It’s All About the Rich, About the Rich, Not the Base

If you can figure out the underlying vectors of Donald Trump’s policies, they would seem to divide into two clear paths: words and social policies for his base (salesman Trump), substance and hard dollars for the rich (wealthy guy Trump). Since in the President’s limited view of the political connectivity of the world, foreign policy is a place to show the base how tough you can be without, he believes, serious domestic consequences – a place where he can apply his very questionable The Art of the Deal techniques (bully + hyperbole = a good deal for me), international relations are nothing more than a stage for his machismo.

It helps to raise false problems – like globalization as the evil that destroys American jobs (forget that globalization hasn’t been an issue for years… it’s the automated machines owned by his rich buddies that are tanking blue collar employment) – and then “solve” them by getting rid of cheap foreigners in our midst (read: immigrants) and pulling out of multinational treaties in the unfounded hopes that the world will then kowtow to America’s demand that going forward trade agreements must be bilateral. Callous and misdirected policies that will only make life more expensive for most Americans.

He can embrace social conservatism, because there are no apparent hard costs associated with being anti-LGBT, pro white Christian, pro law enforcement (at the expense of minority rights), anti-abortion rights, and pro any form of overt patriotism. He can appear pro-jobs by eliminating environmental regulations, since measuring damage directly-related to man-induced climate change is hard to measure with any precision. He thus can make raw statements without worrying about the real consequences.

Trump also can use those “words” to suggest that all those pro-business biased “cut taxes and reduced regulations” are simply pro-job-creation, even though most tangible measures of the implementation of such choices by past state and federal administrations clearly show that such policies have had the opposite effect. By maintaining a “swamp” theory, when those policies fail to produce the desired results, he has an easy target to blame: the old line Republicans and all Democrats, the courts and the federal bureaucracy that he has labeled the “swamp.” That the stock market is soaring, in drooling anticipation of massive corporate tax cuts, he can take credit for “solid economic growth.” That unemployment numbers look better belies the lower levels of pay for those without college educations and the vast numbers of workers who have simply given up looking for work altogether.

When it comes to those who constitute Trump’s base, however, his policies seem focused on decimating what little economic strength they have left, pretending that such efforts will restore moribund obsolete rust belt and resource extraction jobs that are never coming back. His policies have eviscerated the Consumer Protection Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, forced consumers into one-sided arbitration favoring financial institutions (vs. being able to go to court), sabotaged the surviving portions of the Affordable Care Act forcing premiums to skyrocket and insurers to opt out of healthcare exchanges in the resulting uncertainty, and his proposed changes in the federal tax code that will inevitably raise taxes for the middle class while heaping massive benefits to major U.S. corporations and massively expanded the federal deficit.

The Trump administration’s latest assault on the “little guy” comes in the form of a proposed repeal of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in favor of “net neutrality.” That rule forbids internet service providers (ISPs) from giving content providers (including their own affiliates) any bandwidth priorities or in encumbering content providers with slower download speeds. This effort to level the playing field was intended to maximize internet access on an equal basis for all. It does not allow rich content providers to pay ISPs to prioritize their services over their competitors (a cost passed on to consumers, and one which the bigger services can afford while smaller content providers simply cannot match) or slow down delivering content from services that do not pay the ISPs (unless the consumer is willing to bear an additional fee to speed up delivery).

This is great news for ISPs, who would be able to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in extra fees – to content providers as well as consumers – to get the same level of internet access they currently enjoy without those extra costs. The Trump-dominated FCC claims that this will spur “innovation,” a stupid suggestion for an industry that is already forced by existing levels of competition to innovate or die. Do you really believe that the Silicon Valley needs more encouragement to innovate? But the FCC has joined the profoundly anti-consumer march that is the hallmark of the entire Trump administration.

“Mr. [Ajit] Pai, who was appointed [FCC] chairman by President Trump in January, has eliminated numerous regulations during his first year… The agency has stripped down rules governing television broadcasters, newspapers and telecom companies that were meant to protect the public interest. On Tuesday, in addition to the net neutrality rollback, Mr. Pai announced a plan to eliminate a rule limiting any corporation from controlling broadcasts that can reach more than 39 percent of American homes.

“The fight over net neutrality could end up being one of his biggest and most fraught decisions. For more than a decade, the agency has struggled with how to regulate internet service, leading to extended legal battles. The rules adopted under Mr. Wheeler were upheld in 2016 by a federal appeals court in Washington.

“The proposal released on Tuesday will probably make its way to court as well. And companies like Google and Facebook are expected to push the public to speak out against the plan. They coordinated a huge online protest against the possible changes in July.

“Some of the lobbying could take place in Congress, even though it may change little because Republicans control both houses. Nevertheless, Democrats have vowed to try to reconstruct the strict rules adopted by the F.C.C. in 2015.” New York Times, November 21^st.

But even if the FCC were to adopt this additional anti-consumer stances on net neutrality, ISPs need to be acutely aware that with the next Democratic administration, this will be one of the first FCC actions to be reversed. As to the bigger picture, the next Democratic administration will probably be consumed with reversing the bulk of Trump administration anti-consumer, anti-environmental, foreign policy missteps and lopsided give-aways to corporate America… to the extent these even can be reversed. Polarization continues on steroids!

I’m Peter Dekom, and with the well-preplanned “blame” coefficient in place, Trump’s base continues to be sheep being led to slaughter… by their own unwitting choice.