US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares18 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s plutocrats: money for something | Editorial

      by

      One person turns up surprisingly often at Donald Trump’s side. Not his No 2, JD Vance, nor his wife, Melania, but another man a quarter-century younger and about $300bn heavier: Elon Musk. The two hunkered down in Mar-a-Lago on the night of the election, celebrating the results. This week they were in Texas, watching Mr Musk’s staff test-launch a spacecraft. During the campaign, Mr Musk personally chipped in $130m, made speeches at rallies and organised campaigns to “get out the vote”. Last week, the world’s richest man was picked by the president-elect to run a new “department of government efficiency”. So close are the pair that Mr Musk dubs himself “First Buddy”.American politics has always been coiled around money, tight as a vine around a trunk. Nearly 25 years ago, George W Bush joked at a swanky white-tie dinner: “Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” Nor is it confined to the right wing. Of the two main candidates in this month’s election, more billionaires backed Kamala Harris. One result is a highly warped politics that works against the very people it urges to go out and vote.The renowned political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson observe that many rich countries have succumbed to rightwing populism – but Mr Trump is different. He talks populist, but walks plutocratic. According to Prof Hacker and Prof Pierson he is “fixated on helping the wealthiest Americans”. The $1.5tn of tax cuts he made in his first term meant that, for the first time in history, billionaires paid a lower rate than the working class.The Republicans were always the party of big business, but Mr Trump is turning them into a playpen for oligarchs. This autumn, Mr Musk was the only boss of a Fortune 100 business to donate to the Republicans, compared with the 42 company heads who supported Mr Bush in 2004. Mr Trump’s donors do not come from the big institutions of corporate America but are often drawn from casinos, crypto currency, fossil fuels and shadow banking.Business leaders used to argue that their support for politicians was in the hope of securing long-term stability and competent economic stewardship. This time, some appear to have been made very particular promises. In April, Mr Trump convened a dinner for fossil-fuel executives and lobbyists, where he reportedly demanded they donate $1bn. In return, they’d face fewer pesky regulations on where they could drill. “It’s a whole different class,” one longtime handler of Republican donors told the New Yorker last month. Rather than a photo op and a grand dinner, “they want to essentially get their issues in the White House … They want someone to take their calls.”And they probably don’t want too much scrutiny. Mr Musk’s appointment to the “department of government efficiency” is both less and more than it seems. It’s not a Washington job that would burden the tech billionaire with regulations around conflicts of interest; rather he will “provide advice and guidance from outside of government”. This sounds like unparalleled access without much responsibility, which leaves the American public reliant on Mr Trump’s personal ethics to safeguard their democracy. What exactly does Earth’s richest man see in the president-elect of the world’s biggest superpower? It is a question that will keep coming around – not for Mr Musk alone, but for so many wealthy supporters of America’s next leader.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 125 Shares17 Views

      in US Politics

      3 strategies to help Americans bridge the deepening partisan divide

      by

      Is it possible to bridge America’s stark political divisions?

      In the wake of a presidential election that many feared could tear the U.S. apart, this question is on many people’s minds.

      A record-high 80% of Americans believe the U.S. is greatly divided on “the most important values”. Ahead of the election, a similar percentage of Americans said they feared violence and threats to democracy. Almost half the country believes people on the other side of the political divide are “downright evil.”

      Some say that the vitriolic rhetoric of political leaders and social media influencers is partly to blame for the country’s state of toxic polarization. Others cite social media platforms that amplify misinformation and polarization.

      There is, however, reason for hope.

      I say this as an anthropologist of peace and conflict. After working abroad, I began doing research on the threat of violence in the U.S. in 2016. In 2021, I published a related book, “It Can Happen Here.”

      Now, I am researching polarization in the U.S. – and ways to counter it. I have visited large Make America Great Again events for my research. I have also gone to small workshops run by nonprofit organizations like Urban Rural Action that are dedicated to building social cohesion and bridging America’s divides. Some refer to the growing number of these organizations as a “bridging movement.”

      Their work is not easy, but they have shown that connecting with and listening to others who hold different political views is possible.

      Here are three strategies these organizations are using – and people can try to use in their own daily lives – to reduce political polarization:

      1. Listen first

      Pearce Godwin, a former Republican-leaning consultant from North Carolina, was one of the first “bridgers.”

