Stop Calling Trump a Populist
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It’s true that Trump still, on occasion, poses as someone who champions the interests of ordinary working Americans against those of the elite. And I guess there’s a sense in which his embrace of white nationalism gives voice to ordinary Americans who share his racism but have felt unable to air their prejudice in public.
But he’s been in office for a year and a half, time enough to be judged on what he does, not what he says. And his administration has been relentlessly anti-worker on every front. Trump is about as populist as he is godly — that is, not at all.
Start with tax policy, where Trump’s major legislative achievement is a tax cut that mainly benefits corporations — whose tax payments have fallen off a cliff — and has done nothing at all to raise wages. The tax plan does so little for ordinary Americans that Republicans have stopped campaigning on it . Yet the administration is floating the (probably illegal) idea of using executive action to cut taxes on the rich by an extra $100 billion .
There’s also health policy, where Trump, having failed to repeal Obamacare — which would have been a huge blow to working families — has engaged instead in a campaign of sabotage that has probably raised premiums by almost 20 percent relative to what they would have been otherwise. Inevitably, the burden of these higher premiums falls most heavily on families earning just a bit too much to be eligible for subsidies, that is, the upper part of the working class.
And then there’s labor policy, where the Trump administration has moved on multiple fronts to do away with regulations that had protected workers from exploitation, injury and more.
But immediate policy doesn’t tell the whole story. You also want to look at Trump’s appointments. When it comes to policies that affect workers, Trump has created a team of cronies: Almost every important position has gone to a lobbyist or someone with strong financial connections to industry. Labor interests have received no representation at all.
And the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court deserves special attention. There’s a lot we don’t know about Kavanaugh, partly because Senate Republicans are blocking Democratic requests for more information. But we do know he’s starkly, extremely, anti-labor — way to the right of the mainstream, and well to the right even of most Republicans.
The best-known example of his radically anti-worker views is his argument that SeaWorld shouldn’t face any liability after a captive killer whale killed one of its workers, because the victim should have known the risks when she took the job. But there’s much more anti-labor extremism in his record.
When you bear in mind that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will be around for a long time, this extremism is enough to justify rejecting his nomination — especially when added to his support for unrestricted presidential power and whatever it is in his record that Republicans are trying to hide.
But why would Trump, the self-proclaimed champion of American workers, choose someone like that? Why would he do all the things he’s doing to hurt the very people who gave him the White House?
I don’t know the answer, but I do think that the conventional explanation — that Trump, who is both lazy and supremely ignorant about policy details, was unwittingly captured by G.O.P. orthodoxy — both underestimates the president and makes him seem nicer than he is.
Watching Trump in action, it’s hard to escape the impression that he knows very well that he’s inflicting punishment on his own base. But he’s a man who likes to humiliate others, in ways great and small. And my guess is that he actually takes pleasure in watching his supporters follow him even as be betrays them.
In fact, sometimes his contempt for his working-class base comes right out into the open. Remember “ I love the poorly educated ”? Remember his boast that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters?
Anyway, whatever his motivations, Trump in action is the opposite of populist. And no, his trade war doesn’t change that judgment. William McKinley, the quintessential Gilded Age president who defeated a populist challenger , was also a protectionist . Furthermore, the Trumpian trade war is being carried out in a way that produces maximum harm to U.S. workers in return for minimum benefits.
While he isn’t a populist, however, Trump is a pathological liar , the most dishonest man ever to hold high office in America. And his claim to stand with working Americans is one of his biggest lies.
Which brings me back to media use of the term “populist.” When you describe Trump using that word, you are in effect complicit in his lie — especially when you do it in the context of supposedly objective reporting.
And you don’t have to do this. You can describe what Trump is doing without using words that give him credit where it isn’t due. He’s scamming his supporters; you don’t have to help him do it.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
I often think the same thing about the Democratic Party and 50 years of unfulfilled promises to help the poor.
Are you just happy they didn't succeed in helping more poor? Or are you happy that their ideology of creating programs to help the poor didn't work as well as expected?
That's a silly statement. Millions in poverty have been helped by SNAP, TANF and Medicaid.
There continue to be people who fall at or below the poverty line.
Didn't your buddies in the Trump regime declare the other day that the war on poverty “is largely over and a success”? Apparently much has been accomplished in the last 50 years where even a dimwitted sociopath like Trump can admit that the war on poverty was a success.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "help" would be. Mine would include something that actually tended to lift them out of poverty. The things you mentioned only serve to make poverty more comfortable.
