million likes each, it’s unclear how serious the pop star was about seeking out a buyer for the 6,132-square-foot property. According to a report by TMZ, at least five prospective buyers have contacted Bieber with serious offers, but it’s unclear whether any are being considered.

The authors of a new Trump-world book ‘Sinking in the Swamp’ discuss the ‘stupidity’ of the current political era

  • Asawin Suebsaeng and Lachlan Markay, White House reporters for The Daily Beast, wrote their new book “Sinking in the Swamp” with a focus on mid and low-level Trump associates. 
  • The authors modeled their profile of President Donald Trump‘s administration on “Wiseguy” — the true crime book upon which the classic mobster film “Goodfellas” is based.
  • Insider spoke with them about their peculiar White House beat, including Rudy Giuliani prank-texting Suebsaeng because he was bored, and White House aides using a fake email account to troll reporters. 
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Of the umpteen books written about President Donald Trump‘s administration, “Sinking in the Swamp: How Trump’s Minions and Misfits Poisoned Washington” is the first to focus on the mid and low-level associates that give Trumplandia it’s darkly absurd flavor. 

Written by Asawin Suebsaeng and Lachlan Markay, White House reporters for The Daily Beast, “Sinking in the Swamp” seeks to fill a void left by other books on the Trump administration that the authors believe lack the “necessary combination of horror, tar-black humor and gleeful disregard for ‘respecting the office’ for which we believe the occasion has called.”

They are unsparing in their descriptions of the president, at one point describing his half-hearted attempt to dictate a statement renouncing his past support for Obama birther conspiracy theories as a “seven-minute, meandering spat of word-mouth vomit.” 

The authors don’t let themselves off the hook for their participation in the madness either. The book’s first chapter recounts the night a highly-buzzed Suebsaeng tried to coax the famously straight-laced former FBI Director James Comey into doing some “fireball shots” at the Trump International Hotel. 

Insider spoke with Suebsaeng and Markay prior to the release of “Sinking in the Swamp.” The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Insider: How did you guys start working as a team?

Markay: I think we started writing together when we collaborated on a story about [former Deputy Assistant to President Trump] Seb Gorka.

Suebsaeng: Seb Gorka brought us together. 

Markay: In May 2017, we ended up writing a few different stories about Gorka. And through that, I dragged Swin fully into the realm of White House reporting. We still look back on May 2017 as the absolute fucking month from hell in White House coverage. 

Suebsaeng: That month lasted two years. 

Markay: Comey getting fired. Trump giving Sergei Lavrov classified information in an Oval Office meeting. All these crazy things kept happening. So by default, our editors told us, “You are now on the beat of White House insanity.”

Asawin “Swin” Suebsaeng and Lachlan Markay
Asawin “Swin” Suebsaeng and Lachlan Markay, authors of “Sinking in the Swamp”
Lachlan Markay

Suebsaeng: I don’t think I ever had any ambition to be a White House reporter for any administration. Up until early January 2017, like right before he was inaugurated, I don’t think I was presenting myself as someone who would even want to go to the White House for anything, really. 

I started covering Trump for Mother Jones magazine, which was my previous job where I was a politics and culture reporter. I basically was covering how Hollywood and politics intersected. So The Daily Beast saw this and they hired me to do exactly that. [Then] Donald J. Trump comes along and launches his campaign, which in my mind and the minds of a lot of other people, was the logical conclusion, if not logical extreme, of where politics and pop culture in America radically intersected. 

So months turn into a year and a half, and what do you know, Hillary Clinton manages to s— the f—— bed and Donald J. Trump beats her to become leader of the free world. So I was accidentally slotted into this role as a Trump White House reporter.

Markay: The funny thing about this administration is media reporters and Hollywood reporters  are just as qualified to cover it as politics reporters, both because Trump is such a ridiculous figure, but also because those worlds have never had a larger impact on how policy gets made than they have right now. 

‘We would have sucked at covering any other White House’

Insider: Something that popped out at me was that the model for this book was “Wiseguy” [the book upon which the classic mobster film “Goodfellas” is based]. But to me it almost reads like if Hunter S. Thompson wrote a true crime book about politics. 

Markay: Didn’t he do that? 

Insider: Kind of, yeah. What I mean is in a lot of ways Thompson became the story itself. Was there a conscious choice to make yourselves characters in the book? 

Markay: Yeah, I think there was. I don’t want to toot our own horn too much. I mean, we’re not calling ourselves world-class journalists when I say that the manner in which we stumbled into this was kind of a microcosm of how Trump himself has changed some of the dynamics in Washington. 

I remember reading a piece back in 2013 about how the White House beat was sort of this cushy, boring, mostly staid place for veteran reporters to go and not really do a lot of work and go to press briefings and mingle with powerful people. But it wasn’t considered a particularly exciting beat. Not much news came out if it. And then that changes very dramatically right at the outset [of the Trump administration]. 

