America entered 2023 with two big problems and two leading theories about what was causing them. Over the preceding three years, the murder rate had reached levels not seen since the mid-1990s, which was widely attributed to reductions in policing following the protests over the murder of George Floyd. The inflation rate was even worse, by historical standards, peaking in 2022 at 9 percent, the highest number since 1981. This, in turn, was believed to be the result of Congress and the Biden administration pumping too much money into the economy. Each theory implied a solution to its respective crisis. To bring crime back down, America’s cities would have to empower their depleted and demoralized police forces. To tame inflation, the Federal Reserve would have to crush consumer spending by triggering a recession.
Both theories now appear to have been wrong. Over the course of 2023, police forces kept shrinking, yet overall violent-crime rates plummeted to their lowest levels since the 1960s. And the economy boomed even as inflation came just about all the way down to the Fed’s 2 percent target. In surveys, most Americans say that crime and inflation are still rising, but they’re wrong. Call it the Great Normalization: The twin crises largely evaporated, and no one is totally sure why.
The year 2020 was a bloody one. Murder spiked by 30 percent that year and continued to rise in 2021, abruptly reversing decades of progress on violence in America. One of the most common explanations was that the protests against police brutality in the summer of 2020 had created a hostile environment for police officers, many of whom responded by pulling back from their duties or leaving the force altogether. Officer resignations jumped 35 percent in 2020 and 9 percent in 2021.
Then the unexpected happened. Even as police forces across the country continued to shrink, violence began falling fast. According to the crime researcher Jeff Asher, murders fell by 13 percent and violent crime overall by 8 percent in 2023, some of the largest single-year decreases on record—a shift that my colleague David Graham recently called “America’s peace wave.” The improvement, though not universal, was particularly striking in some of the cities that needed it most. Baltimore and Philadelphia each experienced a roughly 25 percent decrease in homicides despite being down about 700 and 1,000 officers, respectively. Detroit experienced its fewest murders since 1966, even though it lost an average of nearly an officer a day for much of 2022. New York City lost more than 2,500 officers in 2023 alone. The murder rate fell there too.
Policing matters for public safety, and the complicated reaction to the 2020 protests almost certainly made that year’s homicide spike even worse. But the roots of America’s violence wave now appear to have had much more to do with the pandemic itself than pandemic-era policing. Murder peaked in the summer of 2020, but homicide rates had already begun rising sharply in March, shortly after lockdowns began. For those who study violence most closely, that wasn’t surprising. A large body of research has shown that community institutions play an essential role in preventing crime. Schools and workplaces keep people off the streets. Local government connects them with social services. Nonprofits provide mental-health and after-school programs.
“Think about it from the perspective of a young person living in one of these neighborhoods with a history of violence,” John Roman, the director of the Center on Public Safety and Justice at the University of Chicago, told me. “Suddenly you’re stuck at home all day without access to social supports or a sense of purpose or something to occupy you. And the guy you have a beef with is just down the road. It’s a recipe for violence.” Roman pointed out that the beginning of the decline in violence coincided almost perfectly with the beginning of the 2022–23 school year. “That’s really the first time when everything finally went back to normal,” he said. According to the most recent data, murder rates are just a notch above where they were in 2019, and violent crime overall is even lower.
A strikingly similar story can be told about the post-pandemic economy. After several decades of stable prices, inflation went wild in late 2021, peaking at 9 percent in the summer of 2022. By then, the prevailing explanation was that the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan had given people too much money to spend. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called the bill the “least responsible macroeconomic policy we’ve had in the last 40 years.” All that stimulus, he and other experts argued, had led to too much money chasing after not enough stuff. The only way to tame inflation, according to this view, would be to crush the excess demand by engineering a painful economic slowdown. Heading into 2023, nearly every economist, forecaster, and CEO predicted that a recession was right around the corner. A Bloomberg Economics model put the odds of a recession by October 2023 at 100 percent.
Instead, inflation fell steadily while the stock market boomed, unemployment remained below 4 percent, and wages rose faster than prices. Meanwhile, Europe—which did not have nearly the same level of fiscal stimulus—experienced even higher inflation than the U.S. in 2022 while experiencing far less growth and more unemployment.
