Tag: vladimir putin
Kimmel's Triumph: A Sign That The Tide Is Turning Against Autocracy?

Kimmel's Triumph: A Sign That The Tide Is Turning Against Autocracy?

It’s irrefutable now: Trump is nakedly following the playbook of autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban. As his poll numbers fall, he is rushing to lock in permanent power by punishing his opponents and intimidating everyone else into submission. Craven congressional Republicans and a complicit Supreme Court have abetted Trump’s destruction of our democratic safeguards and norms.

Yet Trump has a significant problem that neither Putin nor Orban faced. When Putin and Orban were consolidating their autocratics, they were genuinely popular. They were perceived by the public as effective and competent leaders. Just nine months into his presidency, Trump, by contrast, is deeply unpopular. He is increasingly seen as chaotic and inept. As David Frum says, this means that he is in a race against time. Can he consolidate power before he loses his aura of inevitability? Will those who run major institutions – particularly corporate CEOs – understand that we are at a crucial juncture, and that by accommodating Trump they have more to lose than by standing up to him?

To put it bluntly, is the Jimmy Kimmel affair the harbinger of a failed Trumpian putsch?

Before I address that question, I want to offer some historical comparisons that illustrate how poorly Trump is doing compared with his role models, Putin and Orban. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago, but I think the point deserves further elaboration.

First, Russia. Putin appears to have been extremely popular in the early 2000s, as he was consolidating power. His net approval — approval minus disapproval — was consistently above 50 percent.

Why was Putin so popular? Kitchen table issues. The Russian economy performed very badly for years after the fall of Communism, culminating in a devastating financial crisis in 1998. But Putin got to preside over a rapid economic recovery: Real GDP per capita doubled between 1998 and 2008:


Viktor Orban has never been as popular as Putin at his peak. Nonetheless, for most of the 2010s, as he consolidated power, his net approval was strongly positive, often by 10 points or more. Again, the main explanation was probably his perceived economic success. Orban took power at a time when Hungary’s economy was deeply depressed by austerity policies, and was able to preside over a large decline in unemployment:

Trump’s net approval, by contrast, turned negative within weeks after taking office and has just continued to fall:

As G. Elliott Morris points out, his position looks even worse when you consider intensity. Almost half the public disapproves “strongly,” twice the share with strong approval.

Some of the public’s disdain for Trump reflects alarm over his assault on democracy, the spectacle of abductions by masked secret police, his attacks on education and public health, his destruction of key agencies like the FBI, and more. Yet, as always, economics plays a key role in Trump’s cratering popularity.

People have not forgotten that Trump made big promises during the campaign: He would end inflation on day one, reduce the price of groceries, and cut electricity prices in half. None of that is remotely happening. Moreover, more economic pain is coming as the full inflationary impact of tariffs and deportations will soon be felt. Not surprisingly, consumer sentiment has plunged. It’s almost as low as it was in the summer of 2022, when Covid-induced supply-chain inflation was at its peak:


It’s clear that if Trump were subject to normal political constraints, obliged to follow the rule of law and accept election results, he would already be a political lame duck. His future influence and those of his minions would be greatly reduced by his unpopularity. But at this juncture he is a quasi-autocrat. He is the leader of a party that accommodates his every whim, backed by a corrupt Supreme Court prepared to validate whatever he does, no matter how clearly it violates the law.

As a result, Trump has been able to use the vast power of the federal government to deliver punishments and rewards in a completely unprecedented way. He has arbitrarily cut off funding to universities, refused to spend Congressionally-mandated funds, threatened to take away broadcast licenses, fired officials who are supposed to have job security, pardoned J6 insurrectionists, defied the lower courts, retaliated against those who have tried to hold him accountable, and enriched his family. This has created a climate of intimidation, with many institutions preemptively capitulating to Trump’s demands as if he already had total power.

But the fact is that Trump has not yet locked in his autocracy. Timid institutions are failing to understand not only how unpopular Trump is, but also how severe a backlash they are likely to face for surrendering without a fight.

They should understand, because some major corporations have already seen the costs of surrendering to Trump. Notably, Target’s decision to appease Trump by ending its commitment to DEI led to a large decline in sales and a falling stock price amid a rising market, and eventually cost the CEO his job. Law firms who have capitulated to Trump have lost clients and partners to law firms that stood up to him. And need we talk about the popularity of Tesla cars and Cybertrucks?

Yet Disney was evidently completely unprepared for the backlash caused by its decision to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, a backlash so costly that the company reversed course after just five days — too late to avoid probably irreparable damage to its brand. And this time I hope and believe that other institutions will take notice.

It’s important to understand that Trump’s push to destroy democracy depends largely on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Behind closed doors, business leaders bemoan the destruction that Trump is wreaking on the economy. But they capitulate to his demands because they expect him to consolidate autocratic power — which, given his unpopularity, he can only do if businesses and other institutions continue to capitulate.

If this smoke-and-mirrors juggernaut starts to falter, the perception of inevitability will collapse and Trump’s autocracy putsch may very well fall apart.