Nothing has been accomplished except to waste trillions of dollars. Have a look at this chart
President Johnson declared the War on Poverty in his 1964 State of the Union speech. Since then, the poverty rate has gone up and down, but basically remained roughly flat over time. If anything, it's a little higher these days than it was in the mid 60s and there's a clear increase from 1975 of people living below 50% of the poverty line.
I'll tell you what this little war did. Just look at the chart. It clearly interrupted what had been a rather strong downward trend in the poverty rate. It's possible - perhaps probable - that if Johnson had just let things be, the poverty rate would have been much lower for all these years.
(This data brought to you by "the party that cares about poor people.")
Much of your comment is inaccurate and dishonest given that the US didn't even start to track poverty rates until 1959. And since most of the initial parts of the programs implemented were about poverty for the elderly, here's the real data showing the impact of those programs (the anchored SPM is the preferred view which tries to take into account everything from health-care and child-care costs to programs like Social Security and the Earned Income Tax Credit). So we see a dramatic decline in elderly poverty rates from nearly 50% at the time of program implementation to 15% today, and from 25% to 15% for the entire population.
For the broader population we have this:
If you're interested the Congressional Research Service has more detailed data here:
.
Also note that the GOP's agenda includes dismantling critical New Deal programs like Social Security, and it was an expansion of SS and the addition of Medicare and Medicaid which constitute a very large part of the war on poverty.
Throwing gasoline on a fire only makes it burn hotter. This kind of language is unnecessary. The chart is as copied from the source. If you think it's inaccurate, take it up with the people who made it. I can't even fathom what you mean by "dishonest." I can't imagine you put serious thought into that insult before you made it.
It does lift people out of poverty. It also helps keep them fed while they find a job.
Jerry Springer is more of a populist than Trump is.
Yes and it’s no surprise the Democrats elected him mayor of Cincinnati.
That is not the correct figure.
Holy crow that’s horrible and it’s only August. I see they’ve had over 1700 people shot already this year. Must be like living in a war zone.
It is down a little I think from last year.
As usual, there are a number of large cities with higher murder rates than Chicago.
... and... ??
Nothing? Hold my beer . . .
This is both unfair and untrue. It's unfair because except for people who pay in advance, we haven't even paid taxes under the new rates yet.
And it's untrue because the short time factor notwithstanding, many companies have either increased salaries or issued bonuses and done so with the explicit declaration that the new tax law motivated them to do it.
Boom: 164 companies give bonuses, lower fees to millions, citing Trump tax cuts
And that was in January! These people are keeping the good news updated:
List of Tax Reform Good News
Here's a pdf of the list. 680 companies!
There are 300 opinions available for Democrats to read. They aren't interested.
Instead, they want to pretend there is something relevant in emails and memos from a time when Kavanaugh wasn't even working as a justice. Such documents are not only immaterial to the position for which he is being considered, it would probably be very difficult and time consuming to compile them, and no way to ever prove that the collection was complete. So Democratic bullshit artists can keep screaming and ranting and lying that they aren't getting the crucial information they need.
But the truth is, all they need to do is read his opinions. But they already know that such an effort would only reveal Kavanaugh to be what he is: arguably the single most qualified person that could have possibly been nominated to the Court.
So was Merrick Garland. No way in hell should Dems participate in approving this nomination.
There's been a lot of bad behavior on both sides of this issue. Under President Bush, the Democrats in Congress blocked dozens of judicial appointments - including one Brett Kavanaugh (about 2 years iirc) - for nothing more than partisanship. And of course what they did to judge Bork was so notorious, it's a verb in the world of judicial appointments, i.e. being "Borked." So they don't get to claim any moral high ground because of Merrick Garland.
At some point, it would be nice to see Senators evaluating nominees on their merits.
It's not exactly new stuff, though. Politics and judicial appointments are as old as Marbury v Madison (1801).
The History of “Stolen” Supreme Court Seats
The GOP made the bed, don't bitch now.
I don't see how you could absorb the history I offered and reach that conclusion.
Trump is a "populist" in the exact same sense that Father Charles Coughlin was in the 1930s.......a man consumed by all kinds of bigotry who appealed to the very worst instincts in conservative Americans. A truly evil man. No surprise that at their core both Trump and Coughlin are fascists.
Father Coughlin was a progressive who supported FDR and was even personally invited by Roosevelt to his first inauguration. He broke with Roosevelt and attacked him from the left, because Roosevelt was not progressive enough in his policies. The idea that Couglin was a conservative is beyond even the usual level of flagrant historical revisionism progressives engaange.