Many economists now believe that the pandemic played a more central role in the inflation story than they previously realized. [emphasis mine] An analysis by the Brookings Institution concluded that inflation was mostly a story of pandemic-shutdown ripple effects. (Other studies have come to the same conclusion.) Consumers, stuck at home, shifted their spending from entertainment and services toward physical goods at precisely the moment that the supply chains that were supposed to provide those goods were being catastrophically disrupted. The sudden firing and rehiring of tens of millions of workers produced a chaotic labor market that forced employers to quickly raise wages. Together, those forces created the perfect recipe for rising prices. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent fuel prices soaring, only made things worse.
As with crime, the shock took a long time to work its way through the economy. But when it finally did, the change was dramatic. By the end of 2023, America’s unemployment rate, inflation rate, and economic-growth trajectory looked almost identical to what they had been just before the pandemic. (One measure of inflation did tick up slightly in December, but many experts believe that was caused by a temporary lag in the data.) Prices remain higher, of course, even though the inflation rate has returned to normal. But inflation-adjusted wages are rising rapidly and recently surpassed their pre-pandemic levels. Some indicators, such as household wealth, income equality, and women’s labor-force participation, look much better than they did in 2019.
Not everything is back to normal. Pandemic learning loss has erased two decades of student progress in math and reading. The abrupt rise of remote work continues to wreak havoc on both commercial real estate and the housing market. Even so, when it comes to crime and inflation, the Great Normalization was remarkable. Huge problems rarely improve so much, so fast, in such defiance of conventional wisdom.
More remarkable still is the fact that hardly anyone seems to have noticed. According to Gallup, 77 percent of Americans believe there is more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago. Economic sentiment has begun to tick up, but it is still near the lowest levels on record. This may help explain Donald Trump’s strength in electoral polls. A recent Wall Street Journal survey found that U.S. voters overwhelmingly believe that Trump will do a better job than Joe Biden when it comes to the economy (52 percent to 35 percent), inflation (51 percent to 30 percent), and crime (47 percent to 30 percent). Voters seem to be yearning for a return to the normalcy of the pre-pandemic, and Trump is promising to give it to them.
The absurdity of Trump as the normalcy candidate is almost too much to bear—especially because the normalcy that voters are desperately craving is, in many ways, already here, and Biden helped deliver it. Many economists now believe that the pandemic stimulus was key to the U.S. economy performing so much better than those of other advanced countries. The stimulus also might have played an underappreciated role in reducing crime by keeping local governments and the community organizations they support afloat. “The only reason cities did not completely fall apart during the pandemic was because of a huge boost in federal funding,” Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at Princeton University who studies urban crime, told me. “I’m very convinced that is a central part of the explanation for why violence fell in ’22 and ’23.”
Even as the pandemic has released its grip on our economy and civil society, it has yet to fully work its way through our politics. Before voters will credit Biden for making things better, they’ll have to be convinced that things are, in fact, better. In the meantime, the sitting president will almost inevitably take the blame for whatever America is unhappy about. That’s about as normal as it gets.
In legal terminology, "stare decisis" means "respect for precedent" or "let the decision rest." But the U.S. Supreme Court's hard-right supermajority, according to critics, threw "stare decisis" to the wind when it overturned Roe v. Wade after 49 years, outlawed the use of affirmative action in college admissions, and undermined gun control laws.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, in an article published this week, warns that the Roberts Court is likely to attack another precedent and "strike down" government agencies' regulatory powers.
"On Wednesday, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority signaled its intent to overturn four decades of precedent and award itself even greater authority to strike down policies that govern every conceivable aspect of life in the United States,” he wrote.
“This revolution has been years in the making, the result of a lavishly funded campaign to transform the courts into a weapon against any regulation you can think of."
Stern adds, "The environment, the economy, health care, civil rights, education — all aspects of federal governance will be in peril, subject to the whims of unelected judges with zero expertise or accountability and a distinct bias toward deregulation."
