logo
The next stage of our democracy crisis: competitive authoritarianism

The next stage of our democracy crisis: competitive authoritarianism

Yahoo20-05-2025

The mainstream American news media have failed as an institution to properly confront the country's worsening democracy crisis in the Age of Trump. He is America's first elected autocrat. His appetite for unlimited power is growing. It will likely never be satisfied.
In one of the most recent examples, Trump recently told NBC News' Kristen Welker that he does not know if he is obligated to uphold and obey the United States Constitution. In response to a question about the constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process and the migrants and others deported to the infamous foreign prison in El Salvador, Trump said, 'I don't know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court say. They have a different interpretation.'
Trump's statement that he does not know if he is obligated to obey and uphold the Constitution should have dominated the news coverage for the foreseeable future. Moreover, Trump's repeated hostility and disregard towards America's democratic norms should be the master narrative frame that structures the news media's coverage of him and his administration. Instead, Trump's unprecedented statement — what should be treated as a national emergency — was lost in the churn of the 24/7 news media and the bottomless maw of the attention economy and distraction experience machine.
Conservative legal scholar and former judge Michael Luttig told MSNBC's Nicole Wallace that Trump's answer is 'perhaps the most important words ever spoken by a president of the United States.' Luttig warned that this is 'one of the most important stories of our times.' He continued: 'I'm quite confident that the president was saying what is on his mind, and that is that he, the president of the United States, doesn't necessarily believe that he is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court.'
In another escalation in their campaign against American democracy and the rule of law, Trump and his agents are now signaling that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus may be suspended to facilitate Trump's mass deportation campaign against 'illegal aliens' and other 'undesirables.' Such an extreme action must be approved by Congress. The right of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in American history.
As with Trump's recent statement about disregarding the Constitution, these threats to take away a foundational civil right were mostly treated as a curiosity by the mainstream news media. For example, a basic search of The New York Times and The Washington Post show that the Trump administration's threat to end habeas corpus did not receive sustained featured coverage.
Donald Trump and his agents have made many such threats against American democracy and its institutions and norms during the 2024 campaign and his second term in office — many of these threats have been fulfilled.
The Democrats and the so-called Resistance are celebrating how the courts and civil society organizations appear to be blunting Trump's 'shock and awe' and shock therapy campaign against American democracy and the American people. However, these celebrations are premature and ignore how the Trump administration is disregarding many of these rulings by the courts. There has been grave damage already done by Trump during these first 100 days of his return to power that cannot be easily remedied. In all, too many observers are confusing some selective momentary pauses by Trump and his MAGA forces to consolidate their gains, regroup, resupply, and reassess how to best continue their campaign against democracy and civil society.
Donald Trump's power and willingness to punish and train the news media to serve his agenda through various means, both legal and extra-legal, has created a state of anticipatory obedience, aka surrender, collaboration, and a collective chilling effect across the news media.
The American mainstream media has also been rolled over by Donald Trump and his forces' deft use of the propaganda technique known as 'flooding the zone,' where so much happens so quickly that the target does not know where and how to focus.
Kenneth Lowande, a professor of political science and public policy at the University of Michigan, explained how this many years-long pattern of failures by the American news media is collectively enabling Donald Trump and his MAGA movement's authoritarian agenda:
The Trump administration is extremely effective at playing to the weaknesses of news organizations like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. They are being taken advantage of. From Day 1 of the Trump administration, they have written relentless, daily headlines that announce President Trump's executive actions as if they are new laws. When readers see these, they give the President credit. They see it as an accomplishment.
This has been a problem for decades. I show in my book that news coverage of executive action is shallow, brief, and very positive for the President. The media might as well be allowing the White House to write its own coverage.
What can be done? The press needs to treat each new executive action for what it is: an order to bureaucrats. Nothing more, nothing less. These orders are remarkably contingent. Most of them don't produce the success they promise.
In short: if people do not want the public to get used to having a dictator, then the media need to stop covering his actions as if he already is one.
As an institution, the American news media believed that the rule of law was sacrosanct in the United States, democracy was a settled matter, the Constitution was respected by Americans and the American people would never put an authoritarian or other demagogue in the White House.
On the other hand, Black Americans, as a voting bloc, have been described as the miners' canary in American society. In that role, Black Americans were consistently sounding the alarm about how Donald Trump's return to power would imperil American democracy and society. In keeping with a common theme in American history, white Americans as a whole ignored those warnings and wisdom to their own (and the country's) extreme detriment.
