Tag: power
Political Styles Of The Rich And Clueless

Political Styles Of The Rich And Clueless

As we wait to see what fresh hell awaits us this week, one obvious question is, who put these malevolent clowns in power?

The short answer is ignorant people. But political ignorance takes two different forms.

On one side there are “less-engaged” voters who don’t follow politics closely. And to be fair, ordinary Americans have good excuses for not paying close attention to the news: They have jobs to do, children to raise, lives to live. Unfortunately, many of these voters believed Trump’s fabulist promises. They are only now beginning to understand what they voted for.

There’s now a huge debate among Democrats about how to reach less-engaged voters. But that’s a topic for future posts.

But less-engaged voters weren’t the only people who missed the warning signs and supported Donald Trump. Trump also had a number of ultra-wealthy backers, both on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, who are now shocked, shocked to discover that he is who he always was.

Over the weekend Bill Ackman, a hedge-fund billionaire who has been one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, suddenly turned on his champion, declaring on X that

by placing massive and disproportionate tariffs on our friends and our enemies alike and thereby launching a global economic war against the whole world at once, we are in the process of destroying confidence in our country as a trading partner, as a place to do business, and as a market to invest capital.

But Ackman refused to take any responsibility for enabling the destruction:

I don't think this was foreseeable. I assumed economic rationality would be paramount. My bad.

Indeed. Who could have foreseen that the self-proclaimed Tariff Man, who posts crazy stuff on Truth Social every day, would impose destructive tariffs? Who could have imagined that the many economists, myself included, who warned that a Trump victory would be very bad for the economy would turn out to have been right? Or if we were wrong, it was only because we underestimated the damage.

OK, Ackman is a fool, but he wasn’t alone in getting Trump all wrong. Many wealthy people imagined that Trump II would be like Trump I, mostly a standard right-winger with a bit of a protectionist hobby. They thought he would cut their taxes, eliminate financial and environmental regulations and promote crypto, making them even wealthier. They expected him to back off his tariff obsession if the stock market started to fall. If he ripped up the social safety net, well, they don’t depend on food stamps or Medicaid.

And if Trump II really had been like Trump I, America’s oligarchs would be very happy right now.

It's also true that successful businessmen often believe that their financial success makes them experts on economic policy even though they haven’t made any effort to understand the issues.

Even relatively sensible business leaders like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase tend to stumble when they try to play economist. Does anyone remember Dimon proclaiming in 2014 that we couldn’t restore full employment because American workers didn’t have the right skills? Five years later the unemployment rate was below 4 percent.

I was struck over the weekend when Elon Musk (I know, I know), seemingly breaking with Trump, called for zero tariffs between the United States and Europe. I think it’s safe to assume that Musk has no idea that trans-Atlantic tariffs were, in fact, close to zero in 2024: The average European Union tariff on U.S. goods was 1.7%, the average U.S. tariff on EU goods was 1.4%.

Finally, great wealth often enables great pettiness. Some readers may remember Wall Street’s “Obama rage”: Financial titans were furious at the president who bailed them out after the global financial crisis because he dared to hint that they had played some role in causing that crisis. Why, he even called them “fat cats!

The pettiness has been even worse this time around. A few days before the inauguration the Financial Times ran an article titled “Is corporate America going MAGA?” that quoted one “top banker”:

I feel liberated. We can say ‘retard’ and ‘pussy’ without the fear of getting cancelled . . . it’s a new dawn.

I wonder how liberated he’s feeling now.

To be honest, I’m actually glad that Trump II is proving to be such a disaster for the economy. If he had exercised some restraint, if he had simply claimed credit for the very good economy Joe Biden left him, many wealthy people would have cheered him on while he destroyed democracy. Now they may turn on him.

But I hope the rest of us have learned a lesson from the oligarchy’s support for Trump, even if it’s now cracking: Extreme wealth inequality has given great power to people who exert a malign influence on our politics.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, where he now posts almost every day.


Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Allison Riggs

In North Carolina, Political Power Grab Thwarts Voters

Some people just won’t take no for an answer.

Put in that category the Republican candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. Jefferson Griffin lost that race to incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs by just 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast, which has to hurt. Ask Democrat Cheri Beasley, who in 2020 lost her North Carolina chief justice race to Republican Paul Newby by about 400 votes from almost 5.4 million ballots cast.

Since two recounts have confirmed the Riggs win, you might think Griffin would have conceded by now, as Beasley did after two recounts.

You would be wrong.

Without pointing to one illegal or fraudulent vote, Griffin is trying to have 60,000 votes thrown out — including the votes of Riggs’ parents — mostly because either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number were not attached to those voters’ registrations.

There may be good reasons for that, as many registered before those items were required, or the “missing” information was not attached because of bureaucratic error. Last year, a federal judge, a Trump appointee, dismissed part of a suit brought by the Republican Party that sought to purge 225,000 voters from the rolls.

Because of North Carolina law, everyone who voted in November had to show an accepted form of ID — for many, a driver’s license. They walked out of their polling places satisfied they had performed their civic duty.

If Griffin and state Republicans have their way, many of their votes may not count.

It’s no coincidence that analysis has shown that voters the GOP point to as suspect are disproportionately young, non-white or less likely to vote for Republicans.

Griffin, who hasn’t tried to defend his reasoning out loud, is only questioning results in his race, knowing the doubt and confusion it would cause in other, already certified state races. State and federal courts, and even some right-wing, so-called voter integrity groups have in the past rejected the arguments Griffin makes.

