Ronald and Donald

In 1966 Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California (shades of Eugene Burdick’s 1956 novel The Ninth Wave). Then, in 1980, he won the presidential campaign. That an actor should govern California was consistent with the movies industry’s influence (see Arnold Schwarzenegger), but his election to the presidency astounded the world. And yet, an actor is perfectly equipped for a contest that is basically about acting. Seducing voters is more about tone of voice and body-language than ideas. It is about projecting charm, assurance and toughness in a credible incarnation of the role. In an election, an actor with a competent production crew has more than a head’s start. This being so, it is surprising so few go into politics. The messy, dirty side probably puts them off. The spotlight that shines on Hollywood is less harsh than the one that shines on Washington.

Strictly speaking, Donald Trump is not an actor. In his TV performances he was just playing at being himself. Nonetheless, his fourteen seasons as apprentice master and the wide audience attracted by the show brought him star status. They also showed that a brutal, vulgar loud-mouth appealed to a large section of society. It could be that Trump began his White House bid just for fun. It was a game fit for a billionaire, with crowds of screaming fans to boost his megalomania. However, having thrashed his opponents for the Republican nomination, he is facing the prospect of actually becoming president (is the majority prepared to elect a woman as commander-in-chief, even one as hawkish as H.R. Clinton?). Reality TV has replaced the cinema screen and the legendary log-cabin. Trump is the outsider who threatens to rock the boat. He is unfettered by the compromises and deals that build partisan political careers. Next year, that blustering demagogue could be the leader of the world’s most powerful nation.

If Trump does win the November contest, he will be the oldest US president to take office, beating Reagan’s previous record by about eight months. Unfortunately, older is not always wiser. Trump is a political novice who has never held an elected office. Fourteen years as a TV celebrity are a good preparation for an election, but fourteen years of state governorship give a foretaste of executive power. Being elected is one thing and governing is another. The wheeling, dealing and arm-twisting of Congressional politics, for which L.B.J. was particularly renowned, may be beyond Trump’s capabilities. In which case, he will content himself with the executive’s exclusive domains of surveillance, security, foreign policy and war. Why bother with the hassles of Congress when he can spy on, gun down and blow up as much as he likes. These are privileges that American presidents have always indulged in. One can only hope that Making America Great Again is not measured in tons of TNT.
Though if this is anything to go by:

“In the first five years of the Obama administration, the US government entered into formal agreements with the GCC to transfer over $64 billion in arms and defence services, with Saudi Arabia receiving at least three-quarters of the share. Arms sales to the GCC have surpassed that of the Nixon era, and the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any administration since World War II. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is the largest buyer of US arms, with nearly $100 billion in active foreign military sales. Obama is pursuing his own contemporary Nixon Doctrine with his allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council.”

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bloody-consequences-us-hypocrisy-full-174937293.html 
And this analysis of method by Hannah Arendt:

[…] they recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who never before had appeared on the political scene. This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda, and indifference to the arguments of political opponents; these movements not only placed themselves outside and against the party system as a whole, they found a membership that had never been reached, never been “spoiled” by the party system. Therefore they did not need to refute opposing arguments […]. They presented disagreements as invariably originating in the deep natural, social, or psychological sources beyond the power of reason. This would have been a shortcoming only if they had sincerely entered into competition with other parties; it was not if they were sure of dealing with people who had reason to be equally hostile to all parties.

The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt) part three: Totalitarianism, chapter 10: A classless society, 1: The masses, page 311/12