So what happens when a people vote for an autocratic authoritarian and against their own democracy? This is a tension and problem that the American mainstream news media and the country's other elites have been mostly afraid to confront. Why? Because it is an indictment of their legitimacy. It is also an indictment of the character and values of the American people. To boldly confront the latter is almost verboten among the American mainstream news media and others who maintain the limits of the approved public discourse and 'the consensus.'
I asked historian Timothy Ryback, one of the world's leading experts on the fall of Germany's democracy and the rise of the Nazi Party, for some historical context:
I am not one to draw straight lines from a historical figure or event in the past to present-day political figures or events. History doesn't repeat itself. We are all unique individuals in unique settings and situations. With that said, I think we can speak about resonances and modalities.
Adolf Hitler and his closest lieutenants understood democratic structures and processes as well as anyone in the era, and set about disabling then dismantling the Weimar Republic. The Hitler acolyte Joseph Goebbels once said that the big joke on democracy was that it provided its mortal enemies with the means of its own destruction. This meant gridlocking legislative processes with obstructionist voting, using free speech guarantees to sow hatred and mistrust, and exploiting and abusing the judicial system in every way possible. Hitler's chief legal strategist, Hans Frank, boasted that every time Hitler appeared in court, his polling numbers surged.
To that point, polling and other research from PRRI shows that a large percentage of Americans have an authoritarian personality. A 2024 report from PRRI details how:
[W]hile most Americans do not hold highly authoritarian views, a substantial minority does: 43% of Americans score high on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS), while 41% score high on the Child-Rearing Authoritarianism Scale (CRAS).
Two-thirds of Republicans score high on the RWAS (67%) compared with 35% of independents, and 28% of Democrats. Republicans who hold favorable views of Trump are 36 percentage points more likely than those with unfavorable views of Trump to score high on the RWAS (75% vs. 39%).
This political personality type and its social dominance orientation is overrepresented among right-wing Christians. PRRI continues: 'White evangelical Protestants (64%) are the religious group most likely to score high on the RWAS, followed by smaller majorities of Hispanic Protestants (54%) and white Catholics (54%). A majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) score high on the RWAS, compared with 44% of Americans who attend church a few times a year and 38% of those who never attend church services.'
A series of polls and other research has found that Republicans, and Trump followers specifically, are more likely than Democrats to want a leader who is willing to break the rules and disobey the law to get things done for 'people like them.' Research also shows that Republicans and MAGA followers embrace authoritarianism, including ending American democracy if white people like them are not the most powerful group.
A 2021 poll from the Pew Research Center found that a strong majority of Democrats (78%) believe that voting is a foundational and inalienable right. By comparison, two-thirds of Republicans believe that voting is a privilege that can be restricted. Those who support voting restrictions are more likely to be older, white, and less well-educated. This is the profile of the average Republican voter.
America's democracy is rapidly collapsing. But what is its present state? The American news media, the Democratic Party, civil society, the country's other elites and everyday pro-democracy Americans will not be able to effectively respond to the worsening crisis if they do not have the correct concepts and language to properly understand it.
Via email, Jake Grumbach, who is the faculty director of the Democracy Policy Lab and associate professor at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, offered this clarification:
The US is now in a new regime: competitive authoritarianism. There is political competition between parties, but the distinctions from liberal democracy is that 1) the ruling government routinely violates the Constitution and statutory law, and 2) uses the state apparatus as a tool to tilt the political playing field, especially by punishing political enemies.
Under competitive authoritarianism, the ruling party typically comes to power through electoral victory. Under competitive authoritarianism, and even under fully autocratic totalitarianism, ruling leaders often carry a lot of support from the mass public.
Democracy involves both majoritarianism — governance that is responsive to the people — and the rule of law — that everyone is accountable to the rules. Trump won the popular vote (though not an electoral majority), which gives him more democratic legitimacy than he otherwise would have. However, Trump's electoral margin of victory was very small, and his public support has dropped dramatically since taking office.
Susan Stokes, who is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the Faculty Chair of the Chicago Center on Democracy, echoes Grumbach's warning about how America is succumbing to authoritarianism. In this email, Stokes offers some explanations for why people in democratic societies embrace authoritarianism:
Majorities of people in most democracies consistently say they prefer democracy to other forms of government. There are some people who actually favor authoritarian rulers. They view democracy as messy and slow, and like the idea of a single person or small group imposing decisions on others. Many people don't have a strong sense of the importance of due process or the rule of law — these are abstract concepts, of course, until people themselves face arbitrary rule or have friends and family members who do.
