US Politics

Republicans return to politics of immigration as midterm strategyHearings with homeland security secretary about the US-Mexico border also revealed rifts within Democrat ranks Four years after Republicans embraced Donald Trump’s nativist and often racist playbook in an attempt to keep control of Congress, the party is once again placing the volatile politics of immigration at the center of its midterm election strategy.Biden ends Trump-era asylum curbs amid border-region Democrat backlash Read moreFrom the US-Mexico border to the US Capitol, in hearing rooms and courtrooms, Republicans are hammering the issue. At the forefront of the debate is a once-obscure public health order invoked by the Trump administration in March 2020 ostensibly as a means for controlling the spread of the coronavirus along the south-western border.Seizing on a decision by the Biden administration to lift such “Title 42” border restrictions, Republicans have sought to paint Democrats as pursuing an extremist immigration agenda that they say has cost the nation its very sovereignty.The provocative and often misleading messaging campaign was on full display when Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, testified on Capitol Hill.For more than eight hours, across two days, Republicans pelted Mayorkas with accusations and insults, demanding he accept the blame for what they described as dangerous and dire conditions along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.“We’re all really border states now,” Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio said darkly.In another tense exchange, Ken Buck of Colorado said his constituents believed Mayorkas was guilty of treason and deserved to be impeached – something conservatives have vowed to pursue if they win the House.“What you have just said – it is so profoundly offensive on so many different levels, in so many different regards,” Mayorkas responded, visibly upset. Mayorkas forcefully defended the administration’s handling of the border and said it was up to Congress to act.“We inherited a broken and dismantled system that is already under strain,” Mayorkas said. “It is not built to manage the current levels and types of migratory flows. Only Congress can fix this.”The hearings laid bare the tensions within Democratic ranks over Biden’s immigration actions, particularly over Title 42.For months, immigration advocates and progressives have been pressuring Biden to lift Title 42, which gives officials the authority to swiftly expel migrants trying to enter the US instead of allowing them to seek asylum and remain in the country while their claim is evaluated.“You’re essentially doing policymaking by crisis,” said Claudia Flores, an immigration policy expert at the left-leaning Center for American Progress thinktank. “And that’s just not effective.”As a matter of public policy, Flores said, it was dangerous to use a public health order to control immigration. Not only was the rule insufficient for addressing problems at the border, she added, but it had carried “grave humanitarian consequences” for asylum seekers.But some vulnerable Democrats have appealed to Biden to hold off on lifting the order, fearing it could be a political liability ahead of a difficult election cycle. Agreeing with Republicans, they have expressed concern that the administration lacks a comprehensive plan for dealing with the anticipated increase in migrants making asylum claims when the order is lifted in late May.“This is not good for Democrats in November,” the Texas congressman Henry Cuellar, a Democrat facing a progressive challenge for his border-district seat, told Fox News Digital.“You know, in talking with some of my Republican colleagues, they’re saying, ‘We can’t believe the White House is giving us this narrative. We can’t believe that they’re hurting Democrat candidates for the November election.’”In his testimony, Mayorkas argued that his department had a plan to handle the expected surge of migrants. He repeatedly directed lawmakers to a six-point plan, released in advance of the hearings, that outlined a more aggressive effort to enforce immigration laws after the public health rule is lifted. It also included efforts to partner with non-profits that help migrants in the US while their cases are processed and to work with countries across the region to address “root causes” of migration.“When the Title 42 public health order is lifted, we anticipate migration levels will increase, as smugglers will seek to take advantage of and profit from vulnerable migrants,” the memo stated.It did little to appease Republicans and some Democrats.“It’s clear to me that the federal government is not prepared – not even close,” Greg Stanton of Arizona, a border-state Democrat, said during the hearing.Biden has worked to reverse many hardline policies that were at the heart of Trump’s “zero tolerance” approach to immigration. The number of migrants attempting to cross the border has risen sharply.Biden has argued that the only way to address the migration is at the source – an ambitious plan that will probably take years to bear fruit. In the short term, his administration faces acute operational and political challenges.At a White House meeting last week, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus urged the president to stand firm behind the decision to end the public health order.