US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the return of President Trump: a bleak day for America and the world | Editorial

      by

      This is an exceptionally bleak and frightening moment for the United States and the world. Donald Trump swept the electoral college and is on course to take the popular vote – giving him not merely a victory, but a mandate. If many voters gambled on him in 2016, they doubled down this time. Presented with a choice between electing the first black, female president on a promise of a sunnier future, and a racist, misogynist, twice-impeached convicted felon hawking hatred and retribution, they picked Mr Trump.The stark divide between two Americas persists. But polls did not predict the scale of this victory. Only one president has previously won two non-consecutive terms. In 2021, Mr Trump seemed briefly to have lost his own party. Now he has increased his vote share across the country and multiple groups of voters. This – even more than the two assassination attempts en route – will convince him of his invincibility.No party has kept the White House when so many voters have felt the US is going in the wrong direction. As vice-president, Kamala Harris was shadowed by incumbency when electors wanted change. Under Joe Biden, the US economy had a remarkable recovery. But it didn’t feel that way, and people voted accordingly. Mr Trump positioned himself as the change candidate.Ms Harris ran a polished but truncated campaign: Mr Biden’s refusal to pass the torch sooner looks all the worse today. Yet the Democrats need to look deeper. Despite the stakes, many Democratic voters failed to turn out. There is a gender gap, but 52% of white women still voted for Mr Trump. Latino men, in particular, moved towards him: the racial divide remains stark, but may be closing somewhat while the educational gap expands. Many voters relish Mr Trump’s willingness to break the system, because they feel it is already broken for them.Prejudice encouraged voters to see Mr Trump as a more effective leader than Ms Harris, along with a wrongful conflation of authoritarianism and strength. Many of his voters prioritised the economy. But they still knew they were picking a would-be autocrat who has vowed mass deportations and retribution against political opponents and journalists; who was described by his former top military commander as “fascist to the core”; who tried to overturn the will of the people in 2020 and sparked an armed insurrection.We are not going back. But what lies ahead looks worse. His fact-light, erratic, nakedly transactional approach won’t change. This time he has control of the Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives; a blank cheque from the supreme court; and a renewed faith in his supremacy and in pandering to voters’ basest instincts. There will be few “adults” to restrain him. His victory address offered a vision of a court rather than a cabinet, with Elon Musk as a new American oligarch. He tactically repudiated the Project 2025 roadmap, but expect his supporters to pursue their programme.Expect, too, the rollback of LGBTQ+ rights and the pardoning of the January 6 rioters. He does not need to fulfil every promise to do more than enough. Easily avoidable diseases could run rampant without an actual ban on vaccines. He does not have to deport millions to destroy families and foment racial hatred. Tariffs threaten trade war and higher prices at home.Ukraine faces being strong-armed into a bad deal with Vladimir Putin. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who just sacked his defence minister and rival, Yoav Gallant, will be celebrating. Across the world, the far right is emboldened; US allies are rightly anxious. Mr Trump’s pledge to withdraw from climate accords and bolster fossil fuels would end all hope of keeping global heating to below 1.5C, experts believe.An already treacherous world is becoming more so. For many in the US and beyond, the overwhelming emotion today will be despair. But the decision must be to recommit to defending democracy and all of those imperilled by Mr Trump’s return.

      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

    • 250 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Why did voters abandon Kamala Harris? Because they feel trapped – and Trump offered a way out | Aditya Chakrabortty

      by

      Since we’ll hear a lot, again, about “populism”, let’s remember, again, that 19th-century US populism had a healthy strain of leftwing politics. Defending workers, riling up bankers, decrying the “cross of gold” and economic conservatism: look past his Bible-bashing, and William Jennings Bryan was a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt. Yet for much of this election year, the populists’ modern-day successors in the Democrats have served up an anti-populism: telling voters they were wrong.Americans were told they were wrong to see the corrosion of Joe Biden’s abilities, and wrong to think that his replacement should not be decided in a giant backroom stitch-up. They were wrong not to enjoy the US economic miracle, and wrong not to worry about the future of democracy. Black and brown people and students were wrong to expect the party to oppose the bloodbath in Gaza. Latinos were ungrateful to desert the party of racial equality, while Black men were boneheaded not to back a Black woman. Everyone was wrong not to lap up the rallies opened by Beyoncé and Usher, the skits on Saturday Night Live and that clip of Barack Obama rapping. Why couldn’t they just feel the joy?For reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I’m no fan of explanations that begin and end with the bogeyman of “populism”. They almost always wind up with well-lunched commentators ventriloquising the opinions of people they’ve never talked to and in whose worlds they’ve never set foot. Look at the exit polls and you see a materialist explanation for what’s just happened: two out of three US voters report their economy is bad. And they have an excellent point. As I wrote last month, look at the data over the long run and two big trends stand out.First, for the vast majority of US employees – whether middle class or working class, teacher or shop assistant – wages have flatlined. Not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation, and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House.I can’t think of a more flammable political economy than a country with a few very rich people where most workers only get by because of low gas and food prices. Then what happens? A second blow. Covid peters out, the world comes out of lockdown and low-wage America is doused in that most combustible of economic substances: inflation. The entire system goes up – and Donald Trump spots his chance.Faced with the flames, what would be a left-populist response? It wouldn’t be to resort to pedantry, to correct angry voters by showing them the aggregate figures – but that’s what many Democrat supporters did. Nor would it be to roll back all the benefits extended over the pandemic: the improved child tax credit, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But that’s what Joe Biden did, even as he shovelled billions into infrastructure. The electoral result was that working- and middle-class voters peeled away from the Democrats. Kamala Harris won the most affluent voters, while Trump took those earning between $50,000 (£39,000) and $100,000 (£77,000). The two tied for those on $50,000 and below. So much for Harris being part of the most pro-worker government since the 1960s.Just as the electorate professed fury with the entire political and economic system, she and the Democrats made themselves the system’s defenders. They weren’t change but more of the same. They worried about the future of “democracy”; they warned about disrupting free trade. Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” said it all: a campaign defined by being anti-Trump rather than for anything. A strategy intended to woo “moderates” left nearly everyone cold.Harris started her campaign differently, by promising to hunt down price-gouging corporates. That policy was popular, but there was little else. She went policy-lite, so as to present Trump with less of a target. Among the supporters she wheeled out this autumn was the billionaire Mark Cuban. In a country where the richest 0.1% own nearly 20% of all wealth – almost as much as 90% of Americans put together – this is almost the definition of anti-populist politics.We probably won’t hear much about billionaires over the next few days. If the commentariat’s form from 2016 is anything to go by, the sketch will be of angry left-behinds and rednecks rallying to a strongman. Never mind that last night’s exit polls showed Trump as personally less popular than Harris, or that more than half of voters judge his views to be “too extreme”. Not to mention that Trump is easily the richest man ever to serve in the White House, with a personal net worth of about $5.5bn (£4.3bn). A marketing man, skilled at targeting discontent, Trump does not follow his crowds. Rather, he is led by the money men around him: the fossil fuel executives, the shadow bankers, the crypto bros and the world’s richest man, Elon Musk.Mitt Romney and George W Bush could always rely on some stuffed shirts from the Fortune 500 to hand over a few tens of thousands. But Trump’s donor class is very different. They include men like Stephen Schwarzman, head of the world’s largest private equity firm, Blackstone, billionaire investor Nelson Peltz and Silicon Valley’s David Sacks. They’re not company men building relationships but, as Trump styles himself, dealmakers. This lot have shelled out a lot more to get in Trump (Musk alone has spent an estimated $100m), and expect their money’s worth. “They’re less concerned about the photo op and a visit to the White House,” as one former bagman for Trump told the New Yorker. “They want to essentially get their issues in the White House.”Trump has reportedly lined up Musk to become his “secretary of cost cutting”, while in April, the US’s next president demanded oil executives give him $1bn to beat the Democrats. In return, he said, he’d let them do a lot more drilling. Slashed regulations and lower taxes are Trump’s way of keeping donors on side. Last time he was in the White House, he brought in $1.5tn of tax cuts that meant the richest 400 families in the US paid a lower tax rate than their secretaries, nannies, cleaners and anyone else in the working class.You can expect a lot more like it over the next four years. Trump will almost certainly plunder from the budgets for social security and Medicaid. The tech bros will suckle on government subsidies, while the suits from private equity get to set government policy.However this politics dresses itself, it’s not populism. Try: theft – taking from the poor to give to the rich.

      Aditya Chakrabortty 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

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Will Donald Trump destroy US democracy? Unlikely | Cas Mudde

      by

      The most authoritarian and racist campaign of my lifetime just won Donald Trump a return to the White House. It even was the most popular Republican presidential campaign since 1988. There go four decades of academic research on far-right politics, which has confidently claimed that openly racist far-right parties could not win elections. While it is too early to explain Trump’s shockingly large victory, there is one thing I know for sure: Trump 2.0 will be nothing like Trump 1.0. When Trump returns to the White House on 20 January 2025, he will bring his own people, have a clear plan and face no internal opposition.When Trump won in 2016, he was largely a one-man band. Except for his close family, he had no powerful individuals and organizations that were loyal to him. Hence, he relied on the infrastructure of the Republican party and establishment conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation. His first administration should therefore be seen as a coalition government, between Trump and the Republican establishment – at that time, personified by Mitch McConnell, then the powerful Senate majority leader. It was mainly successful in policies that the two camps shared – notably, lower taxes, deregulation, and judicial replacement – and much less so in policies that only Trump really cared about, like “the wall” and the “Muslim ban”.Today, Trump is in a much more powerful position. There are few powerful counterweights left within both the US right wing and the broader US political system. The Republican party already controlled the supreme court and has retaken the Senate. Although the House is still in play, it is likely to stay in Republican hands given the size of Trump’s win. Finally, he has a vice-president who is blindly loyal to him.Trump is also in complete control of the Republican party. After Ron DeSantis’s unsuccessful challenge in the midterms, only two years ago, opposition to Trump has largely disappeared within the grand old party. Critics like Liz Cheney have been replaced by Trump loyalists, while challengers like DeSantis and Nikki Haley have since kissed Trump’s ring again. McConnell is literally a shadow of himself, immobilized by health issues and unable to oppose Trump even within his own Senate faction. The new Senate majority leader will undoubtedly be a Trump supporter, just like the current House majority leader, Steve Scalise.Similarly, the broader “conservative” infrastructure has changed fundamentally. Not only have most organizations radicalized, but they have also been joined by a host of new, well-funded pro-Trump organizations, often founded and run by former members of the Trump administration. So, even though the Heritage Foundation may play a lesser role in Trump’s second transition team, the organization has become solidly far right and pro-Trump under its new president, Kevin Roberts. Moreover, it will compete with new pro-Trump groups like the America First Policy Institute, primarily bankrolled by Texas oil money. And for middle- and low-level personnel in both the administration and the bureaucracy, the new Trump administration can draw on a large pool of younger Americans, well-versed in far-right ideology and loyalty to Trump by organizations like Turning Point USA.Finally, this time Trump has a plan. Although he distanced himself from Project 2025 in the campaign, and it is very likely that he never read the lengthy report, most of the people expected to take up key positions in his new administration are closely tied to the project and Trump himself has supported most of the key policies. In addition to the usual rightwing pet projects, like deregulation and lower taxes, it includes Schedule F, which would slash legal protections for tens of thousands of bureaucrats so that they can be fired “at will” – a policy that Trump already introduced in the last days of his first administration and has promised to introduce again on his first day back in office. With the combination of Schedule F and an army of young loyalists, Trump could finally transform the “deep state” into a blindly loyal, if possibly much smaller and therefore less effective, apparatus.Does this mean that Trump will destroy US democracy, like his “friend” Viktor Orbán in Hungary? Unlikely. Not because Americans are more democratic than Hungarians, which is a doubtful assumption anyway, but because the US political system is much more complex than the Hungarian political system. Largely set-up to prevent tyranny, the US political system is extremely complex and rigid. Most importantly, it is almost impossible to change the constitution, which has been at the heart of Orbán’s transformation of the Hungarian system. This does not mean that Trump cannot significantly weaken liberal democracy, but he will have to do it with weaker instruments (like executive orders) and with significant judicial pushback (although probably less from the US supreme court than from state and local courts).This will undoubtedly comfort the many college-educated white men in blue states, who disproportionately produce the news and opinions in the US media, but it will do little for those of us living in Republican-controlled states. Most importantly, it will provide little comfort for the millions of Americans who are already marginalized within the country, from the LGBTQ+ community to people of color and women.While the far right’s plans for mass deportations or a federal ban on abortion might not come to fruition, or at least not to the extent that its most fanatic supporters hope, marginalized groups will face an even more hostile state while enjoying even less protection from an increasingly embattled judiciary and media. And, while they can hope for a Democratic victory in 2028, it will be more difficult than in 2020, as this time the elections might still be free but they will no longer be fair.

      Cas Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, and author of The Far Right Today More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why did Trump win, and what comes next? Our panel reacts | Panelists

      by

      Moustafa Bayoumi: ‘Between hate and nothing, hate won’So, it will be Trump, after all. The very idea of another Trump presidency is devastating. His entire campaign consisted of unbridled race-baiting, woman-hating and fascist-in-waiting messaging, yet still he prevails. This is what succeeds in this country?The answer, it’s now clear, is a resounding yes. Should I be surprised? There are long and painful histories of racism, misogyny and fascism in this country (the Nazis even studied the US when crafting their regime). But, unlike any other nation’s election, this American tragedy will reverberate around the world. We must do all that we can to prevent a Trump presidency turning into even more of a death sentence not just for American women seeking abortions, but also for Ukrainians, Lebanese people and especially Palestinians.Hindsight is easy, of course, but some of us have been warning the Democrats for months about the limitations of the Harris campaign. The Democrats appeared more interested in courting disaffected Republicans, including war criminals such as Dick Cheney, than even merely dialoguing with their progressive flank. They refused to allow a Palestinian American to take the stage at their convention. Meanwhile, American bombs are dropped daily on Palestinians in what is widely considered a genocide, and Harris has had little to say.In fact, Harris probably had little to say about a lot of issues, so much so that the news site Axios labeled her the “‘no comment’ candidate”. The Republicans ran their campaign as a party of hate; the Democrats ran as a party that stood for almost nothing. Between hate and nothing, hate won.This must be the most profound wake-up call the Democratic party has ever heard. They must stop trying to be moderate Republicans and instead stand for equal justice, working people and human rights for everyone. Saying that they do just isn’t enough.The Democrats thought all the hate emanating from the Trump campaign was simply an emotion that they could neutralize by their expressions of “joy”. But what if hate isn’t an emotion? What if it’s an ideology? The answer to that question is what we, and the rest of the world, are about to find out. Pray for us.

      Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist
      Ben Davis: ‘Harris was brought into a terrible situation’American democracy has fallen apart. That an authoritarian rightwinger will take power is the symptom rather than the cause. What brought us to this point, is the cataclysmic, decades-long breakdown of working-class institutions and civil society. The only path forward is to rebuild somehow.Trump gained or held steady with every demographic, even left-trending groups like white college-educated voters and women. He gained most with young, less politicized voters and voters of color of all stripes. How has this happened?Working-class organization, civil society and the basic institutions that have held the country together have disintegrated. There are very few places where people talk to anyone outside their co-workers – during work – and a small number of friends. We don’t know our neighbors. We don’t have unions. This is a society where trust erodes to an extreme degree, and politics is practiced at the level of the individual rather than the community.Kamala Harris did not run a terrible campaign. She was brought into a terrible situation. Joe Biden’s hubris cost her deeply. But she failed in two directions. She shed young voters, Arab and Muslim voters, and Latino voters who had previously favored the left by running an aggressively bipartisan, centrist campaign, ignoring the active genocide in Palestine supported by the United States.But this didn’t work either. The median voter, the bipartisan moderate voter, rejected her.Americans don’t have organization. And with that, they don’t have active solidarity or a structured worldview. They believe a man who played a businessman on TV can press a button and stop inflation. The voting patterns we have seen with young voters, voters of color and all sorts of voters left behind by our country are striking. Their grievances are real. And Democrats have been unable to offer a solution.

      Ben Davis works in political data in Washington DC
      Lloyd Green: ‘Biden racked up decades-high levels of inflation’Joe Biden and Kamala Harris refused to internalize their limited mandate. On election day the US punished them, returning Donald Trump, a convicted felon, to the White House. And before the Democrats cast half the country as benighted, they ought to look closely in the mirror.In office, Biden racked up decades-high levels of inflation at the same time as openly musing about being more consequential than Barack Obama – not the metric Americans were looking for. As much as Biden-Harris saw Dobbs and democracy as silver electoral bullets, voters without four-year degrees were unimpressed.But it doesn’t end there. Despite Biden’s growing deterioration, he pursued re-election – until it was too late. Meanwhile, his team openly trashed Harris to anyone who would listen. All heard that bell’s peal.On the campaign trail, Harris exhibited joy but failed to show sure-footedness. She clobbered Trump in debate but bobbed and weaved when confronted by interviewers. Her inability to separate herself from her boss coupled with her selection of Tim Walz as her running-mate probably doomed her bid. Think incredible lightness of being.Culture remained a battleground. In 2020 and 2022, Democrats nearly destroyed themselves over “defund the police”. Fast forward to 2024: Harris declined to say where she stood on a Proposition 36, a California ballot measure supported by small businesses that sought to impose felony charges and stiffer sentences for certain theft and drug crimes. The proposition prevailed overwhelmingly; Harris did not.

      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
      Arwa Mahdawi: ‘Harris did not sufficiently break from Biden’Joy will come in the morning, fired-up Democrats enthused at the Democratic national convention back in August. It did not. The unthinkable happened in the middle of the night. Trump is back and he’s back with a vengeance.A Trump revenge tour will bring carnage at home and abroad. Netanyahu was already doing whatever he liked under the Biden administration – but we also know he was angling for a Trump victory. For over a year now Palestinians have been grieving; now it seems likely that the West Bank will be annexed and the misery in Gaza, already unbearable, will intensify.And I don’t need to tell you what will happen with women’s rights at home. Overturning Roe v Wade was just the beginning. The right’s war on women is entering a terrifying new phase.How did we get here? How did the US elect an adjudicated and alleged sexual predator over a woman again? This will be dissected for weeks but the bottom line is this: the US was desperate for change and the Harris campaign squandered their chance to meaningfully represent a new path for the country. Harris did not sufficiently break from Biden and Americans did not want a repeat of the last four years.The Harris campaign tried to find a path to victory by moving to the right, ignoring progressives and courting Republicans by parading around Liz Cheney. It didn’t work. And yet the lesson one imagines the Democratic party will draw from this loss is that they must move even further to the right.Things are bleak. But political change isn’t something that only happens every four years at the ballot box. The amount of organizational energy I’ve seen in the last couple of months has been astounding. We must keep this energy up. The fight isn’t over.

      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      Bhaskar Sunkara: ‘The Democrats must return to their populist New Deal roots’Unlike in 2016, many of us were bracing ourselves for this outcome. But how exactly did Donald Trump manage to win the White House a second time?It certainly wasn’t on the merits of his campaign. Trump was less coherent than in 2016, didn’t deliver the same potent appeals to workers, and embraced unpopular billionaires like Elon Musk.But he seemed to have this election handed to him. To start with, there was Joe Biden. The headline features of “Biden’s economy” were strong as far as GDP growth and jobs went, but Biden was unable to effectively communicate his domestic successes and take advantage of his bully pulpit as president. As a result, 45% of voters, the highest number in decades, said they were financially worse off than they were four years ago.Good policies don’t translate to good politics without an effective voice behind them and the president was unable to head off worries about inflation and immigration. The failures caused by his declining ability manifested itself most dramatically at the first presidential debate and Harris was forced to run from behind when she became the presumptive nominee.Harris herself ran a competent campaign, but was limited by the very nature of today’s Democratic coalition: it’s increasingly the party (in both style and substance) of professional-class people. Even though Harris herself shied away from it, the Democrats as a whole are still associated with identitarian rhetoric and relied on cross-class issues like abortion – which turned out to be less salient than the economy – to drive turnout.The type of majorities that can actually transform American politics won’t be found until Democrats return to their economic populist, New Deal roots. That means naming elites as enemies and avoiding cultural radicalism that appeals to very few and alienates working-class minority communities.This isn’t Harris’s loss; it belongs to her whole party. And the whole country will pay the consequences.

      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, founding editor of Jacobin and author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequalities More

    • 225 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s comeback victory, after reshaping his party and national politics, looks a lot like Andrew Jackson’s in 1828

      by

      As the nation prepares for a second Donald Trump presidency, some history-minded people may seek understanding in the idea that it wasn’t until Richard Nixon’s second presidential term that the serious consequences arrived.

      But as a scholar of American politics, I don’t think that’s the right parallel.

      Trump has already faced most of the situations that brought down Nixon – a congressional investigation and federal prosecutors’ inquiries.

      Trump has survived by – consciously or not – following the example of another American president who created a political party in his own image and used it to rule almost unchecked: Andrew Jackson, whose portrait Trump hung in the Oval Office during his first term.

      Unlike Nixon, Trump outlasted investigations

      Richard Nixon was reelected by an Electoral College landslide in 1972 in the midst of the Watergate scandal, in which people affiliated with Nixon’s reelection campaign broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and then sought to cover up their actions. Although Nixon started off his second term with sky-high approval, his demise soon followed.

      A Senate special committee investigating the Watergate break-in was established just 18 days after his inauguration in January 1973. By the summer of 1974, evidence of Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate crimes had become overwhelming. In an Aug. 7, 1974, visit to the White House, Republican congressional leaders asked the president to step down. He announced his decision to resign the following day, Aug. 8, 1974.

      Trump, however, has already weathered numerous legal battles, investigations and controversies. From the Jan. 6 committee to special prosecutor Jack Smith’s probes and the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump’s political career has been marked by repeated confrontations with legal and political institutions – including two impeachments by the House, though both were rejected by the Senate.

      The House Jan. 6 committee announced four recommended charges against Donald Trump, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
      Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

      After the Republican Party’s loss in 2020 and an underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms, many within the GOP urged Trump to step aside to allow for a new generation of leaders. But Trump held firm.

      Investigations stalled or were delayed, giving him breathing room through to the 2024 election. Now, with his his return to the White House, Trump will almost certainly end the federal investigations, and there’s little sign that state cases will press forward soon.

      In recent years, historical revisionism – popularized by Tucker Carlson – has taken place within segments of the Republican Party. Under this view, Nixon wasn’t ousted for his involvement in Watergate but rather was the victim of a system aligned against him. But where Nixon stepped aside, Trump has fought back.