Most support for authoritarians — most votes for leaders who have shown themselves to be anti-democratic — has other motives, in particular economic factors. Many voters practice what political scientists call 'retrospective economic voting' — if economic conditions have been good in the year or so leading up to an election, they will vote for the incumbent, if not they will vote for a challenger. That's a lot of what the 2024 election in the U.S. was about. One could argue about how good or bad economic conditions were, but inflation was a new phenomenon for many people and very frightening. The cost of living was a real challenge for many Americans, given high food and housing costs.
This type of political reasoning often backfires. As Stokes explains, 'The problem is if electing autocratic leaders means that voters gradually lose the ability to vote incumbents out when times are bad, then this strategy becomes self-defeating for voters. In my research, I find that income inequality is a big predictor of democratic erosion. The more unequal the distribution of income in a democracy, the more likely it is to experience erosion. Under vast inequality, it's easier to persuade people that elite institutions are against them. Inequality also contributes to partisan polarization. And the more polarized a polity, the better for autocratic leaders. Even voters who would prefer to preserve democracy say to themselves, 'This guy's not perfect, but if the other side wins . . .''
A series of recent polls have shown growing levels of anger and discontent among wide swaths of the American public towards Donald Trump and his administration's policies and the harm they have caused the economy, the government, and the American people's overall sense of normalcy, safety, and security. These polls have also shown that a large percentage of Democrats and a not insignificant percentage of Republicans and independents are also deeply concerned about Trump's abuses of power and obvious contempt for democracy and the rule of law.
Donald Trump has repeatedly referenced President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as being his model for expansive authority and power — and why such power is legitimate, necessary, and good. Stephen Skowronek, who is a professor of political science at Yale University, explained that such claims and comparison(s) are ahistorical and serve authoritarian goals:
Progressives have long lamented that Roosevelt was stopped by a bi-partisan coalition of southern reactionaries and Republican conservatives. But now that progressivism has been sequestered in one of the major parties, and Trumpism reigns supreme in the other, the costs of eroding all back stops are on full display. Trump has opened his second term with a drive toward presidentialism that apes Roosevelt's, and the fate of multi-part power-sharing arrangements again hangs in the balance. In this case, however, the courts are already packed, the party has already been purged of internal opposition, and the case for the president's exclusive control over the executive branch is well advanced. Roosevelt's New Deal transformed America, but it was nothing compared to transformation now in view.The polls given some hope to those who believe that Donald Trump and has autocratic plans and MAGA movement will exhaust itself by overreaching and that the American people — assuming there are in fact 'free and fair' elections in 2026 and 2028 — will course correct by voting the MAGAfied Republicans out of office.
I would suggest that such hopes are very premature. The compulsion and attraction towards Trump, MAGA, and authoritarianism are very deep, if not inexorable, for many tens of millions of Americans.
Joe Walsh is a former Republican congressman and conservative talk radio host who led a GOP primary challenge against Donald Trump in 2020. He is currently the director of The Social Contract and host of the 'White Flag with Joe Walsh' podcast. Walsh maintains his connections to TrumpWorld and the MAGAverse. IHe explained that there is almost nothing too extreme and authoritarian to make Trump's MAGA supporters abandon him:
Trump's base wants him to be an authoritarian. That's always been his appeal to the base. That he will be a strongman and do what he has to do to get them back the America they believe we once were. So, nothing he does as an authoritarian will bother them, no unconstitutional move will bother them, that's what they want him to do.
The only thing that will move part of Trump's base from him is economic pain. Losing their job, disappearing their 401ks, paying way too much for that next truck or pair of shoes. Real economic pain that personally hits them is the only way they turn on Trump in any meaningful numbers. That's why his tariff madness is so politically dangerous for him. It's bad policy, and it will lead to bad economic results.
Trump will have a much tougher time trying to lie about the economy because his base lives the economy. So, when Trump lies and says that Haitian migrants are eating cats and dogs, Trump's base eats it up. But when Trump says your 401k is doing just great and your 401k has actually lost 50% of its value, his base won't believe that lie because they know it's not true.
The Age of Trump will last decades, not a few election cycles. The benchmarks and landmarks of normal politics in America have been radically shifted and changed, if not demolished. Ultimately, authoritarianism (e.g. herrenvolk democracy and white racial authoritarianism) is a feature and not a bug in America's history and present. Denial and avoidance will not change our reality.
The post The next stage of our democracy crisis: competitive authoritarianism appeared first on Salon.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pam Bondi Curtails American Bar Association's Role in Vetting Trump's Judicial Nominees
Pam Bondi Curtails American Bar Association's Role in Vetting Trump's Judicial Nominees