It’s easy yet dangerous to dismiss it as the usual GOP tactic of sowing doubt about any election a Republican loses, crying “wolf” or “rigged,” while declaring an election free and fair if it goes the other way; it gradually causes Americans to reject the integrity of any election.

And it is a tactic overwhelmingly used by one party.

The difference between the two major parties on how they handle wins and losses is why the transfer of power in January 2025 — with Vice President Kamala Harris honorably certifying an electoral count she lost — looked nothing like the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, when losing candidate Donald Trump incited followers to resist instead of choosing democracy.

Now, Griffin’s case is getting national attention because the GOP-dominated, seven-member North Carolina Supreme Court is giving it oxygen, offering national Republicans a blueprint. Four of the five GOP justices voted to temporarily put the brakes on the certification. Riggs understandably recused herself, and Justice Anita Earls, the only other Democrat on the court, voted to let the state Board of Elections decision, and the Riggs win, stand.

Showing some independence as well as common sense, Republican Justice Richard Dietz joined Earls in rejecting the post-election maneuvering, and wrote in dissent: “Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules — and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules — invites incredible mischief.”

A challenge to the state Supreme Court action has already come in the form of a recent filing from the Democratic National Committee. On a press call earlier this week, former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, outgoing DNC Chair Jaime Harrison and state party chair Anderson Clayton talked about what the case means beyond North Carolina.

“The eyes of the entire country are on this race because the implications of having free and fair elections that are being questioned and potentially overturned are devastating,” said Cooper. “If they are successful in this scheme,” he said, “there will be copycat lawsuits across this country for races where they don’t like the result.”

“This time it’s 60,000 ballots, next time it’s 100,000 ballots, and then it’s 250,000 ballots until no ballots get counted,” said Clayton, whose national profile rose during the swing state attention North Carolina received in the last election cycle. “This playbook is not new to our state, but it is one that Republicans will take and make a national playbook if they’re able to succeed here.”

“As a party, our responsibility is to the voters — not a politician,” said Harrison. He admitted the result at the top of the ticket was not what Democrats worked for or wanted, but noted how well his party did downballot in North Carolina, including capturing the offices of governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, and breaking, by one seat, the GOP supermajority in the state legislature.

The move to reject ballots to put Griffin on the court is a Republican reaction to those wins, Harrison said, a “temper tantrum” to try to change the rules, something GOP state legislators already did when they passed, while they still held that supermajority, last-minute laws to diminish incoming Gov. Josh Stein’s already limited powers.

Harrison, a South Carolinian, recalled a time in the South when not all Americans, including his own grandparents, had the right to vote.

Maybe Griffin and his enablers have forgotten that all-too-recent history, when brave patriots fought and died expanding that precious franchise so all Americans’ voices could be heard and respected.

Or maybe a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court is more important.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Paul Dans

Project 2025 Chief Booted Over 'Power Rift' With Trump Campaign

Two years ago The Heritage Foundation began Project 2025, which has been described as a far-right, draconian, authoritarian playbook to turn the country into a Christian nationalist nation. From the start, Paul Dans was its chief. He has now reportedly been forced out after a “power rift” with the Trump campaign over control of the multi-million dollar enterprise that would entirely remake the federal government under a Republican president.

“Project 2025 director Paul Dans has stepped down at Heritage Foundation after pressure from Trump campaign leadership, ongoing power rift over staffing control for potential second Trump admin, per internal email,” writesThe Daily Beast’s Roger Sollenberger, who first reported the news. “This suggests Project 2025 will likely shut down.”

But this massive enterprise which reportedly includes over 1000 individuals, at least 140 of whom have ties to the Trump administration, is likely not going to just disappear.

“To be clear,” Sollenberger adds, “this isn’t ideological & doesn’t mean Project 2025’s goals & policies are rejected—years of work led by former Trump admin officials. There’s a long-running rivalry over controlling a next admin. Senior Trump adviser Chris LaCivita led the charge against Dans.”

But Politicosays Dans departing, “does not mean the project, which has been repeatedly criticized by Democrats as well as Donald Trump, is shutting down.”

Sollenberger goes on to say, “Top Trump campaign adviser Chris LaCivita ‘put the screws’ to Project 2025 director Paul Dans, per source familiar, forcing him out amid popular backlash to the politically toxic right-wing policy manifesto.”

In his new reporting at The Daily Beast, Sollenberger adds, “There’s just one glaring problem with the Trump camp’s attempt to distance itself from Project 2025: J.D. Vance’s fingerprints are all over the right-wing project.”

The Brookings Institution’s Norm Eisen, a CNN legal analyst, responded to the news saying, “The firing of Project 2025 head Paul Dans was an admission of guilt! Dans told the truth about the hoped-for autocracy.”

“That’s a crime in Trump world. We have the receipts,” he added, pointing to Just Security’s “American Autocracy Threat Tracker,” which “comprehensively catalogs all of Trump’s and his allies’ Project 2025 and other specific plans and promises.”

Project 2025 is backed by over 100 groups, including Southern Poverty Law Center-listed hate groups, and its public 920-page blueprint, authored by top Trump acolytes and advisors, is still readily available online.

Trump has claimed he knows nothing about Project 2025, but The Wall Street Journalon Tuesday, reporting on Dans’ exit, noted, “Trump has privately expressed annoyance that Project 2025 has received so much attention, and he resents the notion that the group is ghostwriting his policies and choosing candidates to fill the top ranks of his administration, according to associates.”

Just weeks agoThe Daily Beastreported, “Donald Trump is going to great lengths on the campaign trail to distance himself from Project 2025, the controversial blueprint for his second administration—but he can’t seem to outrun his past praise for the people behind it, or their past claims that he is fully on board with their plans.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World