“Title 42 must end on 23 May,” the California congresswoman Nanette Barragán, a deputy chair of the CHC, said she told the president, while urging him to “not support legislation to extend the end-date”.With the prospects of legislative action dim ahead of the midterms, the caucus is urging Biden to use his executive authority to make good on some of his promises to Latino voters on immigration, the environment, healthcare and the economy. They have argued that it is both good policy and good politics, as Latino support for Democrats is waning amid concern over the economy and inflation.“After four years of traumatic, xenophobic and inhumane immigration policies being forced on our most vulnerable communities, we have a duty to deliver them the protection and support they and their families so desperately need,” the Democratic congressman Adriano Espaillat, of New York, said after the meeting.Fears over Title 42 are only one element of the Republicans’ messaging. Republicans have sought to tie illegal immigration to other potent themes like voter fraud and crime. Allegations of undocumented migrants voting in large numbers have been repeatedly disproved. Studies have found that migrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born citizens.Republicans have long used immigration as a political weapon – with mixed results. In 2018, they lost the House in a wave election fueled in part by fury over Trump’s hardline policies that separated migrant children from their parents. The same year they expanded control in the Senate.US immigration courts struggle amid understaffing and backlog of casesRead moreThe political winds have reversed. Republicans are heavily favored to take the House, and possibly the Senate. The national mood has soured on Biden and the Democrats as concerns over the economy and inflation deepen.But even as economic discontent dominates political debate, polling suggests immigration remains a pressing issue, particularly for Republicans. Four in 10 Americans, and nearly 70% of Republicans, say they worry a “great deal” about illegal immigration, according to a Gallup survey.During a tour of the border in Texas last week, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, chided a reporter for asking about his false claim that he never urged Trump to resign after the January 6 insurrection – comments captured by an audio recording.“After all this, that’s what you want to ask?” he said. “I don’t think that’s what the American people are asking. I think they want to know about what’s going to happen here and how we’re going to secure the border.”Democrats blame Republicans for whipping up fear while standing in the way of reform. It has been almost a decade since Congress seriously considered immigration reform, a bipartisan plan that was derailed by House conservatives.“Let me tell you why our Republican colleagues don’t want to do their job – why they won’t work with us or vote for any of the bills that we have brought forward in the House,” the Texas congresswoman Veronica Escobar said. “It’s because the status quo works for them.”“They love Title 42,” she said, arguing that it “helps them push this xenophobic rage machine that they believe will help them get elected and re-elected”.It is unclear how the administration plans to proceed if a court rules it cannot lift Title 42. Biden declined to say whether he would sign legislation delaying the removal, which is under consideration by a bipartisan group in Congress.Vanessa Cardenas, deputy director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group, said Democrats must be more aggressive in defending their vision for reform. Keeping Title 42, she said, would not only play into Republicans’ hands, but would be a major disappointment to voters, particularly Latino voters who helped Democrats win in 2018 and 2020.“In an election season where margins matter, in states like Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, where the presence and the vote of the Latino community can make a difference, it’s really important that Democrats are able to articulate a vision that is in contrast to the other side,” Cardenas said.Referring to Trump’s hardline adviser, she added: “A Stephen Miller-Lite approach to immigration is not going to motivate the base.”TopicsUS immigrationBiden administrationUS midterm elections 2022US politicsDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

Dr Oz dropped by Columbia amid pro-Trump Republican Senate run – report‘He’s been a huge danger to public health,’ says prominent medical ethicist Dr Arthur Caplan The TV doctor Mehmet Oz’s move into politics appears to have been a step too far for administrators at Columbia University, who have quietly purged his presence from their website as the Republican seeks to represent Pennsylvania in the US Senate.JD Vance’s Senate run is a test of Trump’s influence on the Republican partyRead moreFor more than seven years, the private New York university has resisted calls to cut ties with Oz, a heart surgeon who has used his TV platform to push medicines ranging from ineffective diet pills to discredited Covid treatments.According to the Daily Beast, that changed this year, within weeks of Oz, 61, declaring his candidacy for the Senate seat being vacated by the Republican Pat Toomey.Oz, a friend and acolyte to Donald Trump, who has endorsed him, no longer has personal pages on the website of Columbia’s Irving Medical Center, the Beast reported, noting he once held senior titles including director of surgery and director of integrated medicine.Columbia did not respond to an inquiry from the Guardian.The Beast suggested the decision was political. Faculty leaders stuck with Oz through numerous medical controversies, including his 2014 Senate testimony regarding his plugging of “sham” diet pills on The Dr Oz Show, which ended its 13-season run this year.Following the testimony, a group of distinguished physicians wrote to Columbia, claiming Oz had “repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine” and shown “outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both”.