Time​ Magazine

time27 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Pam Bondi Curtails American Bar Association's Role in Vetting Trump's Judicial Nominees

The Department of Justice has announced that it will be curtailing the ability of the American Bar Association (ABA) to rate candidates for tenure in the federal judiciary. This will hinder the ABA's ability to vet nominations put forth by President Donald Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a letter to the ABA president William Bay on Thursday, May 29, that she is cutting off the association's access to non-public information about Trump nominees. Bondi referred to the non-partisan membership organization as an 'activist' group. 'Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic Administrations,' said Bondi, accusing the ABA of having 'bias' in its ratings process. 'There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so.' Bondi went on to say that judicial nominees will no longer need to provide waivers to allow the ABA access to non-public information, nor will they respond to questionnaires or sit for interviews with the association. In a subsequent social media post, Bondi doubled down, saying: 'The American Bar Association has lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees. The Justice Department will no longer give the ABA the access they've taken for granted.' The move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that Bove 'will end the weaponization of Justice, restore the rule of law, and do anything else that is necessary to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.' Bove defended Trump during his hush-money trial, during which the President was convicted on 34 counts. Trump also nominated Kyle Dudek, John Guard, Jordan E. Pratt, and Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe to serve as Judges on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and Ed Artau to serve as a Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The President has previously threatened to revoke the ABA's status as the federally-recognized accreditor of law schools in an Executive Order signed on April 24. As part of his wide-scale crackdown on DEI efforts, Trump said that the ABA has required law schools to demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion, something which he says is a "discriminatory requirement" and that "similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated." Critics have recently raised concerns over current practices at the Department of Justice. 'I think what's happening in the Department of Justice right now is that it's being transformed into Donald Trump's personal law firm," said Liz Oyer, the DOJ's former pardon attorney. "The Attorney General has made it clear that directions are coming from the very top, from the President, and she is there to do his bidding.' What is the American Bar Association and what does it do? Founded in 1878, the ABA works on the 'commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation,' according to the organization's website. Its main three areas of focus revolve around advocating for the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, as well as advancing the rule of law. It is the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary that typically oversees and conducts the judicial nominee vetting process, something it has done since 1953. According to the ABA, the committee 'makes a unique contribution to the vetting process by conducting a thorough peer assessment of each nominee's professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament.' The organization asserts that these assessments are non-partisan, providing the Senate and sitting Administration with 'confidential assessments of the nominee's professional qualifications.'