The 2024 cases that Stern is referring to specifically are Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
"For decades," Stern notes, "the Supreme Court has instructed judges to use a tool called Chevron deference…. The doctrine is rooted in a 1984 decision, Chevron v. NRDC, which involved an EPA policy that loosened restrictions on air pollution. This policy was enacted by Justice Neil Gorsuch's mother, EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch. Environmental groups filed suit, but SCOTUS unanimously sided with the EPA's approach."
The legal journalist continues, "The Court explained that agencies are staffed by experts with far more knowledge in their specific area than judges. These agencies are accountable to the president, who is, in turn, accountable to the citizenry. The Court thus held that 'it is entirely appropriate' for agencies to make the policy choices inherent in interpreting ambiguous statutes."
Stern points out that the High Court's three Democrat-appointed justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — have "mounted an impressive defense of Chevron," while the six GOP-appointed justices have expressed their "distaste" for the 1984 ruling.
"Here's the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it'll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once," Stern argues. "Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws — they are ultra-vulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron's absence." rs
This afternoon, Congress passed a new continuing resolution necessary to fund the government past the upcoming deadlines in the previous continuing resolution. Those deadlines were tomorrow (January 19) and February 2. The deadlines in the new measure are March 1 and March 8. This is the third continuing resolution passed in four months as extremist Republicans have refused to fund the government unless they get a wish list of concessions to their ideology.
Today’s vote was no exception. Eighteen Republican senators voted against the measure, while five Republicans did not vote (at least one, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is ill). All the Democrats voted in favor. The final tally was 77 to 18, with five not voting.
In the House the vote was 314 to 108, with 11 not voting. Republicans were evenly split between supporting government funding and voting against it, threatening to shut down the government. They split 107 to 106. All but two Democrats voted in favor of government funding. (In the past, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts and MIke Quigley of Illinois have voted no on a continuing resolution to fund the government in protest that the measure did not include funding for Ukraine.)
This means that, like his predecessor Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had to turn to Democrats to keep the government operating. The chair of the extremist House Freedom Caucus, Bob Good (R-VA), told reporters that before the House vote, Freedom Caucus members had tried to get Johnson to add to the measure the terms of their extremist border security bill. Such an addition would have tanked the bill, forcing a government shutdown, and Johnson refused.
“I always tell people back home beware of bipartisanship," Representative Warren Davidson (R-OH) said on the House floor during the debate. “The most bipartisan thing in Washington, D.C., is bankrupting our country, if not financially, morally…. It’s not just the spending, it’s all the terrible policies that are attached to the spending.”
Republican extremists in Congress are also doing the bidding of former president Donald Trump, blocking further aid to Ukraine in its struggle to fight off Russian aggression and standing in the way of a bipartisan immigration reform measure. Aid to Ukraine is widely popular both among the American people and among lawmakers. Immigration reform, which Republicans have demanded but are now opposing, would take away one of Trump’s only talking points before the 2024 election.
A piece today in the Washington Post by European affairs columnist Lee Hockstadter about the difficulties of reestablishing democracy in Poland after eight years under a right-wing leader illuminates this moment in the U.S. Hockstadter’s description of the party of former Polish leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski sounds familiar: the party “jury-rigged systems, rules and institutions to its own partisan advantage, seeding its allies in the courts, prosecutors’ offices, state-owned media and central bank. Kaczynski’s administration erected an intricate legal obstacle course designed to leave the party with a stranglehold on key levers of power even if it were ousted in elections.”
Although voters in Poland last fall reelected former prime minister Donald Tusk to reestablish democracy, his ability to rebuild the democratic and judicial norms torched by his predecessor have been hamstrung by his opponents, who make up an “irreconcilable opposition” and are trying to retain control over Poland through their seizure of key levers of government.
The U.S. was in a similar situation during Reconstruction, when in 1879, former Confederates in the Democratic Party tried to end the government protection of Black rights altogether by refusing to fund the government until the president, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, withdrew all the U.S. troops from the South (it’s a myth that they left in 1877) and stopped trying to protect Black voting.