      In 2013, Godwin was doing Christian humanitarian work in Africa. Upset by the vitriol of U.S. politics, Godwin, who had worked on Capitol Hill, wrote a commentary, “It’s Time to Listen,” while on an overnight bus trip across Uganda.

      Multiple U.S. newspapers published his column, which called for what is the starting point of most bridging work: People should listen first to understand.

      Later that year, Godwin started a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization, the Listen First Project, to promote this message through activities like a 2014 “Listen First, Vote Second” public relations and media campaign.

      After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Godwin decided to expand Listen First work. He established the #ListenFirst Coalition with three other similar organizations: The Village Square, Living Room Conversations and National Institute for Civil Discourse.

      Today, this coalition includes over 500 organizations, whose work ranges from one-off dialogue skills workshops to longer-term projects that seek to build social cohesion in the U.S.

      2. Be curious, not dogmatic

      Braver Angels dates back to 2016 and is another large nonprofit organization that is part of the #ListenFirst Coalition.

      On Election Day on Nov. 5, 2024, Braver Angels organized hundreds of pairs of Trump and Kamala Harris supporters to stand at polling stations and demonstrate that dialogue across the political divide is possible. Some held signs that read “Vote Red, Vote Blue, We’re All Americans Through and Through.”

      During the past year, I have observed Braver Angels workshops on media bias, public education, immigration and the 2024 election.

      Their fishbowl exercise stands out.

      Designed by Bill Doherty, a couples therapist and co-founder of Braver Angels, the fishbowl involves a group of Republicans and Democrats talking.

      People in the group take turns speaking on a particular political topic, while the others – along with a larger group of observers – listen to what they say without speaking. After peering into this “fishbowl,” each group member discusses what they discovered by listening to the other group. Many mention their “surprise” at points of agreement on certain issues and the thoughtful reasoning behind positions “on the other side” they had previously dismissed.

      The exercise illustrates a key starting point of bridging work: Be curious, instead of trying to prove you are right. Learn how someone on the other side of an issue understands and perceives something.

      3. Burst out of your bubble

      Another key strategy to overcome division is helping people burst out of their bubble. The idea is that people can objectively detach from and examine their assumptions, and then try to explore alternative views outside their social media, news information and community silos.

      One #ListenFirst Coalition partner, AllSides, tries to help people do this through a digital platform that shows how the same news of the day is being reported by left, right and center media organizations. It also has an online tool, “Rate Your Bias,” which helps users become aware of their own assumptions.

      People can use these tools to compare different stances on issues like federal taxes and civil liberties – and how their own positions line up. People can also search for individual media outlets to see if the majority of other users have rated these organizations as liberal, conservative or center.

      When people identify their own biases – which can become evident as they examine the media outlets they like, for example – it can help them become more curious and open. It also helps them move out of the information silos that divide people.

      The bridging movement is not without its challenges. People who lean red are sometimes suspicious of these initiatives, which give people information on voting and democracy and can be perceived as having a liberal bias.

      Group diversity is also a challenge. Based on my observations, Braver Angels participants tend to be older, white and educated.

      And other groups, like #ListenFirst Coalition partner Urban Rural Action, have to spend considerable time and effort getting a diverse range of people in their programs.

      But, given America’s stark political divisions, I think there is a clear need and desire for the depolarization work these groups do.

      The vast majority of people in the U.S. are concerned about the current state of polarization in the nation. These bridging groups show a way forward and offer strategies to help Americans build bridges across the country’s deepening political divide. More

    • 175 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      The Long Wave: Unearthing the real story of Black voters at the US election