Lawmakers No Longer Understand the American Family
Lawmakers No Longer Understand the American Family

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Lawmakers No Longer Understand the American Family

Imagine if our national economy, culture, and politics were rooted in the idea that the default American household is white and Christian. There would be no Spanish-language campaign ads and TV shows, no interracial families depicted in commercials, no fill-in-the-blank Heritage Day at ballparks. Workplaces would see no need to accommodate holiday schedules for Muslims or Jews. That was a good bet more than 50 years ago, when the country was 88 percent white and 90 percent Christian, and less than 5 percent of the population was foreign-born. Since then, politicians and business leaders have figured out they will lose out if they deny the existence of the new, far more diverse, face of America. They may be motivated more by votes and dollars than by principles, but they've broadened their pitches to reflect (at least in part) the modern American household. And yet, when it comes to the family structure itself, the system (public and private) is stuck in an earlier era, one which assumes a 'traditional' household made up of a married couple and their offspring. Lawmakers proudly brand themselves 'pro-family,' and vow to fight for 'working families.' There's Family Day at attractions and entertainment venues, and family discounts on everything from phone service to cars, retail and college tuition. The best value for consumables is the 'family-sized' version that will rot before a single person can finish it. Solo diners are shooed to the bar at restaurants, with tables reserved for couples or families. Single people subsidize family health insurance plans, pay higher tax rates for the same joint income of a married couple, and can't get Social Security death benefits awarded to a widowed spouse. Companies that brag about being 'family-friendly?' Ask a single person: That means they work nights and weekends. The fix has been in, for a long time, in favor of those who marry and have children. In times past, this was just a temporary irritant, since most people indeed ended up marrying (in their early 20s, back in 1970) and having a family. But that family prototype is no longer dominant—and all indications suggest we're not going back to the way things were. Why are policy-makers in denial about the country we have become? 'It's not that [leaders] don't understand that families have changed very much from what they used to be. It's that they don't want to confront the reasons why families have changed,' said Stephanie Coontz, author of five books on gender and marriage. It's not that people don't want to couple—most do, she added—but marriage is not necessary anymore, especially for women who no longer need a man for financial support and don't need to stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship. They want intimacy, but with equality, and 'women have the ability to say, if I don't get that, I'll hold out,' said Coontz, the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families and emeritus faculty of History and Family Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. There's a misguided longing, especially among conservatives, to return to a storied American family that never really existed, Coontz argues in her book The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. In reality, drug abuse, alcohol consumption, and sexually transmitted diseases were more prevalent in the 1950s, but economic conditions (in part because of government support for families) make the mid-20th century family look idyllic in retrospect, Coontz argues in the book. 'There's this ideology, it's really more of a worldview, that if you get married, you really will live happily ever after, and be healthier and morally superior' to unmarried people, said social scientist Bella DePaolo, author of Single at Heart: The Power, Freedom and Heart-Filling Joy of Single Life. But when it comes to how people actually behave and the choices they make, 'the place of marriage in our lives has been slipping,' she said. 'Fewer people are getting married—fewer people want to marry. That is threatening to people who want things to stay the same.' The statistics back her up: in 1970, 71 percent of households were made up of married couples; by 2022, that group became a minority, comprising just 47 percent of households. 'Non-family' households were an offbeat 19 percent of homes in 1970; the most recent Census Bureau statistics show that 36 percent of households now are 'non-family.' Married couples with children made up a solid plurality (40 percent) of 1970 homes. Now, such families comprise just 18 percent of households—strikingly, barely more than the category of women living alone, who make up 16 percent of American households, according to the Census Bureau. Even the current White House doesn't reflect the household ideal pushed by social conservatives. President Donald Trump is on his third marriage (with five kids from three wives); his wife Melania Trump is reportedly a part-time resident of the White House, and Trump hangs out with First Bro Elon Musk (who himself is reputed to have more than a dozen children from different mothers). There's been a steady trend towards later marriage, and even away from marriage entirely. The Pew Research Center, using data from the American Community Survey, points out that in 1970, 69 percent of Americans 18 