“Worst of all,” the letter continued, “he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.”One of the signatories to the letter, which Columbia rebuffed, was Scott Atlas, who would himself be criticized for spreading misinformation as coronavirus adviser to the Trump administration.In 2011, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) branded as “misleading and irresponsible” a report on the Dr Oz Show suggesting apple juice contained dangerously high levels of arsenic.The prominent medical ethicist Dr Arthur Caplan, who in 2014 accused Oz of “promoting fairy dust”, told the Guardian he was not surprised Columbia had “quietly eliminated” Oz.“They won’t have a press conference in the middle of this guy running for the Senate saying they were throwing him out … it could be seen as trying to influence an election, it could be risking bad blood should he become a senator,” said Caplan, professor and founding head of the Grossman School of Medicine Division of Medical Ethics at New York University.“My question becomes, ‘What took so long?’ He’s been a huge danger to public health in the US and around the world for a long time with respect to quack cures for Covid and touting quackery to treat diseases.“I was among the voices saying he had to be removed years ago. And I still think it’s the right thing to do because he really has forfeited credibility as a doctor. Whether that will matter in terms of the election, we shall see.“I think it should, I doubt it will.”The Oz campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Polling for the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary on 17 May shows Oz trailing David McCormick, a hedge fund manager, by between 2% and 11%, according to Real Clear Politics.‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationRead moreMany analysts see the race as a test of Trump’s grip on the Republican party. At a rally in Selma, North Carolina, earlier this month, the former president called Oz a “great guy, good man … Harvard-educated, tremendous, tremendous career and they liked him for a long time.“That’s like a poll. You know, when you’re in television for 18 years, that’s like a poll, that means people like you.”Trump and Oz will appear at a rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania on 6 May.Trump previously endorsed Sean Parnell, who withdrew after being accused by his wife of abusive behavior, which he denied.TopicsUS universitiesRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for Democrats Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns have made waves with tapes of Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans – but the president’s party has more to fear from what they revealThis Will Not Pass is a blockbuster. Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns deliver 473 pages of essential reading. The two New York Times reporters depict an enraged Republican party, besotted by and beholden to Donald Trump. They portray a Democratic party led by Joe Biden as, in equal measure, inept and out of touch.The Right review: conservatism, Trump, regret and wishful thinkingRead moreMartin and Burns make their case with breezy prose, interviews and plenty of receipts. After Kevin McCarthy denied having talked smack about Trump and the January 6 insurrection, Martin appeared on MSNBC with tapes to show the House Republican leader lied.In Burns and Martin’s pages, Trump attributes McCarthy’s cravenness to an “inferiority complex”. The would-be speaker’s spinelessness and obsequiousness are recurring themes, along with the Democrats’ political vertigo.On election day 2020, the country simply sought to restore a modicum of normalcy. Nothing else. Even as Biden racked up a 7m-vote plurality, Republicans gained 16 House seats. There was no mandate. Think checks, balances and plenty of fear.Biden owes his job to suburban moms and dads, not the woke. As the liberal Brookings Institution put it in a post-election report, “Biden’s victory came from the suburbs”.Said differently, the label of socialism, the reality of rising crime, a clamor for open borders and demands for defunding the police almost cost Democrats the presidency. As a senator, Biden knew culture mattered. Whether his party has internalized any lessons, though, is doubtful.On election day 2021, the party lost the Virginia governor’s mansion. Republican attacks over critical race theory and Covid-driven school closures and Democrats’ wariness over parental involvement in education did them in. This year, the midterms offer few encouraging signs.This Will Not Pass portrays Biden as dedicated to his belief his presidency ought to be transformational. In competition with the legacy of Barack Obama, he yearns for comparison to FDR.“I am confident that Barack is not happy with the coverage of this administration as more transformative than his,” Biden reportedly told one adviser.Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, is more blunt: “Obama is jealous of Biden.”Then again, Hunter Biden is not the Obamas’ son. Michelle and Barack can’t be too jealous.A telephone conversation between Biden and Abigail Spanberger, a moderate congresswoman from Virginia, captures the president’s self-perception. “This is President Roosevelt,” he begins, following up by thanking Spanberger for her sense of humor.She replies: “I’m glad you have a sense of humor, Mr President.”Spanberger represents a swing district, is a former member of the intelligence community and was a driving force in both Trump impeachments.This Will Not Pass also amplifies the disdain senior Democrats hold for the “Squad”, those members of the Democratic left wing who cluster round Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Martin and Burns quote Steve Ricchetti, a Biden counselor: “The problem with the left … is that they don’t understand that they lost.”Cedric Richmond, a senior Biden adviser and former dean of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is less diplomatic. He describes the squad as “fucking idiots”. Richmond also takes exception to AOC pushing back at the vice-president, Kamala Harris, for telling undocumented migrants “do not come.”