      by

      Hello and welcome to The Long Wave. This week, I had a chat with Lauren N Williams, the deputy editor for race and equity at the Guardian US, about the country’s election results and the role Black voters played. I wanted to discuss the reported swing among Black voters to Donald Trump, which seemed pretty significant. However, talking to her made me see things from a different angle. But first, the weekly roundup.Weekly roundupView image in fullscreenBarbados PM invites Trump for climate talks | At the UN’s Cop29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, Mia Mottley told the Guardian that she would “find common purpose in saving the planet” with the president-elect of the US. Trump’s re-election has aggravated fears about the future of climate action.Malcolm X family sues over assassination | The family of Malcolm X have filed a $100m federal lawsuit against the CIA, FBI and New York police department over his death. The lawsuit alleges that law enforcement agencies knew of the plot to assassinate the civil rights leader in 1965 but did not act to stop it.Kenyans embrace standup comedy | Comedy is booming in Kenya, with new venues and a fresh wave of standups picking up the mic. As our east Africa correspondent, Carlos Mureithi, reports: “Topics encompass daily life and the entire range of challenges that beset the country … as performers tap into the power of standup to make people laugh about their difficulties.”Steve McQueen reveals cancer treatment | The Oscar-winning film director and artist Steve McQueen underwent treatment for prostate cancer in 2022. The Blitz producer, whose father died of the disease in 2006, has helped raise awareness of the higher risk of prostate cancer among Black men, and directed a short campaign film, Embarassed.Evaristos connect at Rio book festival | The British Booker prize-winner Bernardine Evaristo and Brazil’s most celebrated living Black author, Conceição Evaristo, met for the first time at Festa Literária das Periferias in Rio de Janeiro last Wednesday. The two Evaristos, who are unrelated, spoke on a panel discussion about their shared surname and its ties to Brazil and the transatlantic slave trade.In depth: A Black political shift – math or myth?View image in fullscreenThe headlines seemed clear: Trump’s support among Black voters had soared. In the US election this month, some media reported that he doubled his share of the Black male vote and won more Black voters than any other Republican in almost 50 years. This was history! Well, not quite, Lauren N Williams tells me. “The numbers overall are almost identical to how people voted in 2020,” she says. According to exit polls, Black voters turned out for Harris at 85%, and for Joe Biden at 87%. The only real difference is that the number of Black men who voted for Kamala Harris dropped slightly, while Black male Trump support increased slightly from 19% in 2020 to 21% in 2024. But, she says, more than 7 million fewer people voted for Harris than Biden. While Trump picked up more Black male voters than he did back then – a detail heavily emphasised in media coverage before and after the election – the prevailing narrative does not account for the fact that: “It’s not only this switch to Trump,” Lauren says. People stayed home, or people voted third party. If you don’t look at the whole picture, then yes, you arrive at the narrative that Black people are swinging one way.”Why was this contextualisation missing from post-election analysis? Because it doesn’t make for a sexy story. “It’s really interesting to people when you have a character like Trump and he attracts folks who you wouldn’t normally think would be into his policies and persona,” Lauren says. “It’s typical that white male voters vote for him overwhelmingly – but what’s not typical is when people of colour do so. For a lot of news media, that is a really attractive story.”I asked her about the viral clip of Barack Obama scolding Black male voters for seemingly not turning out as strongly for Harris as they did for him when he ran. Even I flinched when I saw it, and thought, wow, the Democrats must really be in trouble. But, according to Lauren, the emergency button on that narrative had so constantly been pressed by poll analysts (a narrative that, if I may, the Guardian avoided), that even the Democrats panicked and fell for it, sending Obama to “finger-wag” at prospective voters.‘Complicating the narrative’View image in fullscreenIt’s still interesting to me that a candidate like Trump, with his record on racism, could win over more Black men, even in context. But Lauren calls my attention to a far bigger and more interesting story that has been reduced to a footnote of the election: Harris won almost the entire Black female vote. “If you had white women voting 90%-plus for a candidate, you would not hear the end of that story. It would be endlessly curious and interesting and fascinating. We lose a lot by not applying that same level of curiosity to the ways that other demographics vote.” I can see that this also applies to Black men, three-quarters of whom still voted Democrat. “This story could have been ‘look at the power that Black voters wield’, but that’s just not the American narrative.”And what we lose is a big deal. By writing off those who voted for Harris as doing so simply out of blind loyalty, the reasons for Trump’s victory risk becoming detached from reality. Another broad headline after the election was that there was actually nothing sinister going on – it was “just” the economy. But the Black people who voted for Harris are disproportionately working class, Lauren says, and have made informed decisions despite their economic status because they are accustomed to making compromises and always thinking about “the greater good”. “In the discussions that a lot of the media has about the working class, the undertone is that they are only talking about the white working class”, because considering Black voters as part of the American working class “complicates the narrative”. People would have to reckon with the fact that “Black Americans who experience disfranchisement and a huge racial wealth gap were not wooed by this idea of economic anxiety”.Anti-racism has fallen out of fashionView image in fullscreen“Complicating the narrative” raises the question: why is it that white people are seemingly more anxious about the economy than Black people who are less well off? There is little interest in the answer to this question, says Lauren. “I think people have decided that race is boring,” she says, even though it’s “at the root of so much. Any time we talk about identity politics, we’re talking about people of colour, even though Trump ran on white male identity.” By only treating white people as rational economic voters, we pay “an undue amount of attention” to factors outside race, even though it’s “right up there”. I have definitely noticed a shift since Trump’s first election victory eight years ago. The myriad “white rage” takes of 2016 are thin on the ground this time, despite Trump’s 2024 campaign being even more explicitly racist.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA growing backlash to Black Lives Matter also played a role. “We shifted so far after George Floyd,” Lauren says, “whether we saw corporations – symbolic or not – changing their behaviour and relationships to racism and people were pissed about that. Not everyone was on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon.”What next for Black Americans?View image in fullscreenIf this is how the election analysis has played out, it does not bode well for the next four years. Perhaps we’ll see wall-to-wall coverage of Trump’s “appeal” to the white working class and continued disregard for the millions of Black people who didn’t vote for him, who now have to live under a regime that “aims to dismantle federal anti-discrimination policies”. Lauren’s approach is to widen the historical lens. “One thing that has helped me is just remembering that we have been here before. Any time there is progress, there is always a backlash to it. One step forward, two steps back. That is peak American history.”As a journalist, Lauren says showing Black lives as fuller than they are often depicted in the mainstream media, insisting on art, culture, and “the Black rodeo down in Mississippi”, is the way to plough ahead. In other words: if you’re a glass-half-full person, which I am, it’s focusing on that one step forward and then the next one. Or, to borrow from Harris, “weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning”.What we’re intoView image in fullscreen