We felt there was a lot of coverage and even some books coming out about the administration that tried to approach it the way you would approach previous White Houses. Clearly that’s not the direction we went in. And the way The Daily Beast approached it in assigning both of us to the White House sort of tacitly understood that. 

So the fact that the two of us — who didn’t have a minute of White House experience between us — were given this beat and told to just kind of run wild with it, is a microcosm of how things have changed in the Trump era, how media has changed in the Trump era.

We are sort of inescapably part of the story a bit in that we would have sucked at covering any other White House and we wouldn’t have enjoyed it like we do this. So I don’t want to call it a memoir or anything like that, but I think there needed to be a first-person element because the absurdity of this era is illustrated partly in the fact that we are covering it.

donald trump white house lawn
President Donald Trump talks to the media on his way to the Marine One helicopter, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, as he leaves the White House in Washington, en route to Texas.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

‘A lot of bush league, cartoonish, Adult Swim-style ratf——‘

Insider: It’s no secret that this White House leaks like a sieve. Can you talk about the leakers that have been most useful to you and the ones that have been the least useful to you? 

Markay: The challenge was everyone was leaking for sometimes selfish and sometimes duplicitous reasons. We recap in the book getting fed these absolute 100% bullshit anonymous tips by someone who claimed to be a high-level administration insider, who we subsequently discovered was multiple people inside the White House who were just trying to ratf— us by giving us bulls— tips and seeing if we’d run with them.

Insider: And that was the fake “swampydcinsider” email account. 

Markay: “Swampydcinsider,” exactly. 

Suebsaeng: Among the White House press corps in the Trump era, “swampydcinsider” is something that you just say to them and they’ll start giggling. I think it’s something that multiple people had eye-rolly interactions with back in 2017.

Markay: And they would feed you just enough to make it seem like it was real. Or they would read something you wrote to figure out a tip that you had, and then give you some bulls— tip that sounded like it could be plausibly aligned with that, and then hoped you would run with it. 

So it was actually kind of clever, but it was pretty clear it was bulls— and a less scrupulous reporter might have just printed it in full. But that was the kind of stuff you’d have to deal with, especially in the first year of the Trump administration.

Suebsaeng: There’s a lot of ratf—— in every single administration. (“Ratf——” became a common euphemism for political dirty tricks following the publication of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s seminal Watergate book “All the President’s Men”).

But there was a lot of bush league, cartoonish, Adult Swim-style ratf—— in the first year of the Trump era. As we recount in the book, it was one of those professional inconveniences that also became the professional laugh line. 

Markay: That’s another reason we decided to add a first person element to this, [because] this happening to us was just so comical that recounting it in the first person really gives you a sense of just how ridiculous the experience of covering this White House was. 

Suebsaeng: There’s several anecdotes in the book that fall under that category. Such as Rudy Giuliani prank-texting me right around the time of Christmas 2018, pretending that he was trying to liberate hostages on an airplane. He was doing that because he was bored, like bored out of his mind on a plane stuck on the tarmac. 

And one of my favorite parts in the book was during the tail end of the 2016 campaign when the actor Jon Voight called me thinking I was Steve Mnuchin, who at the time was Trump’s finance chair for his presidential campaign. Some weird s— like that. So we thought, we can’t really put that in the book without making it first person. 

‘It’s hard to overstate the stupidity of this political era’

Insider: What are some new names to watch on the Trump 2020 campaign that may have not been household names we knew from 2016 or from their work in the White House? 

Suebsaeng: A good example of that is a woman named Jenna Ellis. Maybe she’ll be in the paperback version. She’s a senior legal adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign, so she doesn’t work in the White House, but she advises Trump and the campaign. 

Markay: She’s very much of the Christian right, she’s very opposed to gay rights and just a total culture warrior. She got involved in the legal strategizing around impeachment and has become a go-to surrogate and pundit to hit up all the Fox shows to defend the president whenever he needs defending.   

Suebsaeng: We asked several senior Trump people both on and off the campaign, do you personally know Jenna Ellis? Because she was starting to become a pretty prominent figure among Trump folk. None of them, across the board, knew her. She really did just kind of rocket out of nowhere. 

But suddenly she’d become a player in Trumplandia in large part because the president saw her on TV, this Washington Examiner blogger, and liked her style and liked how much she was defending Donald J. Trump against all these nasty libs.

It goes back to Lachlan’s earlier point about how if you are a media reporter covering political media and the Trump era and engines such as Fox News, you were almost as qualified as anybody else to cover the Trump administration properly. 

Because as stupid as it sounds and as numb to it as we are because it’s so commonplace, the president really does get so much policy advice, and now apparently legal advice, from his favorite TV shows. And he will not just call up these people for private counsel or take their counsel directly through the TV, but tap them for very senior positions on his campaign or in his administration.

The fact that “Fox and Friends” has a gigantic sway over the direction of [Trump administration policy] — again, we’ve become numb to it — but it’s relentlessly true and relentlessly stupid same time. 

It’s hard to overstate the stupidity of this political era, at least in my opinion.