“AOC’s hit on Kamala was despicable,” Richmond says. “What it did for me is show a clear misunderstanding of what’s going on in the world.”Meanwhile, Cori Bush, a Squad member, has picked a fight with the CBC and led the charge against domestic terror legislation.Burns and Martin deliver vivid portraits of DC suck-ups and screw-ups. They capture Lindsey Graham, the oleaginous senior senator from South Carolina, in all his self-abasing glory.During the authors’ interview with Trump, Graham called the former president. After initially declining to pick up, Trump answered. “Hello, Lindsey.” He then placed Graham on speaker, without letting him know reporters were seated nearby.Groveling began instantly. Graham praised the power of Trump’s endorsements and the potency of his golf game. Stormy Daniels would not have been impressed. The senator, Burns and Martin write, sounded like “nothing more than an actor in a diet-fad commercial who tells his credulous viewer that he had been skeptical of the glorious product – until he tried it”.This Will Not Pass also attempts to do justice to Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona senator and “former Green party activist who reinvented herself as Fortune 500-loving moderate”. In addition to helping block Biden’s domestic agenda, Sinema has a knack for performative behavior and close ties to Republicans.Like Sarah Palin, she is fond of her own physique. The senator “boasted knowingly to colleagues and aides that her cleavage had an extraordinary persuasive effect on the uptight men of the GOP”.Palin is running to represent Alaska in Congress. Truly, we are blessed.Subtitled Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future, Burns and Martin’s book closes with a meditation on the state of US democracy. The authors are anxious. Trump has not left the stage. Republican leadership has bent the knee. Mitch McConnell wants to be Senate majority leader again. He knows what the base is thinking and saying. Marjorie Taylor Greene is far from a one-person minority.Martin and Burns quote Malcolm Turnbull, a former prime minister of Australia: “You know that great line that you hear all the time: ‘This is not us. This is not America.’ You know what? It is, actually.”The Republicans are ahead on the generic ballot, poised to regain House and Senate. Biden’s favorability is under water. Pitted against Trump, he struggles to stay even. His handling of Russia’s war on Ukraine has not moved the needle.Inflation dominates the concerns of most Americans. For the first time in two years, the economy contracts. It is a long time to November 2024. Things can always get worse.
This Will Not Pass is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
TopicsBooksPolitics booksUS politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationDonald TrumpUS elections 2024reviewsReuse this content More

Mark Meadows claims US Capitol attack panel leaked texts to ‘vilify’ himArgument made in federal court filing in Washington, where Trump’s chief of staff sued to invalidate subpoenas Donald Trump’s last White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has accused the congressional committee investigating the US Capitol attack of leaking all the text messages he provided in what he says is an effort to vilify him publicly.The argument was made in a filing on Friday in federal court in Washington, where Meadows sued in December to invalidate subpoenas issued for his testimony and to Verizon for his cellphone records.Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of lying in hearing in Capitol attack caseRead moreIn the latest filing, lawyers asked a judge to reject the committee’s request for a ruling that could force Meadows to comply with the subpoenas. The committee requested an expedited briefing schedule on Wednesday after filing its motion the previous week.The lawyers say Meadows deserves a chance through the fact-gathering process known as discovery to gather information about questions still in dispute, such as the committee’s claims that Trump did not properly invoke executive privilege over the items subpoenaed because he did not communicate that position directly.“Mr Meadows cannot possibly know whether that unsupported contention is true without discovery – or whether the select committee had awareness of former president Trump’s assertions,” the motion states.It adds that Meadows must have the ability to obtain any communications between the committee and Trump and possibly to take depositions of people familiar with those discussions.The House voted in December to hold Meadows in criminal contempt after he ceased cooperating, referring the matter to the justice department, which has not said if it will take action. Meadows’ legal team has said he provided extensive cooperation but that the committee refused to respect Trump’s assertion of executive privilege.The motion by Meadows also accuses the committee of waging a “sustained media campaign” against him. Though it does not provide evidence, it says the committee has leaked all of the text messages Meadows has produced.