At the time, the president and House minority leader James A. Garfield refused to bow to the former Confederates. Five times, Hayes vetoed funding measures that carried the riders former Confederates wanted, writing that the Confederates’ policy was “radical, dangerous, and unconstitutional,” for it would allow a “bare majority” in the House to dictate its terms to the Senate and the President, thus destroying the balance of power in the American government.
In 1879, well aware of the stakes in the fight, newspapers made the case that the government was under assault. American voters listened, the former Confederates backed down, and Garfield somewhat unexpectedly was elected president in 1880 as a man who would champion the idea of the protection of Black rights and the country itself from those who wanted to establish that states were more powerful than the federal government.
Chastened, the leaders of the Democratic Party marginalized former Confederates and turned to northern cities to reestablish the party, beginning the transition to the party that would, fifty years later, usher in the New Deal.
And you keep refusing any facts to interfere with your self serving delusion. I offer you facts and you you ignore them, offering back nothing but pure denial and personal insult.
Haven't changed your stripes at all, have you? I find it telling you haven't mentioned one thing about Jill Stein's platform other than her opinion of Israel's brutalization of the Palestinian people - something everyone by and large here support.
Do you still wear your MAGA cap?
Following the passage of the first Enforcement Acts, written to protect the civil rights of the formerly enslaved, Congress created a bipartisan committee in 1871 to investigate reports of vigilante violence against freed people and their white allies in the states of the former Confederacy. The next year, the Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States released its report, a 13-volume collection of testimony from 600 witnesses, totaling more than 8,000 pages.
The men and women who spoke to the committee attested to pervasive violence and intimidation. There were innumerable reports of whippings and beatings and killings. “Tom Roundtree, alias Black, a negro, murdered by a Ku-Klux mob of some fifty or sixty persons, who came to his house at night on the 3rd of December last, took him out, shot him, and cut his throat,” reads a typical entry in the volume devoted to Klan activity in South Carolina. “James Williams,” reads another entry in the same volume, “taken from his home at night and hung, by Ku-Klux numbering about forty or fifty.”
There were also, as the historian Kidada E. Williams shows in “I Saw Death Coming: A History of Terror and Survival in the War Against Reconstruction,” accounts of terrible sexual violence.
Because of these reports and others collected by lawyers, journalists and other investigators, the American public had “access to more information about the Ku-Klux than about almost any other person, event, phenomenon, or movement in the nation,” the historian Elaine Frantz Parsons observes in “Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction.” Between government reports, testimony from witnesses, the confessions of actual Klansmen and the physical evidence of violence and destruction, it would seem impossible to deny the awful scope of Klan terror, much less the existence of the Klan itself.
Yet that is exactly what happened.
“Despite massive and productive public and private efforts to gather, circulate and evaluate information about the Ku-Klux Klan,” Parsons writes, “the national debate over the Ku-Klux failed to move beyond the simple question of whether the Ku-Klux existed.”
In fact, as the historian Stephen A. West points out in The Washington Post in a 2022 piece on the committee’s report, “for much of the last 150 years, Reconstruction’s critics trivialized Black witnesses’ testimony in the Klan report and used it instead to discredit the period’s democratic possibilities.”
It is difficult to look at this episode, which transpired a little more than 150 years ago, and not think of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6, which compiled a similarly painstaking record of fact on the effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election. Thousands of pages of testimony. Tens of thousands of hours of video footage. The words, under oath, of men and women who participated. The physical evidence. The broken bodies and lost lives.
We know, as much as we can know anything, that Donald Trump led a conspiracy to overturn the results of an election that he lost. We know that this involved an attempt to derail the certification of electoral votes. We know that he assembled a crowd of thousands to protest that process. We know that he told that crowd, soon a mob, to “fight like hell” to try to seize the victory they could not win at the ballot box.
But despite this unambiguous evidence of insurrection, there is a concerted effort — either out of skepticism or denial — to present the events of Jan. 6, including the schemes that led up to the attack on the Capitol, as something else. The legitimate protest of an exuberantly disappointed group of ordinary American voters, perhaps, or — in the rendering of Trump’s most devoted apologists — a last-ditch effort to save the Republic itself from the illegitimate grasp of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
It is tempting to say that the facts contained in the Jan. 6 committee report will stand on their own, that the body of evidence is simply too great to sustain a posture of skepticism and denial. But facts are mediated to us through our beliefs, experiences and interests. Most people do not and will not believe facts that cut against those beliefs, experiences and interests.
In the case of the Ku Klux Klan testimony, it was in the political, social or ideological interests of many Americans — from partisans of the Democratic Party to leading members of the national press — to downplay the significance of the testimony. The same is true today of the facts gathered by the Jan. 6 committee.
Those facts will not speak for themselves. The struggle for the meaning of Jan. 6 will, like the struggle over the significance of the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan, resolve itself only through politics. And in much the same way that the collapse of Reconstruction and the political victory of so-called Redeemers heralded the ideological victory of the Klan’s defenders, sympathizers and apologists, it is Trump’s ultimate fate that will shape and determine our lasting memory of what happened on Jan. 6.
In other words, the world in which the attack on the Capitol of the United States by the vengeful followers of a defeated president is just ordinary politics gone a little wild is a world in which Trump and his rioters eventually won.
Over eight years Donald Trump has made it clear that if you cross him your career in Republican politics will be over. With Ron DeSantis’s campaign flatlining, Donald Trump seems to be moving ahead with settling the family’s outstanding business. What jumped out at me here was that his target is not a Mitt Romney (one of the only exceptions to the rule) or Adam Kinzinger or Liz Cheney. Next up appears to be one of the diehardest members of the rump of the Freedom Caucus, Rep. Bob Good of Virginia.
Good is a member in good standing of the Crazy Eight (who voted to boot Kevin McCarthy on the motion to vacate). He’s a diehard Trumper. He has even pledged absolute fealty to Donald Trump once he dispatches the withered carcass of Ron DeSantis. But he has endorsed Ron DeSantis. And that won’t stand. Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita told Virginia’s Cardinal News: “Bob Good won’t be electable when we get done with him.”
Virginia’s 5th district has been a kind of reductio ad absurdum of Trumpification. Tom Garrett represented the district for one term but retired in 2018 in the face of a series of medium level scandals and an admission of alcoholism. He was replaced by Republican Denver Riggleman. During his one Trump-era term Riggleman denounced QAnon and officiated at a same-sex wedding. That lost him the renomination to arch-Trumper Bob Good. Now two terms later Trump has latched on to a perpetual far-right candidate named John McGuire to replace Good.
McGuire announced that he was running against Good right after winning a state senate seat for which he pledged in advance to serve a whole term. So he kind of pissed off a lot of Republicans in his new district. But he’s making clear he’s the riding-or-dyingist Trumper there is. He travelled to Iowa last weekend to personally campaign for Trump. “Folks from all over the country flew into Iowa this weekend, including myself, to help Trump win so we can Save America!” McGuire wrote in his campaign newsletter: “I really enjoyed my conversation with President Trump. We love Trump because he is 100% American, he loves our country and he loves the American people. I am proud to be the first elected official in Virginia to endorse Trump 2024!”
I have a hard time getting a read on just how invested Trump is in this race. LaCivita’s comment suggests he’s pretty invested. But Cardinal News notes that Trump himself hasn’t formally endorsed McGuire, even though they appear to have spent time together and Trump allowed McGuire to bow down to him and even take pictures together. Good isn’t a nobody either. He was just elected Chairman of the Freedom Caucus. So it seems at least possible that Trump could get some level of pushback from other Freedom Caucus types or that they might advocate somewhat on Good’s behalf. We’ll see. But I don’t get the sense there are many Republicans who can withstand Trump really going after them. Good is one of only six representatives to endorse DeSantis. He’s only been in Congress for two terms and can’t have built a really durable base of support in his district.
I think that some of you may lead lives that make you feel isolated and insulated from any real effects on the broader society that might occur as a result of Trump getting away with everything. I would humbly suggest that even you who may feel above it have something to fear if those who wield the power of the rule of law over Trump simply refuse to act.
Quote:I think that some of you may lead lives that make you feel isolated and insulated from any real effects on the broader society that might occur as a result of Trump getting away with everything. I would humbly suggest that even you who may feel above it have something to fear if those who wield the power of the rule of law over Trump simply refuse to act.
I think that, aside from a couple of resident lunatics, we all understand the consequences of another Trump presidency. And I think we all grasp that a failure of American institutions to prevent such a thing will fundamentally and perhaps permanently move America from a sorta democracy to an autocracy. But there's not much any of us writing here can do about that, old friend.
It offends my basic sense of right and wrong. It isn't anything any of us have ever seen before, but my sense of everyone's reaction here is that it's all somehow de rigueur.
President Joe Biden today signed the continuing resolution that will keep the government operating into March.
Meanwhile, the stock market roared as two of the three major indexes hit new record highs. The S&P 500, which measures the value of 500 of the largest companies in the country, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which does the same for 30 companies considered to be industry leaders, both rose to all-time highs. The third major index, the Nasdaq Composite, which is weighted toward technology stocks, did not hit a record high, although its 1.7% jump was higher than that of the S&P 500 (1.2%) or the Dow (1.1%).
Investors appear to be buoyed by the fact the rate of inflation has come down in the U.S. and by news that consumers are feeling better about the economy. A report out today by Goldman Sachs Economics Research noted that consumer spending is strong and predicted that “job gains, positive real wage growth, will lead to around 3% real disposable income growth” and that “household balance sheets have strengthened.” It also noted that “[t]he US has led the way on disinflation,” and it predicted further drops in 2024. That will likely mean the sort of interest rate cuts the stock market likes.
The economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration have also benefited workers. The unemployment rate has been under 4% for more than two years, and wages have risen higher than inflation in that same period. Production is up as well, to 4.9% in the third quarter of 2023 (the U.S. growth rate under Trump even before the pandemic was 2.5%).
The administration has worked to end some of the most obvious financial inequities in the U.S., such as the unexpected “junk fees” tacked on to airline or concert tickets, or to car or apartment rentals. On Wednesday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a proposed rule for bank overdraft fees at banks that have more than $10 billion in assets.
While banks now can charge what they wish if a customer’s balance falls below zero, the proposed rule would allow them to charge no more than what it cost them to break even on providing overdraft services or, alternatively, an industry-wide fee that reflects the amount it costs to deal with overdrafts: $3, $6, $7, or $14. The amount will be established after a public hearing period.
Ken Sweet and Cora Lewis of the Associated Press note that while the average overdraft is $26.61, some banks charge as much as $39 per overdraft. The CFPB estimates that in the past 20 years, banks have collected more than $280 billion in overdraft fees. (One bank’s chief executive officer named his boat “Overdraft.”) Over the past two years, pressure has made banks cut back on their fees and they now take in about $8 billion a year from those overdraft fees.
Bankers say regulation is unnecessary and will force them to end the overdraft service, pushing people out of the banking system. Biden said that the rule would save U.S. families $3.5 billion annually.
The administration has also addressed the student loan crisis by reexamining the loan histories of student borrowers. An NPR investigation led by Cory Turner revealed that banks mismanaged loans, denying borrowers the terms under which they had signed on to them. Rather than honoring the government’s promise that so long as a borrower paid what the government thought was reasonable on a loan for 20 or 25 years (undergrad or graduate), the debt would be forgiven, banks urged borrowers to put the loan into “forbearance,” under which payments paused but the debt continued to accrue interest, making the amount balloon.
The Education Department has been reexamining all those old loans to find this sort of mismanagement as well as other problems, like borrowers not getting credit for payments to count toward their 20 years of payments, or borrowers who chose public service not receiving the debt relief they were promised.
Today the administration announced $4.9 billion of student debt cancellation for almost 74,000 borrowers. That brings the total of borrowers whose debt has been canceled to 3.7 million Americans, with an erasure of $136.6 billion. Nearly 30,000 of today’s relieved borrowers had been in repayment for at least 20 years but never got the relief they should have; nearly 44,000 had earned debt forgiveness after 10 years of public service as teachers, nurses, and firefighters.
Biden has been traveling the country recently, touting how the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration have benefited ordinary Americans. In Emmaus, Pennsylvania, last Friday he visited a bicycle shop, a running shoe store, and a coffee shop to emphasize how small businesses are booming under his administration: in the three years since he took office, there have been 16 million applications to start new businesses, the highest number on record.
Biden was in Raleigh, North Carolina, yesterday to announce another $82 million in support for broadband access, bringing the total of government infrastructure funding in North Carolina during the Biden administration to $3 billion.
On social media, the administration compared its investments in the American people to those of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s, which were enormously popular.
They were popular, that is, until those opposed to business regulation convinced white voters that the government’s protection of civil rights, which came along with its protection of ordinary Americans through regulation of business, provision of a basic social safety net, and promotion of infrastructure, meant redistribution of white tax dollars to undeserving Black people.
The same effort to make sure that ordinary Americans don’t work together to restore basic fairness in the economy and rights in society is visible now in the attempt to attribute a recent Boeing airplane malfunction, in which a door panel blew off mid-flight, to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Tesnim Zekeria at Popular Information yesterday chronicled how that accusation spread across the right-wing ecosystem and onto the Fox News Channel, where Fox Business host Sean Duffy warned: “This is a dangerous business when you’re focused on DEI and maybe less focused on engineering and safety.”
As Zekeria explains, “this narrative has no basis in fact.” Neither Boeing nor its supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, is particularly diverse, either at the workforce level, where minorities make up 35% of Boeing employees and 26% of those at Spirit AeroSystems, or on the corporate ladder, where the overwhelming majority of executives are white men. Zekeria notes that right-wing media figures have also erroneously blamed last year’s train derailment in Ohio and the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank on DEI initiatives.
The real culprit at Boeing, Zekeria suggests, was the weakened regulations on Boeing and Spirit thanks to more than $65 million in lobbying efforts.
Perhaps an even more transparent attempt to keep ordinary Americans from working together is the attacks former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson has launched against Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her “a member of the new master race” who “must be shown maximum respect at all times, no matter what she says or does.” Philip Bump of the Washington Post noted yesterday that this construction suggests that Harris, who identifies as both Black and Indian, represents all nonwhite Americans as a united force opposed to white Americans.
But Harris’s actions actually represent something else altogether. She has crossed the country since June 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion, talking about the right of all Americans to bodily autonomy. That the Supreme Court felt able to take away a constitutional right has worried many Americans about what they might do next, and people all over the country have been coming together in opposition to the small minority that appears to have taken over the levers of our democracy.
Driving the wedge of racism into that majority coalition seems to be a desperate attempt to stop ordinary Americans from taking back control of the country.
Last night at a rally in New Hampshire, former president Trump repeatedly confused former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who is running against him for the Republican presidential nomination, with Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the former speaker of the House.
“By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6th,” Trump told the audience. “You know, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, you know they, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it because of lots of things, like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people. Soldiers, National Guards, whatever they want. They turned it down.”
Observers have been saying for a while now that once Trump had to start appearing in public, his apparent cognitive decline would surprise those who haven’t been paying attention.
That certainly seemed to be true on Wednesday, January 17, when he told a New Hampshire audience: “We’re…going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your—you know, your political beliefs, what they do. They want to debank you, and we’re going to debank—think of this. They want to take away your rights. They want to take away your country. The things they’re doing. All electric cars.”
His statement looks like word salad if you’re not steeped in MAGA world, but there are two stories behind Trump’s torrent of words. The first is that Trump always blurts out whatever is uppermost in his mind, suggesting he is worried by the fact that large banks will no longer lend to him. The Trump Organization’s auditor said during a fraud trial in 2022 that the past 10 years of the company’s financial statements could not be relied on, and Trump was forced to turn to smaller banks, likely on much worse terms. Now the legal case currently underway in Manhattan will likely make that financial problem larger. The judge has already decided that the Trump Organization, Trump, his two older sons, and two employees committed fraud, for which the judge is currently deciding appropriate penalties.