      Like Jackson, Trump reshaped his party

      In many ways, though, Trump more closely resembles Jackson than the scandal-plagued Nixon.

      Following his narrow defeat in the controversial 1824 election, Jackson, much like Trump would two centuries later, claimed the election had been stolen.

      Jackson seized on his supporters’ frustrations, reorganizing the Democratic-Republican Party, which ultimately rebranded itself as the Democratic Party, in his own image. His followers championed his cause, creating state and local Democratic parties and building a powerful grassroots movement.

      As a result, the Democratic Party democratized its nomination process, moving from elite-driven congressional caucuses that chose candidates behind closed doors to well-attended party conventions. This shift allowed voters to participate directly in the candidate selection process.

      The new Jacksonian Democratic Party not only aligned with his views but also introduced a wave of increased political participation. Through what became known as the “spoils system,” Jackson rewarded loyalists by appointing them to government positions, ensuring that his allies held key roles in federal and state institutions. This approach allowed Jackson to implement his agenda more effectively, while also mobilizing his supporters at all levels of government, integrating them into the workings of American politics in unprecedented numbers.

      When he won election in 1828, Jackson’s efforts created a political landscape that gave him broad power, including actions that bypassed institutional checks.

      For instance, Jackson’s forced removal and relocation of Native American communities from their ancestral lands – the “Trail of Tears” – illustrated the dangers inherent when a president holds extensive unilateral power.

      Jackson disregarded judicial decisions and public outcry, acting with executive authority that appeared unconstrained. An 1832 Supreme Court ruling – Worcester v. Georgia – established tribal sovereignty, yet Jackson refused to enforce the ruling and the displacement of the Cherokee people continued.

      His restructured party and control over appointments allowed him to act with what seemed near-total impunity. Jackson demonstrated his power by vetoing the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States, then unilaterally directing the removal of federal deposits despite congressional support for the bank.

      A short film made by the Cherokee Nation with the National Park Service tells the tale of the Trail of Tears.

      Likewise, Trump has reshaped the Republican Party. His influence has been evident in Republican primary contests, where candidates aligned with Trump’s vision succeeded, and opponents – the so-called “Never Trumpers” and “RINOs” – found themselves pushed to the margins.

      This transformation has not been confined to rhetoric but is visible in the composition of state legislatures and in Congress, solidifying a pro-Trump ideology that extends to party policies and priorities. This shift gives Trump a firm foundation from which he can pursue his agenda.

      Furthermore, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has, in effect, become a guardian of the political revolution Trump has spearheaded, granting the executive substantial powers and legal protection.

      What to look for next

      But there are limits to what Trump can achieve, even with his strengthened position.

      Unlike in Jackson’s era, today’s federal bureaucracy is a vast, entrenched institution, with checks in place that may challenge or obstruct executive overreach. Some of Trump’s promises – particularly around immigration policy, social welfare reform and trade – are likely to encounter resistance, not only from Democratic opposition but also from civil servants and legal processes embedded within federal agencies.

      However, Trump has said he wants to substantially remake that federal bureaucracy, replacing experienced career public servants with political appointees aligned with Trump himself.

      Donald Trump’s return to office likely signals an end to at least some of the yearslong investigations into his past actions and ensures his hold over the Republican Party remains intact. With a loyal base of voters and supportive institutions, Trump is positioned to further reshape the American political system. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The role gender played in Donald Trump’s victory and his renewed efforts to remake America

      by

      Like many women, I’m having a horrible flashback. It’s 6 a.m. on Nov. 9, 2016 — the day after the United States presidential election that pitted Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. I went to bed assuming Clinton had won.

      I remember thinking to myself on the night of that election that there was nothing to be worried about. Americans would do the right thing and vote for the most qualified person, not the reality TV star. I came into the dining room where my partner was sitting reading the news and looked at him hopefully when he told me, still in shock: “Trump won.”

      Read more:
      The real reason Trump won: White fright

      I was wrong eight years ago and I was wrong today about Vice President Kamala Harris’s chances of beating Trump.

      I hoped the polls were wrong and the race was not as close as it appeared to be in the swing states. I believed women would come out in droves to protect their reproductive rights. I hoped and assumed that white women, in particular, would turn out for Harris en masse. That was a false hope.

      Trump has been declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election after handily winning several swing states. He’s also on track to win the popular vote, something he failed to do in ’16. In fact, he has done better with almost all demographics in 2024 than he did in 2020.