“The congressional defendants, under the auspices of a legitimate subpoena, induced Mr Meadows to produce thousands of his private communications only to use them in a concerted and ongoing effort to vilify him publicly through the media,” Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, wrote in the motion.Court filings by the committee have shown Meadows was in regular contact before 6 January 2021 with Republican allies who advanced false claims of election fraud and supported overturning the race won by Joe Biden.A filing a week ago cited testimony from a White House aide who said Meadows was advised there could be violence on 6 January.The committee declined through a spokesperson to comment about Meadows’ accusations against the panel.TopicsUS Capitol attackTrump administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Trump endorses Pence’s brother after sparring with ex-vice-presidentEndorsement for Congress comes after Mike Pence rejected Trump’s claim that he could have reversed his election defeat Even though Donald Trump recently sparred with Mike Pence over whether the former vice-president could have done more to overturn Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race, Trump on Friday handed an endorsement to Pence’s brother in an Indiana congressional race.Trump’s endorsement of Greg Pence, who is seeking a third term as the US House representative for Indiana’s sixth congressional district, is politically intriguing for a couple of reasons.Trump defended rioters who threatened to ‘hang Mike Pence’, audio revealsRead moreIt comes a little more than a year after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 and demanded – among other things – Pence’s hanging. A bipartisan Senate committee has connected seven deaths to the attack, which delayed a joint session of Congress to certify Biden’s win by several hours.And the endorsement comes a couple of months after Mike Pence, in a rare stand against the former president, rejected Trump’s claim that Pence could have reversed Trump’s election defeat during the joint congressional session that was temporarily interrupted by the Capitol insurrection.At one point that day, Secret Service agents tried to drive Pence away from the Capitol, where he was tasked with leading lawmakers’ certification of the presidential election results. But Pence wouldn’t leave, signaling his opposition to the mob’s goal of keeping Trump in power, the Maryland Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, who serves on a House panel investigating the Capitol attack, said recently.“President Trump is wrong,” Pence told the conservative Federalist Society in February, according to National Public Radio (NPR). “I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion any one person could choose the American president.”When asked later about his brother’s remarks, Greg Pence stopped well short of agreeing with them, highlighting how reluctant Republicans are to speak out against Trump while it remains unclear how much power his still-coveted endorsements carry.“I stand by my brother and always will, and I’ll let him speak for himself about his remarks,” Greg Pence told NPR, in part.US Capitol attack: Liz Cheney says Mike Pence ‘was a hero’ on 6 JanuaryRead moreGreg Pence earlier this month also voted against referring criminal contempt charges against Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino to the US justice department. Congress ultimately ended up making the referral, saying Navarro and Scavino ignored subpoenas issued to them as part of the investigation into the Capitol attack that put Mike Pence in jeopardy.That stance on Friday helped the former vice-president’s brother net a statement from Trump reading: “Greg Pence has my Complete and Total Endorsement!”Trump also hailed the Republican congressman for opposing Biden’s immigration policies on the southern border, keeping guns accessible, opposing abortion and supporting the military.Greg Pence’s office didn’t immediately issue a statement in response to Trump’s endorsement. The former oil executive and Marine Corps veteran is facing a challenger in James Dean Alspach in the Republican primary on 3 May.The victor would advance to an 8 November runoff against the winner of the Democratic primary, whose candidates are George Thomas Holland and Cynthia Wirth.TopicsDonald TrumpMike PenceUS politicsRepublicansIndiananewsReuse this content More

Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby, spoke about Russian president, Vladimir Putin’s, ‘depravity’ and ‘brutality’ in carrying out the invasion of Ukraine. Kirby stated that the US had underestimated the level of ‘violence and cruelty’ that Russian forces would undertake, and described it as ‘brutality of the coldest and most depraved sort’

Russia-Ukraine war: latest updates More