      I am broadly not a fan of beauty pageants. But I can’t lie, the variations of African dress during this year’s Miss Universe had me mesmerised. It’s impossible to pick a favourite as each one was more stunning the next. Nesrine

      The Afrikan Alien mixtape by Pa Salieu is going platinum on my phone. I love his musings on family, alienation and freedom (he was released from a 21-month prison stint in September). Jason

      I know we are at a saturation point with social media, but hear me out: Bluesky is like the old, less toxic Twitter, and has a handy way of grouping users so you can follow by theme. I mass followed Blacksky, a selection of interesting Black accounts on the app. Check it out. Nesrine

      I can’t wait to catch Cynthia Erivo’s performance as Elphaba in the film Wicked. She is a generational talent and I can’t stop watching her perform an R&B rendition of The Sound of Music on The Tonight Show. Jason
      Black catalogueView image in fullscreenWhen the prominent Fani-Kayode family fled the civil war in Nigeria, the UK gained a curious and radical artist and photographer in Rotimi Fani-Kayode, famous for his portraits exploring race, culture, sexuality, desire and pain. He had a short career, with much of his work accomplished between 1983 and his death from Aids-related complications in London in 1989. Fani-Kayode was a member of the Brixton Artists Collective and a founding member of the Autograph ABP (Association of Black Photographers), and much of Rotimi’s never-before-seen works are being presented at a new exhibition in London that captures his legacy and impact.Tap inDo you have any thoughts or responses to this week’s newsletter? Share your feedback by replying to this, or emailing us on thelongwave@theguardian.com and we may include your response in a future issue. More

    • 225 Shares24 Views

      in US Politics

      Entropy and information control: the key to understanding how to mount the fightback against Trump and other populists

      by

      The spectacular comeback of US president-elect Donald Trump has taken the world by surprise. No doubt people can point to various explanations for his election victory, but in my view, the science of information will pave the way towards deeper insights. Unless the Democrats – and their counterparts around the world – can develop a better understanding of how people receive and reject information, they will never fully understand what happened or successfully fight elections in the future.

      There is a fundamental law of nature, known in physical science as the second law. This says that, over time, noise will overwhelm information and uncertainties will dominate. Order will be swamped by confusion and chaos. From a single particle to the whole universe, every system known to science obeys this law. That includes political systems, or societies.

      Whenever there is progress in communication technology, people circulate more and more inessential or inaccurate information. In a political system, this is what leads to the noise domination described by the second law.

      Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

      In science, the quantity that measures the degree of uncertainty is known as entropy. The second law therefore says that entropy can only increase, at least on average.

      While entropy does not reduce spontaneously, it is possible to reduce it by spending energy – that is, at a cost. This is exactly what life is about – we create internal order, thus reducing entropy, by consuming energy in the form of food.