      Voters cast their ballots in Indianapolis on Nov. 5, 2024 in the heavily Republican state of Indiana.
      (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

      Tight race

      It was a hard-fought battle and, according to the polls, neck and neck right up until the final days of the campaign.

      In hindsight, several questions have been answered that were not so clear just a day ago. Will America vote for a Black woman? No. Will Harris be able to do what Clinton couldn’t do eight years ago? No. Will she break the Oval Office glass ceiling? No.

      The fact that these questions were still in play in 2024, as Harris waged a disciplined campaign against an opponent as flawed and felonious as Trump, seems revelatory about the misogyny and racism that bedevils America.

      Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign rally outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art on Nov. 4, 2024, in Philadelphia.
      (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

      Gender played an outsized role in the election for several reasons. The overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022 galvanized women across the U.S., especially when the deaths of several women after being refused pregnancy or miscarriage-related health care illustrated the consequences of these extreme anti-choice positions.

      Concerns about women’s reproductive rights and Trump’s casual dismissal of sexualized violence seemingly gave women, young and old, a cause to embrace.

      A survey in Iowa conducted by vaunted pollster Ann Selzer showed women 65 and older were voting for Harris by a two to one margin, though Trump ended up winning the state.

      TikTok videos showing Trump’s infamous “grab them by the pussy” comments went viral among young TikTokers who weren’t old enough to remember when the remarks originally surfaced in 2016. They spoke of their astonishment that their fathers and anyone with daughters, sisters or mothers could vote for such a person.

      But it was not enough, even though exit polls suggested a majority of women cast their ballots for Harris. Women apparently preferred Harris, but not by the margins her campaign had hoped.

      Trump’s allure to men

      On the other side of the gender equation are men. Trump’s appeal to young men increased as their apparent fears of being overtaken by women’s gains in equality were exploited.

      This is a disturbing trend. According to a September NBC poll, women backed the Democrats 58 per cent to 37 per cent, while men supported Republicans 52 per cent to 40 per cent. Research has shown that young women have become more liberal while young men have become more conservative, perhaps because they are angry at falling behind and losing their former advantages.

      The candidates themselves recognized the differences in support with their choices of podcasts and media appearances. Trump spent three hours with Joe Rogan — who subsequently endorsed him — for his podcast that skews heavily towards young men while Harris went on Call Her Daddy, a podcast directed at women under 35.

      In the end, the U.S. voted for what is called “hegemonic masculinity,” a cultural valorization of stereotypical male traits, and Trump’s endless and regressive belittling of women and “feminine” men won the day.

      Donald Trump waves to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Nov. 5, 2024.
      (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

      The impact of white women

      Another key factor in the campaign was race.

      Exit polls suggested white women without college educations overwhelmingly voted for Trump, while white college-educated women cast their ballots for Harris.

      Prior to the election, most white women said they backed the Republican Party, but suggestions their support for Trump was wavering now seem unfounded. Exit polls suggest Harris didn’t perform as well with women voters as Joe Biden did in 2020.

      We don’t have the final numbers yet in terms of how white women in swing states ultimately cast their ballots, but they probably weren’t good. Democrats ran videos, one narrated by actress Julia Roberts, pointing out the obvious constitutional guarantee that women have the right to vote any way they wanted to — and that what happens in the ballot box should stay in the ballot box.

      The backlash against these ads was illuminating, suggesting there are still many men who think their wives should vote the way their husbands do and that it’s a betrayal if they don’t — and perhaps Trump’s win suggests their wives agreed.

      The loss of reproductive freedom was evidently not enough for white women to go against their race, their class interests — or possibly their husbands.

      Black, Latino men

      The other racial factor in the campaign was the perception of the dwindling support for Harris from Black and Latino men. Trump also increased his share of the Latino vote.

      And according to a New York Times poll, while Obama was supported by 93 per cent of Black Americans in 2008 and Biden was supported by 90 per cent in 2020, support had fallen to 73 per cent for Harris in 2024.

      Is this the result of sexism or internalized misogyny? Could Black men not bring themselves to vote for a Black woman?

      Barack Obama’s plea to Black men certainly seems to suggest a problem with sexism within that cohort of voters.

      Former U.S. president Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally in support of Kamala Harris on Oct. 28, 2024, in Philadelphia.
      (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

      After the 2016 election, the American Psychological Association coined the anxiety around the election results as election stress disorder.

      That stress has returned as the world now watches what will happen as Trump, with no guardrails, no checks and balances in place and billionaires by his side, attempts to remake America in his own authoritarian image. More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump has vowed to be a ‘dictator’ on day one. With this day now coming, what exactly will he do?

      by

      Trying to predict what Donald Trump will do during a second term in office is a fool’s errand.

      It is all the more challenging considering Trump has prioritised winning re-election far more than discussing a detailed policy agenda. In many ways, Kamala Harris had the same strategy of maintaining an ambiguous policy agenda, though to obviously lesser success.

      With that said, Trump comes back to the White House after not only four years of a prior tenure in the Oval Office, but also an additional four years since leaving office. These many years in the public eye may not tell us exactly what he will do, but they do give us an indication of his priorities.

      Trump’s ambiguous policy agenda

      Many point to Trump’s policy agenda as lacking both consistency and coherence.

      On one hand, he has touted his Supreme Court nominees for overturning Roe v Wade. On the other, he shied away from talking about abortion on the campaign trail and encouraged fellow Republicans not to legislate conservative restrictions.

      On one hand, many of his top advisors from his first term in office wrote the exceedingly conservative and controversial Project 2025 manifesto. On the other, he has distanced himself from it and the people who wrote it, saying he had never even read the document.

      And on one hand, Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest supporters and financial backers, has claimed he could cut the size of government, government spending and even a number of federal agencies. On the other hand, most economists have said the Trump campaign’s economic agenda would dramatically expand the federal deficit more than Harris’ proposed policies.

      It should be noted, however, there definitely is one area where Trump has never wavered: trade.

      Trump has maintained a protectionist stance for many decades, so we can expect
      consistency here. However, it remains unclear how much his Republican colleagues from rural parts of America will support such protectionist policies.

      The agenda for a ‘dictator on day one’

      The most well-known – and probably the most infamous – of Trump’s promises for his return to the White House was his statement about being a dictator “only on day one”.

      This quote became a well-known part of the Biden and Harris campaigns’ stump speeches against Trump. It’s perhaps less well-known what exactly he would do.

      He initially pledged to immediately close the border with Mexico and expand drilling for fossil fuels. On the campaign trail, he broadened his first-day priorities to also include:

      firing Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has charged Trump in two federal cases

      pardoning some of the rioters imprisoned after the January 6 2021 riots

      beginning mass deportations for the estimated 11 million people living in the United States without legal immigration status
      and ending what he has called “Green New Deal atrocities” within President Joe Biden’s framework for tackling climate change.

      Trump also, in a surprise to immigration activists, said he would also “automatically” give non-citizens in the country permanent residency when they graduate from college.

      What about his Cabinet?

      The old adage that “personnel is policy” applies to Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

      When Biden appointed Kurt Campbell to lead the White House’s Indo-Pacific efforts on the National Security Council, the move made clear that an “allies and partners” approach would define his administration’s policy in Asia.

      And when Trump appointed Mike Pence to be his running mate in 2016, it made clear to traditional Republicans that Trump would have a “Republican insider” in an influential position in his administration.

      Trump has made clear that Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will play sizeable roles in his administration, but it remains unclear exactly what they will do.

      Musk has promised to cut government regulation and red tape and Kennedy has pledged to “Make America Healthy Again”. On a practical level, however, it’s still too early to tell what type of role the two celebrities will have – particularly given Trump cabinet appointees will require Senate confirmation.

      Trump and Kennedy have grown closer in recent months.
      Evan Vucci/AP

      While the Republicans are going to control the Senate again, this doesn’t guarantee it will support his appointees. A slim Republican majority in the Senate in 2017 did not support all of Trump’s agenda.

      The high staff turnover that defined Trump’s first term of office may once again define his second term. There was also sometimes little coherence between his appointments. For example, Trump national security advisors Michael Flynn and John Bolton had little in common beyond a shared antagonism for the Obama administration’s policies.

      At the same time, deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger ultimately stayed for nearly the entirety of the Trump administration. He not only led much of Trump’s strategic policies toward Asia, but also defined the term “strategic competition”, which will likely outlast both the Biden and Trump administrations.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same

      Ultimately, if Trump’s second term in office is anything like his first term, then the prognostication about his policy agenda and personnel appointments will continue for some time.

      It’s therefore less valuable to guess what Trump will do than to focus on the long-term structural trends that would have continued regardless of who is in the White House.

      After all, the Biden administration maintained or sought to expand man of the Trump administration’s efforts abroad, including his “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” policy, tariffs, and the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states.

      At home, the Biden administration built on Trump policies that included government support for domestic manufacturing, expansion of the Child Tax Credit and increasing restrictions on large technology firms.

      And furthermore, even a Harris administration would have been unlikely to view China as a fair economic partner, deploy US troops to the Middle East, or oppose NATO allies increasing their defence spending.

      Trump will undoubtedly remain unpredictable and unconventional, but it would be a mistake to think there are not clear areas of continuity that began before Trump and will continue long after him. More