The Right review: conservatism, Trump, regret and wishful thinkingMatthew Continetti’s history of 100 years of the American right is ambitious, impressive and worrying America’s tribes frequently clash but they rarely intersect. Over the past 60 years, the Democratic party has morphed into an upstairs-downstairs coalition, graduate-degree holders tethered to an urban core and religious “nones”. Meanwhile, Republicans have grown more rural, southern, evangelical and working class.Overcoming Trumpery review: recipes for reform Republicans will never allow Read moreWithin the GOP, Donald Trump has supplanted the legacies of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. According to Matthew Continetti, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, being a conservative in 2022 is less about advocating limited government and more about culture wars, owning the libs and denouncing globalization.Subtitled The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, Continetti’s third book examines a century of intellectual and political battles. He seeks to explain how Trumpism became the dominant force within the Republican party. In large measure, he succeeds.The Right is readable and relatable, well-written and engaging. The author’s command of facts is impressive. For decades, he has lived around and within the conservative ecosystem.Continetti chronicles the tumult of 1960s, the emergence of Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” and the migration of blue-collar ethnic Catholics to what was once the home of the white Protestant establishment. He also looks back, at the pre-New Deal Republican party and at conservatism after the civil war.Continetti is sensitive to the currents that swirl in and around this country and its people. He laments that in the 21st century blood, soil and grievance have overtaken the conservative orthodoxies of free markets, personal autonomy and communal virtue. He is discomforted by how contemporary conservatism acquired a performative edge.On the page, his dismay is muted but present. He wistfully recalls the collapse of the Weekly Standard, where he worked for Bill Kristol, his future father-in-law. George W Bush’s war in Iraq was one thing that helped do-in the magazine.Similarly, the Republican establishment’s call for immigration reform left many Americans feeling unwanted and threatened. The US immigrant population hovers near a record high, almost 14%. More than 44 million people living here were born elsewhere. Even before the pandemic, the fertility rate hit a record low. The populist impulse is not going to disappear.Trump’s inaugural address, replete with images of “American carnage”, is illustrative of the new conservative normal. Continetti quotes George W Bush: “That was some weird shit.” Nonetheless, on 20 January 2017, Trump struck a nerve.Continetti is mindful of broader trends, and the havoc assortative marriage has brought to society and politics. On that point, he gives Charles Murray his due. Continetti is pessimistic. Marriage predicated upon educational attainment has helped concentrate intellectual capital and financial advantage within a narrow caste.Twenty years ago, David Brooks, once Continetti’s colleague, described an idyllic urban existence, Bobos in Paradise. Those who can’t get in, however, face life in purgatory. The meritocracy got what it clamored for, only to discover it wasn’t loved by those it left behind.Continetti seemingly attempts to downplay similarities between Trump’s Maga movement and the hard-right in Europe. He omits all reference to Nigel Farage in Britain and Marine le Pen in France. Farage led Britain to Brexit and made a cameo appearance in Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the US. Le Pen twice forced Emmanuel Macron into a run-off for president.On the other hand, Continetti does capture how part of the US right adores Vladimir Putin: his authoritarianism, his unbridled nationalism, his disdain for classic liberalism.“Putin held the same allure for the national populist right that Che Guevara held for the cold war left,” Continetti writes. “No wonder President Trump was a fan of the Russian autocrat.”Continetti also says conservatism “anchored to Trump the man will face insurmountable obstacles in attaining policy coherence, government competence, and intellectual credibility”. Here, he stands on shaky ground.In 2016, Trump assembled a winning coalition and beat Hillary Clinton. In power, he loaded the federal judiciary. Whether Jeb Bush could have replicated such success is doubtful. As for intellectual credibility, in 2008 Kristol, Continetti’s mentor, helped pluck Sarah Palin from obscurity. And we all know where that led.In 2009, Continetti himself wrote The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star. He now says “attacks on Palin” caused him “to rally to her defense”. Intellectual slumming, more like it. Palin was unfit for the top job. She resigned as Alaska governor 18 months before her term expired.Continetti also argues that conservatism needs once again to embrace the Declaration of Independence, the constitution and the Bill of Rights.“One cannot be an American patriot without reverence for the nation’s enabling documents,” he says.January 6 demonstrates otherwise. Conservatism’s commitment to democracy and the constitution appears situational. Members of the conservative establishment provided intellectual sinew for America’s Caesar. It wasn’t just about Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and folks dressed as Vikings.The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of historyRead moreJohn Eastman, a former clerk to Clarence Thomas; Ted Cruz, a former clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist; Mike Lee, son of Rex Lee, Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. Together with Ginni Thomas, the justice’s wife, they played outsized roles around the Capitol attack. Fifteen months later, Eastman is in legal jeopardy, Cruz is under growing suspicion and Lee looks like a weasel. Ms Thomas merits our scorn.The reckoning Continetti hopes for may never arrive. Gas prices surge. Crime rises. Together, they portend a Republican midterm landslide. Such realities ushered in Reagan’s 1980 landslide over Jimmy Carter.A one-term Biden presidency looms. A second Trump term is a real possibility. The latest revelations surrounding Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell teach us that inconvenient truths are quickly discarded. In politics, a win is a win.
