Tag Archives: MAGA

Crony Capitalism–The Big Grift

Not to sound like some sort of weird Pollyanna, but despite the considerable downsides and probable suffering involved, perhaps the Trump administration’s coming destruction of America’s governing institutions is overdue. Maybe we need a thorough-going rethinking of the ways in which America’s current governing structures support and encourage some very destructive approaches–especially to our economic life.

As I have frequently asserted, I am a huge fan of market capitalism–properly understood. By “properly understood,” I mean a system that recognizes two essentials of a working market economy: the maintenance of a true level playing field, which requires rational, reasonable regulation; and proper recognition of the areas of the economy that are not suited to a market approach. Markets are marvelous devices for the production of all manner of goods and services–and absolutely inappropriate and damaging in other areas of our communal lives.

The basic definition of a market transaction is one in which a willing buyer and willing seller, both of whom are in possession of all information relevant to the transaction, enter into a sales agreement. Rather obviously, that definition excludes things like medical care, where the “buyer” is not in possession of the same information as the provider, and is generally in no position to bargain with the provider or to shop around for a better deal.

What about transactions where the “buyer” is government?

Take prisons. In a market economy, should government “purchase” incarceration services from entities competing for those government contracts? Or–as most of us might suspect–does the prospect of a “buyer” with virtually unlimited resources thanks to the taxing power invite would-be contractor/sellers to engage in a range of unethical behaviors–big donations to selected political figures in order to get the contracts, and/or failure to provide the services at an optimum (or even adequate) level in order to generate more profit?

Should prisons be privatized–i.e., considered part of the market economy? Or is the marketization of such essentially governmental services an invitation to corruption?

One recent report looked at the “industry” of immigrant detention. Titled “Revenue Over Refuge,” the report found the following:

  • Hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing from city and federal governments to private equity firms for goods and services used to detain immigrants.
  • 63 percent of federally-designated ICE facilities contract with private equity-owned companies for a range of services.
  • Private equity-owned companies are winning emergency contracts for managing migrant shelters in cities across the country.
  • Companies like Wellpath and G4S have faced investigations and lawsuits and paid out settlements for mistreating immigrants in their care.
  • Private equity firms and other alternative asset managers stand to profit from increased taxpayer-funded immigration detention, although alternatives to detention cost less.

Are we really surprised to find corporate America engaging in these profit-maximizing tactics? More fundamentally, are prisons the sort of consumer item we think of when we consider the merits of healthy market economies?

When I was still teaching, I required the graduate students in my Law and Public Policy classes to produce team projects on a  policy issue that the team would choose. Over the years, several of the teams investigated government contracting with the private prison industry. In every case, the teams’ conclusions were highly negative. Not only did they focus on the poor performance of the contractors–and the high potential for graft–but most teams addressed what I think is the underlying philosophical question: when should government contract out–and when shouldn’t it? When is it appropriate for government to be the “willing buyer” in a market transaction?

America is heading for a very ugly few years, as the MAGA movement tries to install a government that might have been appropriate for an 18th Century society–a government utterly insufficient for America’s contemporary culture and other realities of the 21st Century. The next few years will range from very unpleasant to devastating (those of us with documented citizenship, a measure of financial security and white skin will be spared the worst of it; others won’t be so lucky.) But when the fever subsides, when the current MAGA eruption of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and other assorted bigotries has run its course (at least this time), the rest of us must be ready to offer practical systemic and economic reforms.

Production of that reform agenda needs to be a central part of the Resistance.

Comments

The To-Do List

On November 5th, America faced a turning point. The ability of We the People to make a positive choice–to begin what would be a necessary and arduous process of rehabilitating our democratic republic–was constrained by structural elements: obsolete electoral mechanisms, widespread civic illiteracy, economic unfairness, and an information environment littered with massive amounts of propaganda.

All of which fed age-old bigotries and hatreds.

When Trump won, We the People lost the America of our Founders’ aspirations, at least temporarily. That win–narrow as it was (somewhere between one and two percentage points, with approximately a third of eligible voters not bothering to go to the polls)–suggests that the next few years will see a ferocious assault on current norms of governance–on civil servants, on ethics, on science, on the belief that government should serve the public interest rather than further enrich the already-privileged.

Given what we already know about Trump and the disordered and personally-ambitious sycophants surrounding him, we are also likely to see an administration characterized–and, to an extent, stymied–by back-biting and internal struggles for influence. Given Trump’s demonstrable disinclination to do actual work, and his equally obvious lack of even the most basic understanding of how the American government operates, decision-making will be exercised by the quarrelsome and largely unqualified theocrats and neo-fascists with whom he is stocking his administration. 

So the next few years will be ugly, and a lot of people will get hurt. The economy Joe Biden rescued, currently the strongest in the world, will certainly suffer. If Trump actually imposes his beloved tariffs, he will tank the excellent economy he is inheriting, which will hurt everyone. If he manages his massive deportation plan, crops will rot in the fields, grocery prices will skyrocket, and small businesses– restaurants, landscapers, builders and others–will be unable to find workers.

The next few years will see setbacks in the fight against climate change. If nutcase RFK, Jr. is given any role in public health, a lot of people will die unnecessarily. The very worst outcomes are likely to be global. (All those people thinking about leaving the country don’t seem to understand that–with Trump in the White House–no place will be safe.) Ukraine will be handed over to Putin, and he and other autocrats will no longer fear NATO.

Most ironic: the pro-Palestinian voters who deserted Harris because they disagreed with the Biden Administration’s Israel policies will discover that they’ve elected Netanyahu’s best friend. Trump has already chosen an ambassador to Israel–Mike Huckabee–who supports Israel annexing the West Bank, resettling Gaza with Israeli citizens, and has said that there “isn’t such a thing” as a Palestinian.

All of which brings us back to THE question: what should the reality-based community be doing while these tragedies (and some farces) play out? 

We can certainly signal our disapproval–we can march, boycott companies that supported Trump (although a preliminary google search suggests that much of the billionaire class that donated to him are folks we’ve never heard of, or in the alternative, brands like Tesla that most Americans lack the resources to purchase anyway…), perhaps even mount targeted strikes. 

We can stop ignoring the widespread media disinformation network–sending people like Pete Buttigieg to engage on their turf, and creating social media campaigns designed to penetrate the right-wing bubble. Popular entertainers–celebrities, movie and television producers, and other “influencers” should mount campaigns focused on combating propaganda.

And we can–and must–address the “to do” list to which I’ve previously alluded: identifying the structural issues that brought us to this point, the constitutional and policy changes that would ameliorate those problems, and figuring out how to implement those necessary changes when Trumpism has crashed and burned.

Because it will crash and burn. A movement built on denial of reality cannot change that reality. The effects of climate change have become too obvious and widespread to ignore, and failing to fund FEMA is unlikely to be a welcome response. Tariffs are a tax on the American consumer that will engender widespread pain and resentment. The assaults on women’s autonomy and LGBTQ+ rights will continue to generate backlash. 

MAGA represents the triumph of a fundamentalist theocratic underground that has been active for decades. During the time it took to eke out a slim victory, however, the culture has been changing.  A third of Americans have left organized religion. Marriages between people of different races and religions have proliferated. Workplaces have diversified. Attitudes have changed. Harris may have lost this election, but she was 100% correct when she declared that we are not going back.

Right now, we need a roadmap of how to go forward.

Comments

We’re Not Going Back

The Harris catch-phrase, “We’re not going back,” isn’t aspirational–it’s factual. Even if the unthinkable happens, and Trump ekes out a victory, the MAGA folks will be disappointed, because the cultural changes that anger and motivate them are highly unlikely to reverse. 

I’m hardly the only observer who has pointed out that this is not an election based on policy differences. Instead, our political divisions are responses to the cultural shifts that have generated hate and hysteria from a sizable minority of the population. The Dobbs decision, the anti-woke fury, the authoritarian prescriptions in Project 2025…all are reactions to cultural shifts that anger and terrify that very vocal, regressive cohort.

An excellent illustration of that primal motivation is the eruption of anti-trans political ads in the last days of the election season. The number–and viciousness–of those ads tells us two things: first, it’s politically effective to focus on the smallest and least-understood sliver of  the”different” people who symbolize unacceptable social change; and second, widespread acceptance of  previously favored targets–like LGBTQ+ folks generally– is now baked into the culture. 

The MAGA focus on trans people was the subject of a New York Times essay by a trans author, who put the attacks in cultural context. She began by noting that approximately half of today’s Americans consider gender transition immoral–or at least, not normal. But then she reminded readers that definitions of “normal” are subject to change–and in fact, have undergone considerable change over time.

And yet most notions of “normal” have rarely been fixed, even as there have always been those who insist they are immutable. Certainly gender may be one of the most fundamental — dare I say natural — ways we have organized societies. But history reminds us that all assumptions should always be questioned. Every significant challenge to the existing order, from the vote for women to interracial unions to marriage equality, has provoked strong reactions and, not uncommonly, hand-wringing about the downfall of civilization.

She pointed to interracial and same-sex marriages.

Race isn’t gender, and the comparisons aren’t perfect. And yet the arguments made against interracial unions like the Lovings’ in the 1950s and ’60s are eerily similar to those made against marriage equality a decade or two ago and against trans people today: We hear appeals to God, science, the well-being of children and the natural order, in efforts made to write out of existence trans people, our care and our place in public life. Those arguments resonated back then, as perhaps they do for some people now. In the 1960s a vast majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages (a majority didn’t approve until the 1990s), even if now few question whether people of different races should be allowed to marry….

The transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, mused during his stint onstage at the Democratic National Convention about the mundane and chaotic — and yet miraculous — daily routine of raising children with his husband: “This kind of life went from impossible to possible, from possible to real, from real to almost ordinary in less than half a lifetime.”

How did support for same-sex marriage go from just over a quarter of Americans near the end of President Bill Clinton’s first term to nearly 70 percent this May?

The author noted research showing that large numbers of people who changed their minds about marriage equality did so because they knew someone who was gay or lesbian. That means that acceptance of trans folks will be more difficult; polling suggests that barely 30 percent of Americans have  friends, relatives or colleagues who are transgender, and although that number may grow, it won’t ever be very high, since research tells us that transgender folks are a very small sliver of society.

Since there aren’t very many of them, and they remain a largely unknown, vulnerable (and purportedly “non-normal”) segment of the population, the GOP figures it’s safe to attack them–just as it used to be safe to attack women’s suffrage, interracial and same-sex marriage, and gay people generally.

As the author wrote,

I can’t help thinking it’s worth reflecting on what the trial judge in the Loving case, who argued that allowing people of different races to marry would go against God’s will, and other right-thinking people of that era might make of the current political landscape. For all the polarization, misinformation and puerile attacks on candidates, being married to someone of another race simply isn’t part of the equation at all. It is, in fact, something … ordinary. Even normal.

MAGA is too late. Win or lose, Harris is right: we aren’t going back.

Comments

Who Drinks The Kool-Aid?

There’s a thread running through my political conversations. (Granted, those conversations are with friends and family, all of whom detest MAGA and Trump.)  Why do all the indicators point to a close election? Why isn’t Harris easily eclipsing Trump?

Think about it. Even voters who don’t particularly like Harris surely understand that she is a normal politician, infinitely preferable to a senile narcissist with a third-grade vocabulary and a raft of “policies” that would plunge America into a recession (or worse) and threaten world peace.

Hundreds of members of former Republican administrations–including his own–warn that he is a fascist, a dangerous lunatic, a self-regarding autocrat who should not be allowed anywhere near power, let alone the Oval Office.

Trump is a convicted felon, an admitted sexual predator, a congenital liar, a six-times bankrupt “titan of industry”…I could go on, but readers of this blog are well aware of the extent of his depravity.

How, then, is he at all competitive for the Presidency?

It certainly isn’t due to his “policies.” To the extent that he even has them, those policies are anything but the conservative political positions traditionally held by the bygone GOP. The striking departures from those traditional positions means it also can’t be loyalty to the ideology that once characterized the GOP.

As Heather Cox Richardson recently reminded us, Trump has boasted that he had “taken the Republican Party and made [it] into an entirely different party…The Republican Party is a very big, powerful party. Before, it was an elitist party with real stiffs running it.” As Richardson put it, the GOP

had been controlled for years by a small group of leaders who wanted to carve the U.S. government back to its size and activity of the years before the 1930s, slashing regulations on business and cutting the social safety net so they could cut taxes. But their numbers were small, so to stay in power, they relied on the votes of the racist and sexist reactionaries who didn’t like civil rights.

Once in office, Trump put that racist and sexist base in the driver’s seat. He attacked immigrants, Black Americans, and people of color, and promised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

After his defense of the participants in the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, he began to turn his followers into a movement by encouraging them to engage in violence.

In the following years, Trump’s hold on his voting base enabled him to take over the Republican Party, pushing the older Republican establishment aside. In March 2024 he took over the Republican National Committee itself, installing a loyalist and his own daughter-in-law Lara Trump at its head and adjusting its finances so that they primarily benefited him.

As Richardson explained, establishment Republicans had wanted a largely unregulated market-driven economy. MAGA Republicans, however,

want a weak government only with regard to foreign enemies—another place where they part company with established Republicans. Instead, they want a strong government to impose religious rules. Rather than leaving companies alone to react to markets, they want them to shape their businesses around MAGA ideology, denying LGBTQ+ rights, for example.

Support for MAGA and Trump isn’t motivated by admiration for his character, intellect or personality. It isn’t motivated by his economic plans, which even conservative economists warn would severely damage the economy, or by loyalty to the GOP, which he has remade into a cult dominated by what used to be its disreputable fringe.

So–What explains his support?

I recently had a discussion with a local philanthropist who served in a state Republican administration, and I agree with his analysis. He ticked off three reasons he believes people support Trump.

  • Some subset of wealthy individuals care more about promised tax cuts for the rich than for the health and wellbeing of the country.
  • Some people are truly ignorant. Perhaps they get all their “news” from Fox and its clones, or they lack the intellectual capacity to understand what is at stake, or to evaluate competing political claims.
  • True MAGA movement folks–by far the largest group of Trump supporters, the ones who’ve “drunk the Kool-Aid”– are disproportionately people who are unhappy with their lives. They haven’t achieved the status or security or love or whatever else they believe they were entitled to, and they’re convinced it couldn’t be their fault; it must be the fault of “those people.” Trump gives them permission to point fingers and give voice to their bigotries: it’s those immigrants, those gay people, those uppity women and/or Blacks.

If the polls are right that the election is close, there are a lot more people in those three categories than I ever imagined…

Comments

What If?

A line from an essay I read a few weeks ago in the Bulwark has remained with me, growing in resonance as we approach November 5th. The author wrote that “there aren’t any excuses left. Something like 47 percent of American voters have seen Trump, understood what he was, and wanted it.” Beneath everything–the pundits insisting that Harris do X or Y rather than whatever she’s doing at the time, the armies of lawyers preparing to do battle over the next “Big Lie,” the GOP’s increasing efforts to suppress votes–America has to grapple with that reality.

Some forty-seven percent of our fellow Americans support a mentally-ill, profoundly ignorant narcissist who tells them that they are the only “real” Americans. Forty-seven percent of us want to hand control of the nuclear codes to a misogynistic, homophobic, racist felon who has no comprehension of foreign policy–or for that matter, no understanding of how American government  works.

It really is incomprehensible. 

As the Bulwark essayist noted, that fact is the ugly truth this campaign has laid bare. If, when the votes are counted, Donald Trump garners forty percent or more–or, God help us, wins– we will no longer be able to take refuge in the comforting (and obviously inaccurate) belief that a large majority of Americans are people of good will and common sense. Even more than the pivotal choice we face–a choice between continuation of the American experiment and a country remade to conform to Project 2025’s theocratic and autocratic principles–the vote will be a referendum on that comforting belief.

The November 5th election will not be a choice based on policy differences–or on policy at all. It will be a twenty-first century replay of the Civil War–a challenge to the most fundamental bases of what I frequently refer to as “The American Idea.”

What the MAGA “patriots” don’t understand, what they actively reject, is the actual American exceptionalism that was baked into this country’s origin: the notion that one wouldn’t be an American by virtue of status or identity, but by embracing the philosophy of the new nation, by the willingness to “pledge allegiance” to an entirely new concept of governance.

It was–as anyone who has read any history will acknowledge–mostly aspirational. But with fits and starts (granted, lots more fits than most of us learned in our high school history classes), we’ve tried to follow that philosophy to its logical conclusion. We extended the franchise, welcoming non-landowners, freed slaves and women into the ranks of “We the People.” Our courts (again, with fits and starts) protected the rule of law against efforts to subvert it in favor of the greedy and unscrupulous and the efforts of racial and religious bigots.

What has so many of us worried sick right now isn’t simply the realization that many of our fellow citizens are credulous, racist and mean-spirited. There have always been folks like that (although not as vocal or empowered by rampant disinformation and the reinforcement of a semi-fascist cult).

We are worried to discover that there are so many of them, and terrified that we are losing that aspirational America, that “American Idea,” to frightened and angry people who never understood or embraced it.

Like so many other Americans, I live in a bubble. My friends and family and neighbors (including a number who’ve been life-long Republicans) are inclusive and welcoming–and equally appalled by polling that (correctly or not) tells us that the upcoming election–between a senile, certifiable lunatic who wants to be a dictator and a sane, experienced woman who has spent her entire adult life in public service–is “too close to call.”

Back in 2021, I quoted a Leonard Pitts column in which he wrote:

I’m an American. By that, I don’t simply mean that I’m a U.S. citizen, though I am. But what I really mean is that I venerate the ideals on which this country was founded.

Unalienable rights. Life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech. Of faith. Of conscience. Government by consent of the governed. Equality before the law. Because of those ideals, America already was a revolution even before it won independence from England. Despite themselves, a band of slaveholding white men somehow founded a nation based on an aspirational, transformational declaration of fundamental human rights.

In a few days, we’ll know whether we will hang on to those ideals for at least the time being–and we’ll know just how many voters reject Pitts’ (and my) definition of “American.”

Comments