Fear and anger are never a good place from which to vote, particularly when the underlying facts suggest otherwise. But post-Obama – who really did toe a centrist line – the Democratic Party turned hard left, often using particularly harsh labels on anyone who did not agree with them. David Leonhardt, writing for the November 26th The Morning (NY Times news feed), describes the assumptions that Democrats made that tanked much of their election effort: ‘After Obama, the party moved left on one big issue after another — Medicare, gender, border security, policing and more. It’s true that Kamala Harris tried to move back to the center this year, but her moderation never had the self-assurance that Obama’s did. It could seem tactical and reluctant. She refused to explain why she had changed her mind about fracking, border security and ‘Medicare for all.’ When asked whether she supported any abortion restrictions, she avoided the question.
“The Democrats’ post-Obama leftward turn was based on a specific theory of the electorate: that the country’s growing number of voters of color would cover the loss of working-class whites. Under this race-centric theory, Donald Trump looked like a gift to Democrats. He made racist and sexist comments. He resembled a caricature of the backward voters Democrats were happy to leave behind.”
They were wrong. For example, there are even rising voices in the LGBTQ+ community to stop alienating voters: “When the Biden administration convened a call with L.G.B.T.Q. allies last year to discuss new limits on the participation of transgender student athletes, one activist fumed on the call that the administration would be complicit in ‘genocide’ of transgender youth, according to two people with knowledge of the incident… Now, some activists say it is time to rethink and recalibrate their confrontational ways, and are pushing back against the more all-or-nothing voices in their coalition.” Jeremy Peters, NY Times, November 26th. Remember the backlash from the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton described Trump voters as the “deplorables”?
Yet the ballot-splitting and the narrow margines clearly did not give Trump’s much-touted “mandate,” and a large segment of non-MAGA voters who elected him never really believed he would implement the extremes he seems to be dedicated to fulfilling. His denial of any affiliation with Project 2025 is now negated by the nomination of folks, most involved in the creation of that document, to key Trump administration posts. For example, his FCC nominee, Brendan Carr, outlined what he wants to see happen at the agency in a chapter for Project 2025, suggesting media licensing challenges to media critical of Trump. There are statutes and constitutional limitations that may negate Trump’s most extreme measures, even with his reconfigured Supreme Court. But that Court could easily parallel their presidential immunity ruling… and support Trump.
Faced with the immediacy of Trump second nomination for attorney general, former Florida AG Pam Bondi, has been anything but subtle that she intends to be the President-elect’s “retribution officer in chief.” His preparations of a “woke-culled” military to round up and detain undocumented workers, to void “citizens by birth or marriage” (Melania?) and to start “Day One” with his “detain and deport” pledge under his border tsar, the very hard Tom Homan, are scaring entire market segments that have a real impact on the labor market. Red state farmers and major red state builders are asking for exemptions, noting efforts to remove these workers are almost certainly going to drive up food prices and slam the construction of much needed housing.
And it’s no secret why Elon Musk has cozied up to Trump. With his new role as “budget slash and burn” chief officer, even as he has no direct governmental authority, he has recouped his Trump-supporting campaign contributions by a vast multiple. His major shareholdings in public companies, many of which do business with the government, soared 40% after the election. Trump suddenly supported Trump’s Tesla EV efforts; we can expect more of what economist Paul Krugman, writing for the November 26th NY Times, calls “crony capitalism” (generally an attribute shared among autocracies): “Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do?
“Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted?... In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts?” All this as those targeted nations facing Trump’s highest tariffs are already planning to retaliate. Russian journalists, writing anonymous letters to US media outlets, are warning American citizens that Trump’s vectors parallel Putin’s rise to autocracy almost step-by-step.
Even in Beverly Hills, racism has permeated even its local schools as a horde of flag carrying Trumpers, marched down the halls of Beverly Hills High, chanting racist vituperatives and threatening “woke” teachers, including one Black teacher who locked herself in her classroom. Using the “N” word openly to describe Black classmates spread rapidly among these students. Terrified Black students, minding their own business, faced this reality as they testified before the Beverly Hills school board. The world is looking at this rising anger… with increasing trepidation.
Major allies are even imposing tracking requirements on US tourists; the UK’s plan kicked in almost immediately. There is roiling sea of expected workarounds, not just from those nations threatened most by Trump’s stated policies, but by our traditional allies, a move that could derail the US dollar as the major global reserve currency, a catastrophic blow to the American consumer. Indeed, governors from major blue states are pledging to push back, to maintain their local values and not to cooperate in Trump’s “detain and deport” efforts. In response, Border tsar nominee Homan even threatened to arrest Denver’s mayor for such resistance and pledged to double the necessary federal operatives in cities that have adopted official “sanctuary” status. Trump has also hinted that he will force FEMA to withhold disaster relief to blue states that resist his policies.
I’m Peter Dekom, and Trump is definitely the new boss with massive congressional support for his autocratic measures, but as his key nominees face even a MAGA-controlled Senate pushback, could Trump finally force a break in his seeming lockstep hold on Congress he needs to reign as our all-powerful monolith?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment