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

    • 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

    • 175 Shares24 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s cabinet picks are agents of his contempt, rage and vengeance | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      “Shock” suddenly became the most commonly uttered word in habitually nonplussed Washington DC. After Donald Trump had attempted to subvert the certification of a presidential election, incited a mob, absconded with national security secrets, was convicted as a felon, and waged his Nazi-esque “poison in the blood” campaign, his brazen cabinet appointments are so mind-boggling that even hard-bitten cynics gasp.Sheer hypocrisy would have drawn a yawn. But Trump’s cabinet selections would have startled even the character of Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca, who feigned surprise at discovering gambling in the backroom of Rick’s Café before pocketing his winnings: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”If Russia occupied the United States, it would not impose a collaborationist regime of such hare-brained incompetents. Kleptocrats would be expected as commissars, but not patent lunatics. Hitler, for his part, murdered the Nazi radicals in the Night of the Long Knives to solidify his rule over the conservative establishment.Trump declared he would be a dictator on “day one”. But before day one, he has decided to empower some of the most fringe characters floating around his Maga movement. The outrageousness of his nominees is intended above all to force the subjugation of those remaining Republicans who insist on their independence. He has posed a battle royale with the Republican Senate to determine whether it will buckle under his mafia test to recess-appoint his madcap cabinet. He wants to break the Senate and crush it under his heel as his first act. Humiliation is the essence of his idea of power.Trump’s cabinet appointments are agents of his contempt, rage and vengeance. The motive for naming his quack nominees is located in his resentments from his sordid first term for which he pledged retribution. He sees the US government in its totality as a bastion of his “enemies within”. He intends to shatter every department and agency, root out expertise that might contradict his whims, demolish the balancing power of the Congress that could inhibit him, and trample the law that might stand in his way.Wrecking the government is not only Trump’s technique for gaining submission and compliance, but is his ultimate purpose. He will achieve vindication by tearing down anything he feels was used to restrain his destructive impulses or tried to hold him accountable for his past crimes, whether it is the military, the justice system or science itself.Before the election, Trump developed two elaborate plans, one if he lost and the other if he won. In either case, he would attack the federal government. He had learned lessons from the failure of his January 6 coup. His preparation throughout 2024 to declare the election stolen and force a constitutional crisis was the underside of his campaign.In advance, he organized an extensive network of lawyers and political operatives to deny he lost, refuse to certify the election in districts and states to the point of preventing an electoral college majority, and throw the election to the House of Representatives, where the Republicans held the margin from control of state legislatures to cast 26 states for him.In March, Trump ousted the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, because she would not divert the committee’s resources into an election-denial operation and fund his legal expenses. He inserted his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as the new head. She fired 60 staffers, but named Christina Bobb, a former far-right One America Network TV presenter, who was a key cheerleader of the fake elector scheme in 2020, as senior counsel of its election integrity unit. In April, she was indicted along with 17 other Arizona Republicans for fraud, forgery and conspiracy. Trump was named “Unindicted Co-Conspirator No 1”. Bobb’s indictment only elevated her standing as a Trump loyalist.A week after Trump’s election, he appointed the outside counsel for Bobb’s effort, William McGinley, Trump’s cabinet secretary in his first term, as his new White House counsel. In Trump’s first term, his White House legal counsel, Don McGahn, had resisted his pressure to provide him with cause to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and his successor, Pat Cipollone, objected to Trump’s schemes to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump at last has an in-house lawyer to tell him how to do what he wants.Joe Biden welcomed Trump to the Oval Office on 13 November in a show that the transfer of power was peaceful. Biden’s message was to re-establish a constitutional standard, contrasting with Trump’s graceless refusal to meet with him after January 6. But the atmosphere of normalization was illusory. Biden acted as though by his example regular order could have a chance of restoration. His gesture was nostalgic.Minutes after Trump left Biden’s presence, he announced his nomination of Matt Gaetz to be attorney general. Ding, dong. The clock struck 13, again and again.But Trump had given fair warning.Trump rolled out his team of travesties in the spirit he had promised. “Well, revenge does take time. I will say that. And sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump said in June on Dr Phil’s Fox News show. When Fox News host Sean Hannity followed up, trying to prod Trump into softening his threats, Trump rejected the opportunity. “When this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them,” he said.Trump’s plan upon winning, now unfolding, is to launch a full-scale assault on the federal government from the top down. He has no need to smash into the Capitol with the Proud Boys, whom he has promised to pardon as “hostages”.Certain common characteristics run through his cabinet of curiosities and horrors to mark them collectively unique among any cabinet of any president – alleged sexual misconduct and abuse, drug addiction, megalomania, authoritarianism, cultism, paranoia, white supremacy, antisemitism and grifting. Some nominees meet all these qualifications, others only two, three or four. For a few, it’s just plain and simple self-aggrandizing corruption.Each of Trump’s appointees is there to savage a target on Trump’s hitlist. When he came to Washington he was a relative blank slate, despite hauling a baggage train of scandal from New York. Back then, Trump blithely spoke of getting away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Now, it’s Pennsylvania Avenue, where six people died as a result of January 6. Trump has been in the business of making enemies of anyone trying to enforce the law. The federal cases against him will be dropped to follow the ruling of the US supreme court that he has absolute immunity for “official actions”. Liberated from accountability, Trump is building his government on revenge.Quite apart from his appointees’ dearth of managerial experience and competence, they represent the antithesis of the core mission of the departments and agencies they have been named to oversee. They are not being appointed to run them efficiently, but to rule and ruin.The greatest influence in public life exercised by Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and former national guard officer before Trump named him as secretary of defense, was in 2019 when he privately lobbied Trump and publicly advocated on Fox for pardons for three military officers convicted of war crimes, which Trump granted.Hegseth has denounced women in the military; they make up 17.5% of active duty personnel and more than 20% of reserves. He has called for the firing of the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Charles Q Brown Jr, who is Black, saying that any general “involved in any of the DEI, woke shit has got to go”.Hegseth was one of 12 national guard members who were removed from Biden’s guard detail at his 2021 inauguration after he was deemed “an inside threat”. Hegseth’s body is covered with tattoos – a Jerusalem cross, a symbol of the First Crusade, inked across his chest, and the crusader slogan “Deus Vult” (“God wills it”) on his arm among other crusader markings. This iconography has become popular with far-right Christian nationalists and white supremacists. The Deus Vult cross flag was carried by insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6. When the tattoos were spotted by his national guard master sergeant, who wrote of the “disturbing” symbols to the commanding general of Washington, Hegseth was kept far from Biden.The Associated Press first reported the story of Hegseth’s exclusion from proximity near the president. JD Vance attacked the news organization, tweeting: “disgusting anti-Christian bigotry from the AP”.In 2017, Hegseth was the subject of a police investigation for rape in Monterey, California. His second wife had divorced him in September for his affair with a Fox News producer whom he had impregnated. She would give birth to a daughter in August. In October, Hegseth attended a meeting of the California Federation of Republican Women, drank at the hotel bar in the evening, and, visibly intoxicated, was assisted to his room by a female member of the group, who attended the event with her two young children and husband. Something happened. She was bruised. Hegseth claimed they had consensual sex. The police did not press charges.According to a memo given to the Washington Post by a friend of the accuser, also present at the meeting as a participant, the alleged victim and her husband hired a lawyer “to ensure Hegseth didn’t get off without punishment”. Hegseth wound up paying her an unspecified sum of money in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement.Revelations of Hegseth’s alleged behavior have not elicited censure from Trump, but expressions of sympathetic support for the would-be #MeToo victim. “Mr Hegseth has vigorously denied any and all accusations, and no charges were filed,” stated the Trump transition response. Hegseth’s lawyer attacked the woman: “She was the aggressor. She was sober, he was drunk. She took advantage of him.”Hegseth appears to Trump as the ideal man to purge the military. Trump’s transition team has drafted an executive order for a “warrior board” to remove any general or admiral “lacking in requisite leadership qualities”. Trump complained to his chief of staff Gen John Kelly that he wanted “my generals” to be more like “Hitler’s generals”.Hegseth would be his enforcer of politicizing the military so that it never questioned any illegal behavior, like