So how can we make a Trump implosion more likely? The public can help by doing what Target’s customers and Disney’s audience did — make it clear that they will stop paying money to institutions that lend aid and comfort to the authoritarian project.

Like a schoolyard bully, Trump understands that effective intimidation relies upon picking off his opponents one-by-one. So institutions (such as law firms) can help by cooperating to resist Trump’s demands rather than simply looking out for their own interests. They should understand that there is no reward for appeasing MAGA with performative displays of cowardice.

And last but not least, Democrats should begin making it loud and clear that if and when MAGA is dethroned, those who broke the law, those who corrupted our democracy out of deference to Trump will be held accountable. For example, corporate mergers that hurt consumers but enriched Trump’s toadies can and will be re-examined by future Democratic administrations.

It’s ironic, but thanks in part to a late-night comedian, it’s becoming clear that America is not yet lost.

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.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump

In Another Abrupt About-Face, Trump Says Ukraine Can Win War With Russia

President Donald Trump is so stupid and clumsy with words, he just endorsed Ukraine’s annexation of Russian territory. But hey, it’s better than the opposite!

In one of his patented Truth Social rants, his target is, for once, warranted. Let’s break down the post:

After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.

The battle lines have barely shifted for months. Drones dominate the battlefield, preventing Russia from making meaningful advances, but also stopping Ukraine from doing the same. Tanks and armored vehicles are mostly absent and obsolete; progress comes in small infantry groups trying to dodge drone detection. Anything exposed in the open is dead.

That’s why the Russia-Ukraine War, despite staggering casualties, has become primarily economic. Both sides are targeting each other’s infrastructure. Russia can feed the front with endless waves of men, but if Ukraine keeps degrading its enemy’s oil and gas industry—Russia’s one real economic engine—that’s a different story.

With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not?

NATO is Europe … and the U.S. (and Canada). It would really help if the U.S. lent assistance, but this is still a welcome change in Trump’s rhetoric for several reasons:

  1. He’s not trashing NATO. Maybe we’ve survived his obsession with leaving the alliance.
  2. Just last week he insisted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should “make a deal,” meaning surrender territory. Now he’s suggesting Ukraine could restore its 2014 borders … for the moment.
  3. One of the problems Ukraine had at the start of this Trump presidency was the notion that it couldn’t possibly defeat Russia. Remember the infamous “You have no cards!” ambush at the White House? Trump no longer believes that.
Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like “a paper tiger.”

The Trump administration’s unlikely hero remains Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has argued this point since Day 1. Most of Trump’s orbit—Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and the MAGA movement—are pro-Russia or openly hostile to Ukraine. Rubio, with a small cadre of congressional Republicans, resisted.

Somehow, Trump is now anti-Russia. The trick may have been convincing him that Russia is weak. Nothing enrages him more than weakness, and on the battlefield, Russia is exactly that.

When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it’s almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well.

That is all one sentence. Trump remains a butcher of language.

It’s true that Russia—despite being a major oil producer—is experiencing fuel shortages thanks to Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure. It’s also true that Ukraine has fought with extraordinary spirit. Two truths in one Trump sentence might be a record.

But his leap to suggesting Ukraine might “go further than that” is bizarre. Is he endorsing Ukraine invading Russia? Annexing Russian territory? Ukraine just wants its land back, Crimea included. Can we stick to that?

We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!

Now this is something. The U.S. doesn’t supply weapons to NATO; NATO isn’t an army. But if Trump means the U.S. will funnel weapons through NATO to Ukraine, that’s a major reversal. More likely, it’s incoherent babble. Still, if he really does intend to use NATO as a laundering mechanism for U.S. support, Ukraine’s prospects brighten considerably.

Europe has to step up—not just with weapons, but with money. Ukraine’s domestic arms industry is cranking. What it needs most is financing for its long-range missiles to keep hammering Russian infrastructure. If Trump wants to frame U.S. support as “NATO’s business” to dodge MAGA fury, fine. As long as the weapons flow, Russia will struggle against a U.S.-E.U. one-two punch.

The irony is that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin once had Trump in the palm of his hand. Flattery and promises of a Nobel Peace Prize could have helped him starve Ukraine into submission. But Putin, too arrogant to debase himself and suck up to Trump the way other world leaders did, may have overplayed his hand.

And that arrogance might ultimately help doom him.

What a crazy twist.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Putin and Trump

Hot Mic Catches Trump's Narcissistic Take On Putin

President Donald Trump was caught on a hot mic Monday, seemingly boasting about his bromance with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

"I think [Putin] wants to make a deal,” Trump said. “I think he wants to make a deal for me. Do you understand that, as crazy as it sounds?"

The audio was captured shortly before the convicted felon was scheduled to meet with European leaders to discuss strategy for ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

Trump met with Putin this past Friday in Alaska, in what was billed as an attempt to pause Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Trump’s special relationship with Putin has not led to any slowing down on the part of Russia, which continued to bomb Ukraine, reportedly killing 14 people in an attack on Monday.

Also on Monday, Trump sat down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who delivered a masterclass in leadership—one Trump has failed to learn every year of his life.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

'Money, Lies And God': How A Fateful 1995 Meeting Linked Far Right In US And Russia

'Money, Lies And God': How A Fateful 1995 Meeting Linked Far Right In US And Russia

The following is an adapted excerpt from Katherine Stewart's New York Times bestseller Money, Lies and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy.

In the decades immediately following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the new American republic became the modern world’s first great exporter of democratic revolution. “This ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light and liberty go together,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “It is our glory that we first put it into motion.”

Today, however, sectors of the American right have become exporters of the antidemocratic counterrevolution. Not sated with their efforts to replace democratic pluralism with authoritarianism at home, America’s Christian nationalist activists have pushed their ideas and agendas out to other countries around the world. Joining the new American counterrevolutionaries are a host of “anti-woke” culture warriors from the New Right along with the white supremacists, men’s rights activists, New Traditionalists, and others they inspire. Some groups in those other countries have proved receptive to the new ideologies. A global antidemocratic reaction has emerged that in turn contributes to the counterrevolutionary process in America.

The geopolitical axis around which this sector of the global antidemocratic reaction now turns is an extraordinary alliance between a dominant wing of the Republican Party in the U.S. and the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Even while Vladimir Putin continues to prosecute his war of aggression in Ukraine and crush democracy in Russia, with assassinations of journalists and political opponents, widespread imprisonment, and kleptocratic arrangements, the right wing of the Republican Party hails him as a hero and a strong leader.

Under President Trump, the United States has become a flashing red beacon of hope for a new, global, religious, right-wing populist movement. It calls itself a “global conservative movement” and claims that it seeks to “defend the natural family.” But it’s really about taking down modern democracy and replacing it with authoritarian, faith-based ethno-states. And you could say that it started in America -- or at least in some long-ago encounters between some Americans and some Russians.

A key figure in the global counterrevolution is Allan C. Carlson, born in Iowa in 1949 and now professor emeritus at Hillsdale College, the private Christian nationalist enterprise in Michigan. Early in his academic career, Carlson concluded that the collapse of “the natural family” was the source of every major social problem in the United States. By “natural family,” he meant a family consisting of a male head of household winning bread and embodying the dominant masculine virtues in overseeing his brood; a subordinated female domestic worker embodying the feminine virtues; and their (preferably numerous) children. Abortion was a threat to the natural family, but much bigger threats, to judge from Carlson’s preoccupations, were feminism and, perhaps worst of all, “the homosexual agenda.”

Carlson announced his hatred of all things homosexual very early in his career, and he was rewarded in 1988 when the Reagan administration appointed him to head a National Commission on Children, a position he held until 1993. It was in the context of that work that Carlson took a fateful trip to Russia in 1995. In Moscow, Carlson met with a pair of sociology professors, Anatoly Antonov and Victor Medkov, who shared his concerns about the rise of women’s equality and gay rights. By their own account, the Russians learned a great deal from Carlson, and they translated his work with reverence. The outcome of the meeting was the establishment in 1997 of the World Congress of Families (WCF), a group intended to unite America’s Christian right with like-minded activists in Russia and Europe.

The WCF soon picked up support from its two main constituencies. In America, Brian S. Brown and his fellow leaders of the National Organization for Marriage formed common cause with other reactionary groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Focus on the Family, along with international allies such as the Spain-based advocacy group CitizenGO, representatives from the Vatican, the far-right Fidesz Party in Hungary, and the far-right Law and Justice (PiS) party in Poland, among others. In Russia, the contributors and participants came from the echelons of the new ruling elite and priestly class.

Over the subsequent three decades, Carlson’s American-born-and-bred politics would rise to power alongside the new Russian oligarchy—and then it would turn around to hit back hard at America.

The global holy war has an unmistakably theocratic vision for the future. “I think this collaboration, cooperation, this synergy between the church and the state in Russia, is the key to the defense of traditional family values,” said Alexey Komov, an affable and attractive Russian activist who has involved himself in the American homeschool movement as well as the American Christian film industry. According to the journalist Casey Michel, Komov has worked with Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch with links to pro-Russian military and political leaders in eastern Ukraine. Malofeev’s television station, Tsargrad TV, which was launched with the help of former Fox News producer Jack Hanick, has provided a platform for the disgraced right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, widely regarded as a leading ideologue of the movement.

Given the weakness of Russia’s position in the world, Dugin’s vision may seem far-fetched. After all, Russia remains a nuclear-armed petrostate with an aging population, sad economy, and a burden to bear from its own acts of aggression. But this makes the devolution of the American right all the more striking – and alarming. The party that now controls all three branches of the federal government appears to be bonded with the ultimate dead-enders of history. The question that hangs over the United States is how far they take us down the road to self-destruction – and whether l those of us who would prefer a different direction for our country have the determination and moral courage to fight for it.

Katherine Stewart writes about the intersection of faith and politics, policy, education, and the threat to democratic institutions. Her work appears in The New York Times, New Republic, and other publications. She is the author of several bestselling books, including The Power Worshippers and The Good News Club.

Excerpted with permission from Money, Lies and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy (Bloomsbury, February 2025). All rights reserved.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World