      For a biological system to survive, it has to reduce uncertainties about the state of its environment. So there are two opposing trends: we don’t like uncertainties and try to reduce them. But we live in a world dominated by growing uncertainties. Understanding the balance of these two forces holds the key to appreciating some of the most perplexing social phenomena – such as why people would vote for a man who has been convicted of multiple crimes and strongly signalled his autocratic tendencies.

      The world is filled with uncertainties and information technology is enhancing the level of that uncertainty at an incredible pace. The development of AI is only propelling the increase of uncertainty and will continue to do so at an unimaginable scale.

      In the unregulated wild west of the internet, tech giants have created a monster that feeds us with noise and uncertainty. The result is rapidly-growing entropy – there is a sense of disorder at every turn.

      Each of us, as a biological system, has the desire to reduce this entropy. That is why, for example, we instinctively avoid information sources that are not aligned with our views. They will create uncertainties. If you are a liberal or leftwing voter and have found yourself avoiding the news after Trump’s re-election, it’s probably linked to your desire to minimise entropy.

      The need for certainty

      People are often puzzled about why societies are becoming more polarised and information is becoming more segmented. The answer is simple – the internet, social media, AI and smartphones are pumping out entropy at a rate unseen in the history of Earth. No biological system has ever encountered such a challenge – even if it is a self-imposed one. Drastic actions are required to regain certainties, even if they are false certainties.

      Trump has grasped the fact that people need certainty. He repeatedly offered words of reassurances – “I will fix it”. Whether he will is a more complex question but thinking about that will only generate uncertainties – so it’s better avoided. The Democrats, in contrast, merely offered the assurance of a status quo of prolonged uncertainties.

      Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Gaza, Kamala Harris remarked that she would do everything in her power to bring an end to the war. But the Biden-Harris administration has been doing exactly that for some time with little progress being made.

      Whereas Trump declared he would end the war in Ukraine, Harris remarked that she would stand up against Putin. But the Biden-Harris administration has been merely sending weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war. If that is what “standing up against Putin” means, then most Americans would prefer to see a fall in their grocery prices from an end to the war.

      Some advice is best left unsaid.
      Flicker/Number 10, CC BY

      Harris argued that Trump is a fascist. This may prove to be true, but what that means exactly is unclear to most Americans.

      While Harris’s campaign message of hope was a good initiative, the Democrats failed in delivering certainty and assurance. By the same token they failed to control the information space. Above all, they failed the Americans because, while Trump may well bring an end to the war in Ukraine and Gaza in some form, his climate policy will be detrimental to all Americans, with lasting impacts.

      Without understanding the science of information, the blame game currently underway will not bring Democrats anywhere. And there are lessons to be learned for other centre-left governments, like the UK Labour government.

      It is not entirely inconceivable that the former prime minister Boris Johnson, encouraged by the events in the US, hopes for a dramatic return to the throne at the next general election. If so, prime minister Keir Starmer must find a way to avoid following the footsteps of Biden and Harris. He must provide people with certainty and assurance. More

    • 238 Shares21 Views

      in US Politics

      With Trump heading for the White House, the Democrats must learn these lessons – and fast | Owen Jones

