Your morning update from Salon.

The Iran war shows how fossil fuels, conflict and planetary crisis are now inseparable. Read more.

The language of politics is built from the principle that nobody has the whole picture. We reach for analogies. Lame ducks, red tape and horse races work to simplify the complex mechanisms of campaigns and lawmaking, with audiences taking for granted the behind-the-scenes action of running for office or keeping bills from passing.

Entire industries of consultants, organizers and publications (*cough*) have sprung up around the idea that all of this is extremely complicated. The day-to-day functioning of the government requires deep dives, explainers, punditry. The presidencies of Donald Trump make you wonder if any of that is truly necessary anymore.

Take, for example, Trump’s meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin this week. Trump spent a good portion of this already on-the-nose celebration of St. Patrick’s Day, wherein the leader of Ireland’s Parliament pays a ceremonial visit to the White House carrying a bowl of shamrock, taking shots at green energy. In response to a question about the U.K.’s hesitation to support the war in Iran, Trump attacked wind turbines as over-priced bird killers. 

“They’re very bad environmentally, they kill the birds, they’re unsightly, they make a lot of noise, and for some reason, the environmentalists love windmills,” he said.

The damage that might represent in terms of weaning the U.S. off fossil fuels is obviously a lot worse than the damage to writerly flair. But I can’t deny that sucks a bit of the fun out of following politics when a delusional old man named Don is tilting at literal windmills.

The entire Trump era has been marked by a similar lack of depth. Trump pushes to bring back the Gilded Age, hammering home comparisons by pushing to abolish income taxes and imposing tariffs. Just in case someone could possibly miss the comparison, he covers the White House in gold-covered TJ Maxx decor. 

His Department of Defense is led by a man who doesn’t realize that comparisons between America’s Middle East wars and the medieval Crusades are either racist or derogatory. The military is full of commanders who believe the imagist ramblings of John of Patmos’ Book of Revelation are meant to be read literally. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brought a similar view to American law, leading his colleague Elena Kagan to throw up her hands and declare that nothing else mattered beyond the most straightforward interpretation of a text.

Audiences have grown to expect the didactic straight dope. Director Paul Thomas Anderson faced criticism earlier this week for initially balking at a direct question about the politics of his Oscar-winner “One Battle After Another.” Comedian Connor O’Malley inspired backlash yesterday when a short film meant to critique the rise of AI slop and labor automation used janky AI-generated clips to portray a news frenzy. Can you blame viewers for such literal-minded, 1:1 reasoning? Deep critical thinking clearly isn’t required for the highest offices in the land. Why should we demand it of ourselves?

What do you think? Are metaphors going the way of the dodo? Sound off in the comments.

Support the progressive journalism you trust. Become a Salon member today!

The president and FCC Chair Brendan Carr are threatening journalists and broadcasters for their Iran coverage. Read more.

Most people saving for retirement have a number in mind. Fewer have a plan for turning that number into actual income.

The Definitive Guide to Retirement Income walks you through the questions that matter: what things will cost, where the money comes from, and how to keep your portfolio aligned with your long-term goals.

If you have $1,000,000 or more saved, download your free guide and start building a retirement income plan that holds up.

Download your free guide.