The Right is published in the US by Basic Books
TopicsBooksPolitics booksUS politicsUS CongressDonald TrumpRepublicansThe far rightreviewsReuse this content More

‘What am I going to do?’: soaring prices fuel calls for US government to step inLarge corporations are passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, experts say Outside a Dollar Tree in Detroit, Latasha Holmes lamented the rising cost of toilet paper, beverages, food and other items she had just purchased. The price increases, she said, were forcing her to choose among necessities for her and four kids.“What am I going to do? Prices are up everywhere, all over town,” she said. “I can’t afford everything.”But while Holmes struggles, Dollar Tree thrives. The retailer increased its prices by 25% as profits jumped 269% between 2019 and 2021, and its profit margins widened. Shareholders won too. The company also announced a stock buyback program worth $1bn that will deliver cash from those price increases to its investors.Dollar Tree and other large corporations are juicing profits by passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers like Holmes under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, consumer advocates and economists say. They are calling for the federal government to take bold steps to rein in the companies.Revealed: top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surgeRead moreAmong proposed prescriptions are price controls, improved price fixing rules, commodity market intervention, stock buyback regulation and antitrust enforcement. Ranged against those proposals are a powerful business lobby and a divided Congress that seems unable to pass major legislation.“There are reasons to have a profit incentive, but there are also reasons to have an overall regulatory body that can say, ‘This is actually profiteering … while everyone is hurting,’” said Krista Brown, a policy analyst with the American Economic Liberties Project.A Guardian analysis of 100 top corporations’ Securities Exchange Commission filings found a median increase of 49% in profits between the most recent quarter and the same quarter two years ago, pre-pandemic. It shows companies have largely shielded themselves from inflationary pain by passing most or all of their increased costs on to customers via price hikes.So far, the federal government’s most visible attempt to address inflation has been to increase interest rates, rates look set to rise again this week. But the Guardian’s data suggests such a measure may miss an important mark. Raising rates effectively takes money out of consumers’ pockets to cool the economy.If corporate profits are contributing in a meaningful way, then raising rates would only reduce the amount of money people have to spend on products and services for which prices are still going up.“That would mean you’re exacerbating this dynamic instead of doing anything to help it,” said Isabella Weber, University of Massachusetts Amherst economist.Instead, limited and targeted price controls could work for essentials like bread, she said, but stressed those would have to be coupled with a bailout plan for negatively affected companies.“Increased prices for basic items like bread can exert enormous pressure on wages” and send inflationary ripples throughout the economy, Weber added. Though price controls are controversial and generally regarded as a leftist idea, the last president to enact them was Richard Nixon, who imposed a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to address inflation in 1970. Price controls were also enacted during and following the second world war, when, again, supply chain issues and pent up demand led to soaring prices.Table of 100 US companies’ profit growthBut price rises are not the only issue critics would like to see the Biden administration address. Others, like Groundwork Collective’s executive director, Lindsay Owens, have called for a ban or new restrictions on stock buyback programs. Joe Biden’s 2023 budget proposes prohibiting executives from selling their stock three to five years after enacting a buyback program.“The other big winner besides the shareholders in excess cash that’s going to buybacks are the executives,” Owens said. “They announce the buybacks, their stock prices soar, then they sell their shares and there are a number of ways to make this work better.”The Guardian’s analysis found companies’ buyback programs over the last 15 months totaled $544bn. That cash could have been reinvested to keep prices down, or increase workers’ wages, consumer advocates say.Others levelled accusations of price fixing and gouging. The American Economic Liberties Project is helping draft legislation that would make it easier for businesses to sue companies for price fixing by making private corporate communications more accessible. As of now, only 3% of price fixing cases make it to trial, Brown said.“Reinvigorating price fixing laws and going after price gouging in moments like this, where a war or Covid are used as excuses for companies to raise rates just because they can, could help a lot,” she added.Fixing is especially a problem in highly consolidated industries, consumer advocates say. Companies have benefited from “decades long under-enforcement of consolidation laws”, added Martin Schmalz, an Oxford University economist.Just four companies control most of the US beef industry, four airlines control about 80% of domestic passenger traffic, Walmart accounts for the majority of grocery sales in the majority of US states, the list goes on and on.And it’s not just the companies that have outsized control. Large investors also a role to play.Schmalz pointed to the Investment Company Act, which limits investment funds to holding no more than 10% of a corporation’s securities. Vanguard on average holds 10% of all S&P 500 companies, Schmalz research has found, but it is not violating the law because companies within its fund family own the shares, not Vanguard itself. But Vanguard still executes the voting rights of more than 10% of shareholders.