      by

      Did the Democrats really lose because they were too “woke”, too obsessed with minorities, too radical? After defeat, there always comes the battle for the narrative about why the party lost. As the US left is rediscovering, the most influential voices tend to be those platformed by corporate media outlets whose siren cry is always to march rightwards. And yet even the New York Times concluded that one of the main problems was in fact Kamala Harris’s “Wall Street-approved economic pitch”, which her brother-in-law – chief legal officer at Uber – reportedly helped craft, and which “fell flat”.The liberal order, always riddled with hypocrisies and illusions, is collapsing, partly because mainstream liberals cannot be trusted to defend liberalism: they are set to conclude that Trumpism must be defeated through imitation. But here’s a polling fact that cannot be ignored. In the past 50 years, the number of Americans who believe the Democrats “represent the working class” has plummeted, while the numbers who believe they “stand up for marginalised groups” has dramatically risen, now exceeding the former.This is what happens if you lack a convincing economic vision to uplift the working class – in all its diversity – as a whole. Even if your commitment to minority rights is superficial and rhetorical, your rightwing opponents will tell Americans that your interest is reserved for “marginalised groups” rather than “the average Joe”. Or as one Republican attack ad put it: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”This is a feature, not a bug, with the Democrats. Since the civil rights era, they have been a coalition including a chunk of corporate America, a shrinking labour movement and minorities. This cross-class alliance stopped them offering European-style social democracy, which would mean hiking taxes on their wealthy backers. In fact, under the Democratic administrations of John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson in the 60s, hefty tax cuts benefited big businesses and affluent Americans the most. While the tax burden of the average US family nearly doubled between the 1950s and the election of Ronald Reagan, corporate taxes as a share of gross federal receipts fell by a third.This means that the big government spending projects of those eras, like the anti-poverty measures of the Great Society, were largely paid for by middle-income Americans. This encouraged a backlash against the beneficiaries of the programmes, demonised as the undeserving Black poor.In this context, white American workers became increasingly associated with conservatism, as converts to Richard Nixon’s Republicans and the segregationist George Wallace. “The typical worker – from construction craftsman to shoe clerk,” wrote New York Times labour correspondent AH Raskin in 1968, “has become probably the most reactionary political force in the country.” But as the working-class writer Andrew Levison wrote a few years later: “There is nothing strange in the fact that workers began deserting liberalism once liberalism so decisively deserted them.”There are obvious differences today. The previous backlash against liberal failures paved the way to Reaganism, which did at least offer a coherent vision for society. Trumpism, on the other hand, is more emblematic of what the American literary critic Lionel Trilling said of US conservatism in 1950, that it was a series of “irritable mental gestures”, defined by fiery opposition to perceived progressive sensibilities rather than a cogent plan for what the US could look like. Policies that favour wealthier Americans – rather than many of the struggling Americans who voted for Trump – piggyback on this emotive backlash.But Kamala Harris made her dividing lines abortion rights and the defence of democracy: crucial questions, no doubt, but not answers to the struggles of workers on stagnating wages. Trumpism, on the other hand, attempted to vocalise the rage many Americans felt about their difficult circumstances, and sought to portray the Democrats as driven by championing demonised minorities instead, such as migrants and transgender people. That Harris did no such thing in her campaign is irrelevant: the lack of a compelling cut-through message on bread-and-butter issues allowed the Republicans to “flood the zone with shit”, as Republican strategist Steve Bannon puts it.The answer, then, is not to throw minorities under the presidential Cadillac. That will alienate progressive Americans, and given Trump won a similar number of votes as 2020 – while Democrats haemorrhaged natural supporters who stayed home – this would be a political as well as a moral failure. It is also true that the majority of citizens in any country will never be driven by a desire to improve the lot of minorities, and nor should the left wish to focus only on the most marginalised.Instead, an economic populism that champions the interests of the American majority – irrespective of gender, race, religion, sexual or gender identity – will drown out claims that the Democrats care only for the marginalised “other”. Instead of the Democrats being drawn into toxic rows about the existence of transgender people, the Republicans would be forced on the defensive instead: as Reagan once wisely put it, in politics, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”. The Democrats need a plan that unites the shared interests of low- and middle-income Americans in an age of crisis and turmoil.As for the siren voices demanding a corporate-friendly Democratic party which refuses to champion minorities: the voters were just offered that, and it lost.

      Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 188 Shares25 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris ran from the Biden policies that were actually popular with voters | Daniela Gabor

