Cheap Mayonnaise and Expensive Illusions

 

Cheap Mayonnaise and Expensive Illusions

Date: February 22, 2026

I have always prided myself on the idea that I could work with anybody in the workplace. I have believed that, despite political differences, we all share the same space, the same country, and the same responsibility to make things function. I have tried to carry that attitude into public life as well, assuming that cooperation is still possible even when disagreements are sharp.

However, Donald Trump, as president, is one of those ideas that keeps spinning in my mind day after day. I will not be listening to his State of the Union address today. Even though I pride myself on being able to work with anyone within our country and within our shared concept of what is workable, I find myself questioning why anyone should really listen to him. As he grows more authoritarian in tone and approach, if not outright dictatorial, the question becomes more urgent.

I often think about this in terms of something as simple as mayonnaise at the grocery store. When you go to Walmart and see the cheaper store-brand mayonnaise next to the more expensive Kraft mayonnaise, you might ask yourself whether there is really a difference. At one time, stores like Smart & Final even carried cheaper mayonnaise that seemed better than the name brand, with only a slightly darker color to distinguish it. Yet, in my mind, the analogy keeps returning. There is cheap mayonnaise, and there is the real thing. Even when I buy the cheaper version at Walmart or Ralphs, I know there is still a difference in quality.

In the same way, there is a difference between economic policies that truly work and those that only claim to work. There is a difference between practical governance and abstract ideological promises. It would be nice if the Republican Party could elevate its abstract concepts into workable solutions, but instead ordinary people are penalized. Immigrants are being pushed out of the country who do not need to be pushed out. Policies are framed as strength when they feel more like punishment.

The idea of arming a kind of private enforcement apparatus separate from the already powerful military concerns me deeply. Agencies like ICE and DHS are expanding their militancy by acquiring more weapons and armaments. This type of thinking, to me, traces back to those kitchen-table ideas, like confusing cheap mayonnaise for something equal to the real thing. When the foundation is flawed, everything built on top of it becomes distorted.

DHS and ICE appear to be crossing the line of practical application, not only in their armament but in their very posture. They are becoming an embarrassment to democracy. Why would we need further militant intervention by federal forces when so many cities and counties are already heavily militarized? How many cities now have armored vehicles resembling tanks? If I am not mistaken, even San Diego County has one.

My first instinct is that ICE and DHS should be disarmed rather than further armed or supported. If they refuse to disarm and reduce conflict within communities where people are simply trying to work and make a living, then their usefulness must be questioned. Outside of gathering information, I see little justification for their current trajectory. Instead, they appear to function as instruments for consolidating executive power.

There is little point, in my view, in listening to Trump anymore. It is clear what direction he is driving toward. He is not simply substituting cheap mayonnaise for the real thing. He seems intent on hollowing out the federal government itself. His approach resembles corporate raiders who buy companies only to dismantle them, sell off the valuable pieces, and leave the shell behind. Corporations that specialize in acquiring and dividing up other corporations follow this pattern, and it feels uncomfortably similar.

There are also troubling associations and unanswered questions that linger around him, from controversial affiliations to financial entanglements and allegations that raise concerns about transparency and integrity. When we see public figures abroad, such as members of the British royal family, facing legal consequences and scrutiny, it reminds us how fragile reputations can be. The veil of illusion that political parties sometimes sell to the public eventually thins.

The question is when that veil will finally be cut through. It is clear to me that it is an illusion, and that is why I do not feel compelled to listen to what I perceive as gaslighting. I wish that Trump would devote himself to creative and constructive projects rather than projects centered on tearing things down. Eliminating safeguards and dismantling structures without thoughtful replacements does not demonstrate strength. It creates instability.

I say this not merely in criticism but in an attempt to imagine a positive path forward. I cannot understand how he continues to frame himself as blameless or heroic in the face of such division. It feels excessive and detached from reality. Perhaps he believes he is misunderstood or unfairly treated, but leadership requires more than self-justification.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the support he receives from figures like Speaker Mike Johnson and others who reinforce his most extreme ideas without offering meaningful alternatives. Positive thinking, in a political sense, would mean proposing workable reforms, reducing unnecessary force, and transforming agencies like ICE into nonviolent data-gathering institutions focused on practical administration rather than confrontation.

Instead, what I perceive is an anticipation of violence and conflict. Why pursue such an expensive and destructive path? It causes suffering and division, and it does not appear to produce sustainable results. It feels like an attempt to fulfill a political fairy tale rather than govern a complex nation responsibly.

In the end, the mayonnaise analogy remains with me. There is a difference between what looks similar on the surface and what truly nourishes. There is a difference between strength and aggression, between reform and dismantling, between illusion and reality. The challenge before us is to recognize that difference and demand something better.