The second story behind his statement, though, is much larger than Trump.
Since 2023, right-wing organizations, backed by Republican state attorneys general, have argued that banks are discriminating against them on religious and political grounds. In March 2023, JPMorgan Chase closed an account opened by the National Committee for Religious Freedom after the organization did not provide information the bank needed to comply with regulatory requirements. Immediately, Republican officials claimed religious discrimination and demanded the bank explain its position on issues important to the right wing. JPMorgan Chase denied discrimination, noting that it serves 50,000 accounts with religious affiliations and saying, “We have never and would never exit a client relationship due to their political or religious affiliation.”
But the attack on banks stuck among MAGA Republicans, especially as other financial platforms like PayPal, Venmo, and GoFundMe have declined to accept business from right-wing figures who spout hate speech, thus cutting off their ability to raise money from their followers.
The attempt to create distrust of large financial institutions is part of a larger attempt to destabilize the institutions of democracy. Trump is the figurehead for that attempt, but it is larger than him, and it will outlast him.
The news media is often called the fourth branch of government because it provides the transparency and oversight that hold leaders accountable. But as soon as he began to campaign for office in 2015, Trump responded to the negative press about him by attacking the press, calling it the “fake news” media. In 2016, 70% of Republicans said they trusted national news media; by 2021 that number was 35%.
Once elected, Trump and MAGA Republicans started to undermine faith in the rule of law that underpins our democracy. Less than four months after he took office, Trump fired the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, for investigating the connections between his 2016 campaign and Russian operatives, and his attacks on the FBI and the Department of Justice under which the FBI operates have been relentless ever since.
Those attacks now involve the entire judicial system, which Trump and his loyalists attack whenever judges or juries oppose him, while judges like Aileen Cannon, who appears to be protecting Trump from the federal criminal case against him for mishandling classified documents, have escaped his wrath.
Trump and his supporters have also challenged the U.S. military, insisting that it is weak because it is “woke.” He has called its leaders “some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met in my life.”
But it is not just the banking, justice, and military systems MAGA Republicans are undermining. They are sowing distrust of our educational system, claiming that it is not educating students but, rather, indoctrinating them to embrace left-wing ideology. Public education is central to democracy because, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it enables a voter to “understand his duties to his neighbours, & country,…[t]o know his rights…[a]nd, in general, to observe with intelligence & faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.”
Extremists in Congress are undermining even that body, the centerpiece of our democratic system. They have ground business there to a halt, weakening the idea of Congress as a deliberative body that can pass legislation to represent the wishes of the American people.
In addition, they are now trying, quite deliberately, to end the country’s traditional system of foreign policy that protects the nation’s national security. Instead, they are trying to politicize foreign policy, standing against further aid to Ukraine although it has strong bipartisan support, thus tipping the scales in favor of Russia’s authoritarian leader in opposition to U.S. national security.
Over all, of course, is the Big Lie that undermines the nation’s electoral system by insisting that the 2020 presidential vote was “rigged” against Trump. Although there has never been any evidence of such a thing, 30% of Americans think Biden won the presidency only through “voter fraud.”
This weakening of our institutions threatens the survival of democracy.
Tearing apart the fabric of democracy invites an authoritarian to convince his followers that democracy is weak and that only a strongman can govern.
Three years ago today, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office, vowing to restore faith in our democratic institutions.
“This is a time of testing,” Biden said in his inaugural address. “We face an attack on democracy and on truth. A raging virus. Growing inequity. The sting of systemic racism. A climate in crisis. America’s role in the world. Any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways. But the fact is we face them all at once, presenting this nation with the gravest of responsibilities.
“Now we must step up. All of us. It is a time for boldness, for there is so much to do. And, this is certain. We will be judged, you and I, for how we resolve the cascading crises of our era. Will we rise to the occasion? Will we master this rare and difficult hour? Will we meet our obligations and pass along a new and better world for our children?”
“Let us add our own work and prayers to the unfolding story of our nation,” Biden said. “If we do this, then when our days are through, our children and our children’s children will say of us: They gave their best. They did their duty. They healed a broken land.”
