Well, check this out.
And note that not only did Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump trademark “Trumpublican” but also “Trumpocrat”.
Why? Think about it for a moment.
If Donald Trump somehow got elected as President, then what would happen? The first thing that would happen is that after all of his big-time bluster about “the greatest” whatever it was he had promised to voters, Trump would be stymied by the reality that Democrats and many Republicans would be obstacles to Trump getting his policies enacted into law.
In other words, Trump would have to do something that he seldom has to do when issuing orders to underlings in his Trump-brand empire. He would have to play the messy, compromising, game of politics. And nobody gets through that process without pissing off large numbers of supporters who feel the rotten compromiser has betrayed everything he has stood for.
Well, of course he did that. It is how democratic politics works—or fails to work.
But, when you are peddling a brand, and when the buyers of that brand simply do not like the product you’re selling—because it has been too compromised in the process of bringing it to market—a good marketer eliminates the compromises.
Or, as Trump liked to do on “The Apprentice” to the loser of the week—you turn to the problems and say “You’re fired!”
But Trump can’t do that in the American political system—unless he changes that system by offering his own brand of political parties. Trumpublicans and Trumpocrats would be members of either party who are ready to abandon party loyalty and go with the Trump brand of President and politics.
The trademarking of the names is obviously Trump preparing the ground for a potential third-party run. But Trump can go further than this. He can utterly erode respect (already very low) for the idea of political parties as organizations aimed at delivering candidates devoted to a particular body of ideology and policy.
Trump can reinvent the political party as solely a platform for selling a personality—a celebrity—as a brand of politics.
And what would the brand stand for? Answer: nothing!—in fact, the blander and less specific the better! But it would have a name: TRUMP!
Earlier this week, in an interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, Trump was asked a question (by Heilemann) all the candidates should be asked:
“Are you an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy?”Trump, who is allegedly a Presbyterian, answered:
“Probably equal. I think it’s just an incredible…the whole Bible is an incredible. I joke, very much so...they always hold up “The Art of the Deal”. I say that’s my second favorite book of all time. But I just think the Bible is just something very special.”Now, if Trump had been asked what reality television show he liked best, or what pop singer he liked the most, and he gave an answer like “all of them are incredible”, everyone would know that was a bullshit evasion, and Trump was an ass for answering that way. But with the Bible? Nobody reads or understands that stupid book anyway. All that is necessary is that you say the Bible is just very special (whatever the fuck that means).
So far, the only place where Trump is failing at the bland, stand-for-nothing principle, is when it comes to attacking groups his brand has determined are expendable and exploitable non-buyers, such as Hispanic Americans and hedge-fund managers.
To counter the charge he is anti-Hispanic, Trump is courting Ted Cruz (or is it the other way around?), as a potential VP pick. Trump doesn't seem to think losing the hedge-fund vote is a problem.
The thing is, there is a reason a reality-television host is now building the foundation to become POTUS—and this is because it isn't what you stand for that matters in America (if it ever did). It is just what you can get people to buy. And if you can get them to buy chicken nuggets, you can sure as hell get them to elect Donald Trump as host of the USA reality show.