      by

      The post-mortems of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump all agree on one thing: that Harris stuck too close to Biden. It was deliberate, pundits charge, pointing to the now infamous October appearance on ABC’s The View, where Harris said “There is not a thing that comes close to mind” that she would have done differently. But the pundits are wrong.Harris did distance herself from Biden where it hurt her most. She dumped his Rooseveltian transformative ambitions to bring back big government. Instead, she returned to the Obama-Clinton of a small or neoliberal state that highly influential Democrats like Jake Sullivan had already known was an electoral dead end during the first Trump administration.Freshly bruised from his experience as senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, Sullivan set out a new vision for the Democratic party in his 2018 essay The New Old Democrats. The nutshell: “It’s not the 1990s anymore. People want the government to help solve big problems.”The problem for Democrats, he warned, was not that the party had been hijacked by progressive forces (a familiar lament, now framed in the conservative language of “woke”) but the opposite. The political centre of gravity had shifted, leaving the Democrats behind an American public clamoring for more energised government. To stave off the long-run threat of Trumpism, Democrats had to abandon centrist politics and embrace a new policy playbook, a return of the state guided by Roosevelt’s principles of “bold, persistent experimentation”. The main task was to “embrace the fact that transforming our economy will require substantial public investments”, paid for through progressive taxation of wealth and concentrated corporate power – big government, beating back big business.As Biden hung a portrait of Roosevelt above the Oval Office fireplace after winning the election, his team, with Jake Sullivan as national security adviser, set to work on the return of big, transformative government. Even with congressional politics in the way, the several legislative initiatives together – Chips, IRA, the Infrastructure and Jobs Act – amounted to a $2tn push to reshape the American economy. The conflation of transformative ambitions and China hawkishness, once remarkably absent from Sullivan’s vision, worried some, but most took it as either imperative or the price to pay for bipartisan support.By late 2023, even ideological enemies approved of Bidenomics. The free market evangelists at the Economist applauded Biden’s as the most “energetic American government in nearly half a century”. It helped revive beleaguered unions, and “produced an industrial policy that aims to reshape the American economy”, with immediate results: investment in manufacturing facilities more than doubled, soaring to its highest on recent historical record. Similarly, Lina Khan, chair of the US Federal Trade Commission, was taming concentrated corporate power without destroying corporate profitability or slowing the record number of new businesses created during Biden’s first years.If the Economist expected four more years of Biden to mean even bigger government, Harris backtracked. Where Sullivan called for a Democrat-led economic revolution for America, her “opportunity economy” read like a sad list of bullet points on a crammed slide headed “Smallish Government”: boost child tax credits, increase deductions for new small businesses, help for first-time homebuyers, incentives for new developments.This was not the transformative vision that Biden had championed. Her plans to oppose price gouging framed corporate power as an occasional, rather than structural, threat against American consumers, and said nothing about American workers. Alongside speculation that she would bow to billionaire pressure to oust Khan, Harris dropped union leaders and her early position as a scourge of Big Business to instead court favor with Wall Street, Mark Cuban and the minuscule Liz Cheney fanbase.Under Harris, the Democratic party returned the mantle of change to the Trump campaign, and to a JD Vance prepared to denounce corporate power and voter economic misery often more trenchantly than Harris.What if Harris shifted to the right of Biden because she had no choice? The most energetic government in decades had failed to make it through to voters, who heard inflation when Democrats shouted Bidenomics. But here Sullivan, by now tainted by his unwavering support for Israel’s destruction of Gaza, had already given the answer, or, rather, asked the important question in his 2018 essay: The New Old Democrats, he had insisted, should not ask whether transformative government, but how? How can transformative government both check corporate power and support workers and families?The hard truth about Biden’s transformative project is that it failed its ambitions to roll back the power of capital. There was a brief moment in 2021 when big finance spoke and nobody listened, when investors lamented being excluded from Biden’s old-style “government spending on infrastructure”. But then the “politics of the possible” in Congress curtailed that momentum, in no small part due to conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, private equity’s best friend.Bidenomics might not have started, but it certainly ended, as a capital-first, trickle-down-to-workers project. Its transformative ambitions morphed into generous subsidies (tax incentives) for private investors. These investors got to opt out of worker-friendly tax credits. Where Roosevelt would have decried the new generation of subsidy-chaser capitalists as class and democracy enemies, Biden invited the biggest of them all – Larry Fink, CEO of the asset manager BlackRock – to join him at the G7 meeting in Rome in June 2024. There, Fink delivered a long sermon on why the privatisation of social and climate infrastructure, with state subsidies for investors, is the only way forward.Biden officials might have waved a copy of Wendy Brown’s Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution on their way to the White House, but distributional politics hasn’t changed that much since the glory days of neoliberalism. The richest 20% by income account for 40% of spending, twice as much as the poorest 40%. This is the widest gap on record, according to Oxford Economics.Rich millennials got virtually all the $51tn gains to US wealth this decade. Having tried and failed to extend the Covid-19 social safety net, the Biden administration instead continued to hand big finance – in its private equity guise – chunks of the state’s social contract with citizens, from housing to healthcare, dentistry, prisons, retirement homes. Voters heard inflation because nowhere does the paycheck rule as it does in a deeply unequal United States.If Sullivan was right this time too, and there is little reason to believe otherwise, the winning strategy for Harris was to revive and even amplify Biden’s Rooseveltian dream of big government. Democrats now choosing to interpret her defeat as “progressive hijacking” would do well to heed Sullivan’s warning against a return to centrist politics, the most accurate prediction of his entire career.