and older were married, and 17 percent were never married. By 2010, just half of Americans over 18 were married, and a startling 31 percent had never been married. Those trends have caused agita among conservatives worried about the changing model (or the 'breaking down' of that model, as they characterize it) of the American family. Fiscal hawks rightfully worry, too, about demographic trends that indicate we will have an increasing number of old people drawing Social Security and Medicare, and not enough young people paying into the system. This is a legitimate concern; fertility rates in the United States reached an historic low in 2023. But the response to these phenomena has not been an examination of how public policy could be reoriented to the new reality of American households, but rather to try to force Americans back to an earlier, mythic demographic era. There's a deep, anti-social vein running through the strategies of those who'd force today's square-peg Americans back into the round hole of their nostalgic fantasies. There's the tactic of insulting or shaming unmarried women ('childless cat ladies,' as Vice President J.D. Vance called them). There's blaming feminism in general. 'We have this low birth rate in America … it just hit me right now because who's going to sleep with these ugly ass broke liberal women?' singer and Trump acolyte Kid Rock said on Fox News. Conservative essayist John Mac Ghlionn lays blame at the sparkly-booted feet of Taylor Swift, who—while being very successful and wealthy, he concedes in a column in Newsweek—is a terrible role model for young girls because 'at 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless.' Worse, the author screams in print, Swift has had a lot of famous boyfriends, and 'the glamorous portrayal of her romantic life can send rather objectionable messages.' The sneering message is clear: stop being so promiscuous or career-driven, and you'll attract a man who will give you what you want—marriage and children. Except that's not what women (necessarily) want. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that just 45 percent of women 18-34 want to be parents someday. That's substantially less than the 57 percent of young men who feel that way. An earlier Pew study found that half of uncoupled men were looking for either a committed relationship or casual dating; 35 percent of single women said the same. And while women who were seeking relationships were more likely than men to say they wanted a committed union, instead of a casual arrangement, the survey results knock down the old trope of women being almost universally on the prowl for men who will offer them a ring and children. Bribing people to have children is another misguided approach, with the Trump administration mulling a laughably low 'baby bonus' of $5,000 to American women who have children. Yes, having kids is costly; the per-child cost can top $310,000, according to a Brookings Institution study. But it's not just a function of money. A growing percentage of adults under 50, in a 2024 Pew Research Center study, say they don't plan to have kids (47 percent are nixing the idea now, compared to 37 percent in 2018). The reason? 57 percent of those who aren't planning to have kids say they simply don't want to. 'I don't think you can solve what is ostensibly a cultural problem with financial incentives. That just doesn't work,' said Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute. 'I do think that the increasing costs of daily living, and the increase in housing costs, are all playing a role in (people) feeling more financially vulnerable and less secure,' he said. But structural issues—including women's fear of losing their autonomy or having their career advancement thwarted because of childcare demands—are leading to 'some real trepidation' towards marriage, he said. So, what is to be done? Instead of trying to make people want what they demonstrably don't want, government and business could instead adapt to the modern American household and the economy it has produced. There are about a thousand separate rights Americans acquire when they get married—everything from visitation rights at hospitals, to Social Security survivor benefits, to joint health insurance plans, said Gordon Morris, board chairman for the advocacy group Unmarried Equality. And that, he says, needs to change to reflect the fact that nearly half of U.S. adults are unmarried. Paying for Social Security and Medicare doesn't need to be fixed with a forced baby boom, either. One solution is to embrace immigrants, DePaolo said, since they (working legally) will contribute income and Social Security taxes. Another simpler fix, Morris said, is to remove the income cap for Social Security/Medicare contributions. 'It's a problem that's easy to solve, economically, Politically, it's very hard,' he acknowledged. But first and fundamentally, he argued, policymakers need to accept that the country is changing demographically—and that's not just about race or religion or national origin. Some of the most profound changes afoot in society revolve around the whens and whys Americans are getting married and having children. 'The problem is, there's an assumption that you're supposed to get married and you're supposed to have children. That assumption has got to change,' he said. The new reality, after all, has already arrived.

A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!

So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store