“The law is written at the fund level so technically speaking they don’t violate the law, but they are violating the spirit of the law,” Schmalz said.Economists and attorneys working on US antitrust law have proposed prosecuting mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard that own large stakes in multiple companies in the same sector. Such shareholders can exert an outsize influence on companies’ pricing decisions, Schmalz said, and he noted Investment Company Act language that specifically targets this scenario: “The national public interest … is adversely affected … when investment companies [have] great size [and] excessive influence on the national economy.”Schmalz said there’s little discussion among policymakers to address that specific issue.Biden’s budget includes over $220m for antitrust enforcement, and bills that would break up large tech companies have bipartisan Senate and House support.The Guardian’s analysis highlighted the commodity market boom as companies trading in grain, steel, mining, wood, rubber, meat, oil, homes and other materials generally recorded higher profit increases than companies across the rest of the economy.However, many commodity companies operate in what analysts characterize as “feast and famine” cycles in which they’re unprofitable for years before cashing in. The pendulum has swung for many commodity companies in the day’s economic climate.“When there’s a chance to raise prices when markets are tight, companies are going to do so,” said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the Employ America thinktank. “It’s some part opportunistic, some part greed, some part rationality, some part a response to uncertainty.”The oil industry highlights the dynamic. After seven years of low returns, it’s restricting supply to boost profits regardless of how that hits Americans at the pump. Earnings calls transcripts reveal executives eagerly “putting shareholders first” and an investor who described industry-wide supply suppression “one of the delights of this earnings season”.Bar chart of the monthly change in US wages since January 2019Bringing volatile commodity prices under control would require curtailing uncertainty and building supply chain resiliency, analysts who spoke with the Guardian say. That could involve some degree of government intervention to cut down on risk by establishing a floor on commodity prices. The government could do that by effectively becoming the “buyer of last resort” when material prices dip below a certain level.But the government should also set a ceiling above which it collects profits, said commodities analyst Alex Turnbull. He suggested the federal government set up what’s effectively a state reserve board.Turnbull pointed to lithium, which, amid increased demand for EV batteries and supply chain squeezes, jumped from $5,000 a ton to $45,000 a ton last year. Higher prices impact the pace of the clean energy transition, and the government could hypothetically set a $10,000 a ton floor price and $25,000 a ton ceiling that would limit the volatility, Turnbull said.The federal government could also increase stockpile reserves of products like grain or oil that are released when prices spike.“That sends the message ‘You should plant more wheat because if it goes really bad, you might have a lean year or two, but we will buy your wheat. But on the other hand don’t expect to buy a Lamborghini if you’re a farmer in Iowa because when prices get too high we’ll be out there selling the shit out of our stockpiles,’” Turnbull said.Stabilization may also spur investment in raw material production that’s risky, which would further bolster markets against future supply shortages. Few companies have built steel plants in recent years because the prices have been so low, Turnbull noted, and now the world is short on steel.Though price caps are “not politically palatable” Bespoke Investment analyst George Pearkes said, the government could take a number of measures to steer futures curves and markets for raw commodities like oil and wheat.“Something in between where there are strategic efforts to smooth volatility, and provide the private sector with enough certainty that they can make decisions is a lot more compelling,” he said.Spikes in investment for some commodities, like nickel, that are essential to the clean energy transition, can be a positive development, Turnbull said. Mining companies limped through the several years leading up to the pandemic, but reaped windfalls over the last year.“People say ‘Nickel producers are making too much money’, well, they didn’t make money for a decade,” Turnbull said. “At some point, somebody has to put money down to dig holes because people aren’t going to drive to the middle of fucking nowhere with a truck and work for free.”Another force in some commodity price spikes: Wall Street speculation. Commodity markets were once heavily regulated because they deal in raw materials that underpin the economy. An influx of investment capital followed the commodity markets’ deregulation about 20 years ago, and some are now treated like speculative assets similar to bitcoin, said Rupert Russell, who authored a book on the topic.The consequences of economy-addling commodity price spikes are real, he adds, pointing to the 2010 grain prices that helped trigger the Arab spring uprising in Tunisia.Supply chain back ups, inflation and war have generated “radical uncertainty” in which no one knows how much commodities are worth, because the prices are no longer anchored, Russell told the Guardian. He echoed others’ calls for stronger government intervention to tamp down the casino-like mentality.“Once there’s not just radical uncertainty but markets dominated by speculators, algorithmically driven speculation that is just kind of responding to headlines, then you’re going to get that kind of Bitcoin-esque volatility,” he said.But experts say there are few viable short-term solutions, and long-term measures don’t help Holmes. That’s forcing her to think about getting another job to survive as she feels the pressure of an economic system stacked against her.“I don’t want to. I’ve got four kids to take care of, but what am I supposed to do?” she asked.TopicsUS economyInflationEconomicsUS politicsUS income inequalityInequalityfeaturesReuse this content More