      Daniela Gabor is professor of economics and macrofinance at SOAS, University of London. She is working on The Wall Street Consensus, a book on the return of the transformative state More

    • 138 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      Who is Mehmet Oz, Trump’s pick to lead Medicare and Medicaid?

      by

      Donald Trump has chosen Mehmet Oz, best known for starring in his eponymous daytime talkshow for more than a decade and leaning heavily into Trumpism during his failed 2022 run for a Pennsylvania Senate seat, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The cardiothoracic surgeon, who faced immense backlash from the medical and scientific communities for pushing misinformation at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, will oversee the agency that operates on a $2.6tn annual budget and provides healthcare to more than 100 million people.“I am honored to be nominated by [Donald Trump] to lead CMS,” Oz posted on X on Tuesday. “I look forward to serving my country to Make America Healthy Again under the leadership of HHS Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr].”In the announcement of Oz’s selection, Trump said that Oz will “make America healthy again” and described him as “an eminent Physician, Heart Surgeon, Inventor, and World-Class Communicator, who has been at the forefront of healthy living for decades”.Oz has been on US television screens for nearly 20 years, first appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show in 2004. In that time, he’s talked to his audience about losing weight with fad diets and what it takes to have healthy poops and, toward the end of his run, touting hydroxychloroquine as a potential remedy for Covid-19.Here’s what to know about the New York University professor and surgeon turned television show host, and now Trump appointee.Who is Mehmet Oz?Oz, 64, is a Turkish American Ohio native best known for The Dr Oz Show, which ran from 2009 to 2022. His father was a surgeon in Turkey, and after Oz graduated high school in Delaware, he was admitted into Harvard. He also served in the Turkish military in order to maintain dual citizenship, the Associated Press reports.Before entering US homes via daytime TV, he had more than 20 years of experience as a cardiothoracic surgeon at Presbyterian-Columbia Medical Center in New York. He was also a professor at Columbia University’s medical school.His bona fides at the prestigious institutions earned him quick credibility with viewers, and his popularity garnered him nine Daytime Emmy awards for outstanding informative talkshow and host.Though his show ended in 2022, Oz maintains a YouTube channel filled with old episodes of his shows where he interviews guests like Penn Jillette about his weight loss and Robert F Kennedy Jr about his 2014 book about the presence of mercury in vaccines. He also has an Instagram account that boasts more than a million followers, where Oz shares photos of his family and sells products from iHerb, an online health and wellness brand for which he is global adviser.Oz’s questionable medical advice and time in politicsThroughout his TV tenure, Oz dabbled in the hallmarks of weight loss culture like detoxes, cleanses and diets that promised rapid weight loss. He also faced a grilling by senators in 2014 over claims he made and alleged false advertising on supplements he promoted on his show. When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, Oz regurgitated misinformation that came from the fringes of the right and medical communities.These comments continued when he threw his hat into the race to represent Pennsylvania in the US Senate in 2022 against John Fetterman. At the time, the Guardian wrote:“Oz was dogged by questions about his actual connection to the state during the campaign. Oz lived in New Jersey for decades before he moved to Pennsylvania in October 2020, into a home owned by his wife’s family. He announced his bid to be the state’s US senator just months later.”Following Fetterman’s stroke, during which he said he “​​almost died”, the Oz campaign launched unsavory attacks against him, with one Oz aide, Rachel Tripp, claiming Fetterman might not have had a stroke if he “had ever eaten a vegetable in his life”.Oz ultimately lost to Fetterman, who garnered 51% of the vote compared with Oz’s 46%.What will Oz run?Oz will succeed Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the current administrator of CMS, to lead programs including Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people aged 65 or older and disabled people, and Medicaid, the state-based health insurance program for lower-income people, which is jointly funded by states and the federal government. The two programs provide health insurance for more than 140 million Americans.Also in the CMS fold are the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip) and the Health Insurance Marketplace, which was created by the Affordable Care Act under Barack Obama in 2010.Trump’s economic advisers and congressional Republicans are currently discussing possible cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other government welfare programs to cover the costs of extending the president-elect’s multitrillion-dollar 2017 tax cut. More