WSJ Compares Trump’s Campaign Messaging to ‘Baghdad Bob’ Propaganda

In a stark assessment of the current political landscape, Wall Street Journal columnist Gerard Baker has pointed out that President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have fallen to levels similar to those of President Joe Biden before his electoral defeat in 2024.

Baker, a conservative commentator, acknowledged some success in Trump’s second-term agenda, particularly regarding immigration and gender policies, writing that “it’s worked out well on immigration and sex.” However, he questioned the administration’s approach, noting that “neither the method of implementation nor the president’s affect has been normal.”

The columnist’s critique extended beyond implementation to the substance of Trump’s economic and foreign policy decisions, asking readers pointedly: “But how are inflation and foreign entanglements working out for you?” This assessment suggests growing concerns about the economic trajectory and international commitments under the current administration.

The comparison between Trump’s current standing and Biden’s pre-defeat numbers represents a significant warning signal for Republican strategists. Presidential approval ratings have historically served as reliable indicators of electoral performance, and Baker’s observation highlights potential vulnerabilities as the administration navigates domestic and international challenges.

Baker didn’t spare Democrats in his analysis either. He characterized America under President Biden’s leadership as “a radical Hollywood screenwriter’s fever dream,” criticizing policies he described as supporting “open borders, fiscal profligacy, an inflationary surge, a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and endless lectures on how there was no such thing as women or men.”

This bipartisan critique forms part of Baker’s broader concern about whether either major party is “ready to be normal” in an era of increasing political polarization. He argued that American politics now exists in “an age of radical politics, increasing polarization and a steady centrifugal momentum in both major parties,” with bases that are “ill at ease with the old, centripetal ways.”

The criticism from Baker is particularly notable given his conservative credentials. This isn’t his first critique of Trump; he previously described Trump’s approach to Iran as “unsettling” and made the troubling observation that Americans “are in the unprecedented position of having to suspect that the enemy’s version of events is more likely to be true than our own.”

Baker even invoked the infamous “Baghdad Bob” comparison—referencing Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister known for his wildly inaccurate briefings during the 2003 Iraq War—to illustrate concerns about truthfulness in official communications.

The columnist’s observations align with scholarly assessments of Trump’s impact on American politics. Federico Finchelstein, a New School historian specializing in fascism, told Salon Magazine in 2021 that Trump has shifted the Republican Party rightward by introducing explicitly fascist elements. Finchelstein drew parallels between Trump and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, noting they “lie in the same way” – not for tactical political advantage but because “they want to change the world in order for the world to resemble those lies.”

Counterbalancing perspectives come from figures like the late Senator Joe Lieberman, who warned in 2018 that Democrats risked permanent minority status if they moved too far left. Lieberman advocated for the Kennedy-era Democratic approach: “progressive on domestic policy and principled and muscular on foreign and defense policy… pro-business, pro-growth.”

As both parties navigate their respective ideological trajectories, Baker’s column highlights a fundamental question facing American politics: whether either party can recalibrate toward positions that appeal to voters seeking more moderate, “normal” governance in an increasingly polarized political environment.