violating the War Crimes Act, or refusing an order to open fire on American protesters. “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?” Trump said to Gen Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs, in the presence of the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, about demonstrators after George Floyd’s murder in 2020. Hegseth would not be the defense secretary to advise Trump against invoking the Insurrection Act to impose martial law as Mike Flynn, his disgraced former national security adviser, suggested to him shortly before January 6.Tulsi Gabbard, the former congresswoman nominated to be the director of national intelligence, who flipped seamlessly from far left to far right, has been steady as a rote pro-Russian propagandist, hailed on Russian state media as “our girlfriend”, and has been identified with a secretive Hare Krishna-affiliated sect called the Science of Identity Foundation that mixes vegetarianism, homophobia and Islamophobia.Gabbard is there to wreak havoc on Trump’s phantom nemesis, the “deep state”. His first director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, closely observed Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin, which he told Bob Woodward was “so strange”, “so subservient”. “Is this blackmail?” Coats wondered.Trump recalls that his first impeachment was the result of a whistleblower complaint from an analyst from the office of the director of national intelligence, who filed a memo about a phone call Trump had with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which he sought to coerce him into manufacturing political dirt about Biden in exchange for defensive Javelin missiles already approved by the Congress. “I would like you to do us a favor,” said Trump in what he insisted was a “perfect phone call”.Trump was furious at the exposure of his blackmail. “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” he said. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?” Now he will send Gabbard to terminate the “spies” of the “deep state”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRobert F Kennedy Jr, nominated as secretary of health and human services, is an opponent of the scientific method for which he reflexively substitutes a priori conspiracy theories. He has grifted millions on bogus claims that vaccines cause autism. “There is no vaccine that is safe and effective,” he said. A decades-long heroin addict and self-confessed sex addict, he has a family who has tried to lift him out of his turmoil, staging interventions for years to have him professionally treated for his psychological troubles, but have been reduced to despair. He claims that his family members have succumbed to “hypnosis”.During the campaign, a family babysitter emerged to accuse Kennedy of numerous sexual assaults. He claimed he had “no memory of this incident but I apologize sincerely”. He said in an interview: “I’m not a church boy.” Meanwhile, he was reportedly involved in an affair with Olivia Nuzzi, a writer for New York Magazine, which cost her her fiance and job. Three other women stepped forward to claim they had sexual affairs with him after meeting him through his anti-vaccine group, the Children’s Health Defense, and at the same time he was involved with Nuzzi, which he denied.But RFK Jr, is promoted by Tucker Carlson and his trailing entourage of lost boys, Don Jr and JD Vance. Carlson and Don Jr persuaded Bobby to drop his third-party candidacy and to endorse Trump. On 31 October, at a rally in Glendale, Arizona, Carlson interviewed Trump and asked him pointedly whether he would appoint Bobby. On 1 November, RFK Jr appeared on the Tucker Carlson Live Tour, where he told a rapturous crowd that in answer to his prayers for the fulfillment of his personal destiny: “God sent me Donald Trump.”Before the election, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial page confidently informed its readers that Trump’s bizarre statements and inclinations were not to be taken seriously, and that in any event would be blocked by “checks and balances”. After Trump was elected, the Journal has been stunned by the nominations of Gaetz and RFK Jr. “Good luck making sense of this nomination,” it editorialized about Bobby. “Matt Gaetz is a bad choice for attorney general,” ran another thundering piece. Murdoch is out in the cold. The TV host he fired, Tucker Carlson, is the kingmaker.In naming RFK Jr, Trump is reacting to his conflicts during the Covid-19 pandemic, when he wished to ignore it, dismissed mask-wearing and suggested injecting Clorox. He despised the scientists who told him his ideas would not work. He hated his chief medical adviser, Dr Anthony Fauci, and coronavirus response coordinator, Dr Deborah Birx – “all these idiots”, said Trump.Trump also fired Dr Rick Bright, the director of the Center for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority in charge of vaccine development, for refusing to approve the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19, which Bright protested was one of several “potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections”. Bright testified in May 2020 before Congress that the Trump administration had “no master plan”, that the country faced “the darkest winter in our history” and that in the absence of national leadership, “our window of opportunity is closing.”Trump has not appointed RFK Jr for his famous name, though he must receive gratification from possessing for himself this piece of the Kennedy legacy, however tarnished. Bobby Kennedy Jr is there because he says that he will fire 600 experts at the National Institutes of Health, the foremost medical research center in the world – “all these idiots”. And Tucker Carlson vouches for him.The tangled resentments of Trump’s appointees are cardinal virtues, especially when they overlap with his own grievances. Trump, the adjudicated rapist, credibly accused by dozens of women of sexual assault, whom the sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein called his “closest friend for 10 years”, identifies with Matt Gaetz fending off investigations of his alleged sex crimes. After Trump confided in Reince Priebus, his first chief of staff, that he would pick Gaetz, Priebus concluded: “So, he [Trump] feels like he has gone to hell and back 10 times. So, this is also a big middle finger to the DoJ and the FBI.”At the end of the first Trump administration, Gaetz desperately sought to secure an all-purpose pardon to cover him from the then ongoing federal inquiry into alleged sex trafficking of minors to his alleged participation as a co-conspirator in Trump’s coup. He approached, among others, the deputy White House legal counsel, Eric Herschmann, who testified before the January 6 committee. “The pardon that he was discussing, requesting was as broad as you could describe,” he stated. “From beginning – I remember he said, from the beginning of time up until today for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon, and I said Nixon’s pardon was never nearly that broad.”In October 2023, Congressman Gaetz provoked the removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House. “I’ll give you the truth why I’m not speaker,” McCarthy said. “It’s because one person, a member of Congress, wanted me to stop an ethics complaint because he slept with a 17-year-old.”On 13 November, Trump named Gaetz attorney general. The next day, Gaetz resigned from Congress. The day following that, the House ethics committee report on Gaetz’s alleged sex crimes was scheduled to be released. But because Gaetz is no longer a member of the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, serving as Trump’s handyman, “strongly requested” that it would violate House rules to make the report public despite precedents to the contrary. He warned it would “open a Pandora’s box”, presumably of other dark secrets about Gaetz and perhaps other nominees.Democratic and Republican senators on the judiciary committee that will hold confirmation hearings have asked for the report. It remains bottled up.Trump does not attempt to hide his intention to “dismantle government bureaucracy” and “send shockwaves through the system”, as he tweeted in his appointment of “the Great Elon Musk” and Vivek Ramaswamy (no “Great” preceding his name), assigned to rampage through the entire government as a “Department of Government Efficiency”. Musk has a long history of conflicts with government regulatory agencies and outstanding unresolved investigations, including a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into inside stock trading. Musk’s commission is transparently a case of self-interest.“Doge”, as it is called, after “dogecoin”, a cryptocurrency that Musk has been hawking, is not at all a department, which would require FBI background checks. Musk orbits on a cocktail of LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, “often at private parties around the world, where attendees sign nondisclosure agreements or give up their phones to enter”, according to people who spoke to the Wall Street Journal. He speaks privately to Vladimir Putin. During the campaign, he turned Twitter/X into a cesspool of disinformation, a good deal of his own fabrication and streams of it from Russian troll farms. Inexplicably, he continues to hold a security clearance as a government contractor that has not been suspended under review during the Biden administration.Ramaswamy, a venture capitalist and libertarian ideologue who ran for the Republican nomination for president on a platform of abolishing numerous federal agencies from the IRS to the FBI, is completely inexperienced in government affairs, which he has been tasked to reform. He has made confusing, possibly conspiratorial claims about 9/11 and suggested that January 6 was “an inside job”. During his campaign, he stated that his goal was to fire 75% of the federal workforce in short order. Merely a charlatan and a demagogue, Ramaswamy does not stand out as especially peculiar among the wholly unqualified Trump nominees.Trump’s appointment of Doug Burgum, the billionaire governor of North Dakota, as secretary of the interior and “energy czar”, fits the profile of old-fashioned plunder. In April, Burgum gathered oil and gas executives at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump flagrantly asked for $1bn in campaign contributions in exchange for tax breaks and favorable policies.Harold G Hamm, chair of Continental Resources, an independent oil company, who is an investor in a proposed $5.2bn pipeline in North Dakota, helped Burgum organize the meeting. Burgum’s family holds land that profits from Hamm’s business. “Obviously it’s no secret that I helped gather the industry up, oil and gas producers and the entire industry,” Hamm said. He handed Trump a list of more than 100 policies he wanted implemented. “I couldn’t be more thrilled by president-elect Donald Trump’s victory,” Hamm remarked. Then, Trump named as secretary of energy a fracking equipment company executive, Chris Wright, who has declared: “There is no climate crisis.”The volatile elements of petroleum, public lands and leasing deals evoke a scenario from a century ago, of a cabinet appointed by a president who promised to restore the country to its greatness in a “return to normalcy”. During the Warren G Harding presidency, the secretary of the interior, Albert B Fall, accepted kickbacks from oil companies in granting oil leases and became the first cabinet member to be sentenced to prison. It was the worst cabinet scandal in history. Make Teapot Dome Again.Trump seeks to install his cabinet by circumventing the Senate. He insists that the Republican leadership forgo its constitutional duty to advise and consent and instead allow his picks to assume their positions as recess appointments. Trump is also blocking the FBI from conducting background checks. His cabinet nominations have become his instrument for intimidation. He intends to sweep aside checks and balances for one-man rule.The appointment of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as secretary of state illustrates the kind of behavior Trump wishes to encourage among Republican senators. During the 2016 Republican primaries, Rubio derided Trump for his “small hands”, a signifier for his genitals. “You know what they say about men with small hands?” Rubio jibed.But after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York for paying hush money to an adult film actorto influence the 2016 election, Rubio leaped to blame Biden falsely for Trump’s prosecution. Rubio tweeted: “Our current President is a demented man propped up by wicked & deranged people willing to destroy our country to remain in power.” He added, with flaming emojis: “It’s time to fight [fire] with [fire].”Subservience has now received its reward. Rubio, “Little Marco”, the most conventional of Trump’s cabinet choices, is an example to them all.

      Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth 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

    • 125 Shares14 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump picks former WWE executive Linda McMahon for education secretary

      by

      Linda McMahon, co-chair of Donald Trump’s transition team, has been named as the president-elect’s pick for education secretary in his upcoming administration.In a statement, Trump extolled the “incredible” job McMahon, the billionaire co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), has been doing as transition team co-chair and said: “As Secretary of Education, Linda will fight tirelessly to expand ‘Choice’ to every State in America, and empower parents to make the best Education decisions for their families. … We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort.”McMahon was made transition team chair in August, after having donated $814,600 to Trump’s 2024 campaign as of July. She served in Trump’s cabinet in his first administration as the administrator of the Small Business Administration from 2017 to 2019. McMahon chaired America First Action, a super PAC that backed Trump’s reelection campaign, where she raised $83m in 2020. She provided $6 million to help Trump’s candidacy after he secured the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, according to the Associated Press.McMahon is the former chief executive of WWE, which she co-founded with her husband, Vince McMahon.In October, McMahon was named in a new lawsuit involving WWE. The suit alleges that she and other leaders of the company allowed the sexual abuse of young boys at the hands of a ringside announcer, former WWE ring crew chief Melvin Phillips Jr. The complaint specifically alleges that the McMahons knew about the abuse and failed to stop it.An attorney for the McMahons told USA Today Sports that the allegations are “false claims” stemming from reporting that the couple deems “absurd, defamatory and utterly meritless”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMcMahon stepped down from her position as WWE’s chief executive to enter politics. She ran twice for a US Senate seat in Connecticut, but lost in 2010 to Richard Blumenthal and in 2012 to Chris Murphy.Since 2021, McMahon has been the chair of Washington DC-based thinktank America First Policy Institute’s board and chair of its Center for the American Worker.McMahon is seen as a relative unknown in education circles, though she has expressed support for charter schools and school choice. She served on the Connecticut Board of Education for a year starting in 2009. She told lawmakers at the time that she had a lifelong interest in education and once planned to become a teacher, a goal that fell aside after her marriage. She also spent years on the board of trustees for Sacred Heart University in Connecticut.Trump has promised to close the Education Department and return much of its powers to states. He has not explained how he would close the agency, which was created by Congress in 1979 and would likely require action from Congress to dismantle.McMahon’s co-chair on the transition team and billionaire founder of the financial firm Cantor Fitzgerald, Howard Lutnick, was named as Trump’s pick for commerce secretary. More