Couglhin is very much in tune with the modern left, except Coughlin would have to attack whites to fit in with today New York Times
Initially he was, that's true. And that isn't surprising given the social justice theme preached by the RCC. But before long Coughlin opposed the New Deal and was preaching fascism and anti-semitism. He even sided with the far right-wing authoritarian ideology of the Nazis and he used his radio show to demonize minorities just like Trump does. Here's a good historical comparison from a presidential historian:
And another with details on Coughlin's transition from left wing social justice to the fascism of the extreme right wing:
He never changed. Antisemitism is, of course, perfectly compatible with left wing politics (Look at today's Labour Party in England!)
I understand left wingers only standard to call someone a fascist or right winger is to not like them. There's no thought or principle behind the concept.Thus Coughlin is a "right winger" because he broke with Roosevelt. It's the same thing Stalin would do when he rewrote history, when he broke with someone, they suddenly became "right wingers." Thus ardent communists like Trostsky became right wingers to the mindless socialists.
Anyone with critical thinking skills can see Coughlin fits on the left wing side of the divide. Witness the principles of his movement AFTER he broke with Roosevelt:
I believe that every citizen willing to work and capable of working shall receive a just, living, annual wage which will enable him both to maintain and educate his family according to the standards of American decency.
I believe in nationalizing those public resources which by their very nature are too important to be held in the control of private individuals.
I believe in upholding the right to private property but in controlling it for the public good.
I believe that one of the chief duties of this Government owned Central Bank is to maintain the cost of living on an even keel and arrange for the repayment of dollar debts with equal value dollars.
I believe not only in the right of the laboring man to organize in unions but also in the duty of the Government, which that laboring man supports, to protect these organizations against the vested interests of wealth and of intellect.
I believe in broadening the base of taxation according to the principles of ownership and the capacity to pay.
I believe that, in the event of a war for the defense of our nation and its liberties, there shall be a conscription of wealth as well as a conscription of men.
I believe in preferring the sanctity of human rights to the sanctity of property rights; for the chief concern of government shall be for the poor because, as it is witnessed, the rich have ample means of their own to care for themselves.
He attacked FDR from the LEFT... and his polices are still perfectly in line with modern progressivism,
That's an obviously false claim given that Coughlin went from supporting FDR and the New Deal to opposing both and supporting Nazi ideology. This is from the second link I cited:
No, it's objectively true if you actually look at the facts rather than playing the Stalinist label game.
Coughlin 's anti-antisemitism was on full display from the beginning of his broadcasting career, when he worked hand in glove with FDR. And it's not like Antisemitism is unpopular on the left.
Plus your own link demonstrates that he was supporting fascists in the early 30's, at the same time he was calling the New Deal, "Christ's Deal" and being pushed by the progressive wing of the Democrats to be Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary. Coughlin, like many progressive leaders, saw a lot to admire in the fascist states.
Again, if you look at Coughlin's positions when he broke with Roosevelt, it's because FDR wasn't left wing enough. In fact, the left wing radicalism of Roosevelt's second 100 days was an attempt to win over Couglhin's supporters. No honest person can deny the progressive nature of his politics or claim that they bear any relation to the American right's embrace of property rights and limited government.
That's called a "transition". But I suspect he had right-wing tendencies anyway given that he was demonizing Jews almost from the very beginning, even before his open support for the Nazis.
I never did, he was NEVER a man of "the people." All he has done, and all he has ever been is about is himself. I said it during the election, if you are working class and actually think he cares about you, you are a fucking idiot. Of course we are talking about people who put their trust in words and completely ignore actions so there you go.
Populist+conman.
Yeah, a guy born to wealth in Manhattan, who inherited a shit load of money, and has done nothing in his life but seek more of it really has your (heartland america) best interests at heart. Fucking seriously? BTW, I am Q.
Trump is not a populist. He simply repeats right wing populist, nationalist talking points to pander to them. They buy it hook, line and sinker. They don't even bother to look at the number of American businesses hurt by his policies, the number of factories closing or going back on Trump's promises, the fact that Trump lies about steel jobs, coal jobs, or a failed infrastructure initiative that never materialized.
We are gonna do "Space Force"!! Which is nothing but a distraction from the fast approaching unavoidable evidence of all the failures, a con job for his base. While they chant Space Force, more factories like Carrier, Harley, steel, coal, and farms, etc. all go the way of the dinosaur.