Post-New Deal Democrats Better for Economy

And for expanding prosperity and opportunity to all workers, all Americans, while Repugs only good for increasing extreme inequality and economic austerity (and "draining the pool" politics) for the 99%: 

"In April the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute found that since 1949 the nation’s annual real growth has been 1.2 percentage points higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations (3.79% versus 2.60%), total job growth averages 2.5% annually under Democrats compared to barely over 1% under Republicans, business investment is more than double the pace under Democrats than under Republicans, average rates of inflation are slightly lower under Democrats, and families in the bottom 20% of the economy experience income growth 188% faster under Democrats than under Republicans. 

A recent analysis by former Goldman Sachs managing director H. John Gilbertson expands on those numbers, showing that Democratic administrations reduce the U.S. budget deficit and that stock market returns are 60% higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

Democratic President Joe Biden returned the country to the proven system that worked before 1981, and the economy has boomed. While Trump has vowed to return to the tax cuts and deregulation of supply-side economics, Vice President Harris has promised to retain and fine-tune Biden’s policies. 

But Harris has to overcome more than a century of American mythmaking."

Letters from an American Historian 

The Republican Party is a Failed State. Trump is Its War Lord.

And so much for American First, right?  

"Journalist Karly Kingsley points out that at the time, central lab testing to diagnose Covid-19 infections took a long time, causing infections to spread. Machines like Abbott’s were hard to get. Trump chose to send them to Putin—not to charge him for them, or to negotiate for the release of Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed, two Americans being held by Russia at the time and later released under the Biden administration, but to give them to him—rather than keeping them for Americans."

Letters from an American Historian

American Oligarchy's Dark Money Backs Trump's Desperate Bid for a Dictatorship

 "In 2010, the year of the Citizens United decision, all of America’s billionaires together spent a mere $31 million on elections: There were still substantial limits on dark money in American politics.

That number jumped to $231 million in the 2012 and 2014 elections, and over $600 million for both 2016 and 2018.

The dark money blowout came in 2020, when Trump was running for re-election and there was a very real chance the billionaires could seize complete control of our federal government. 

They spent a total of $2,362,000,000 in that election, with $1.2 billion of it going to elect conventional politicians who would then be beholden to their patrons.

While Thomas Jefferson was still the US envoy to France and living in Paris, just after the Constitution had been written but a year before it would be ratified, John Adams wrote him on December 6, 1778 arguing that Jefferson’s fear of a strongman president wasn’t as big a concern as Adams’ fear of rich people corrupting American politics:

“You are afraid of the one — I, of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect Representation. — You are Apprehensive of Monarchy; I, of Aristocracy.”

Today, if Trump is reelected, we will have both."

The Hartmann Report 

Manifesto of the 343

 One million women in France have abortions every year. Condemned to secrecy, they do so in dangerous conditions, while under medical supervision, this is one of the simplest procedures. Society is silencing these millions of women. I declare that I am one of them. I declare that I have had an abortion. Just as we demand free access to contraception, we demand the freedom to have an abortion. -Simone de Beauvoir, 1971

Three hundred and forty-three signatures were appended to the “manifesto”: 343 French women and citizens who risked their careers and reputations by publicly confessing to having had an illegal abortion. The act of civil disobedience—now known as the “Manifesto of the 343”—was a non-violent refusal to obey a country’s law. It would prove to be one of the bravest acts toward achieving French women’s reproductive rights.

JSTOR Daily 

Trump/Vance's Bigot Troll Ad Campaign and Harris/Walz For The People

Even Liz Cheney is for the people, for crying out loud. 

They're rolling out a Trump ad in Seattle and around the Pacific Northwest, presumably: 

Harris as "Border Czar" is letting in drug dealers, rapists, and murderous foreign born scary looking gangbangers, enabling "illegals" (to GOP all POC are "illegals," see Springfield, OH) immigrants to escape justice. And then adding insult to injury, when these violent criminals are finally captured by our men in blue and put in jail Harris is helping them get sex change operations. Crazy liberals! Trump and his campaign-- says the violent fascists targeting and smearing immigrants and Trans people in the scary alarmist video-- is for "you." 

True Trumpers, "you," screams the ad like Howard Beale in Network (1976), would rather watch Trump round up all of the immigrants, POC, Trans, LGBTQ+, and crazy liberals and force them into concentration camps and deport them, if not shoot them for target practice. Even if he probably can't totally get away with any or all of this, this is his basic campaign plea. And it's a message, apparently, popular with a sizable segment of the macho bigot population. 

Trump, of course, didn't invent fake news, what the Russians call "political technology," but he is the first to take over a political party with it via social media, weaponized against women, immigrants, sexual minorities, whatever is agitating and galvanizing the hateful bigots most. 

The punching down cruelty in MAGA isn't entirely new in American history, either. Historian Richard Hofstadter chronicles the paranoid style, racist anti-communist wacko conservatism in American politics, all the way back to the Civil War. But it'd be curious what he'd make of MAGA? In the early 1960s, in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Hofstadter was convinced there was a solid middle of the American democratic electorate, established, security conscious, against willy-nilly change, a centrist majority that rejects the violent bigot extremes in American politics, like Goldwater in 1964 (who thought Eisenhower was a communist and wanted to Nuke the Chinese in Korea). And like MAGA, basically, batshit crazy violent malevolence. 

Now, over sixty years later, violent bigot extremes have taken over the Republican party and have already attempted one failed coup attempt to overthrow democracy and the rule of law. Trumpers are sure, they do their research (Fox or worse), Trump gets a raw deal, Russia, Russia, Russia, Covid shutdown, gold-digger women, persecuted for perfect phone calls, being besties with Putin, liberals are out to get our man, Stop the Steal! Presented as a dramatic TV series prior to 2016 this stuff would be dismissed by critics as hysterical and over the top. Unbelievable. But MAGA regularly threatens violence against immigrants and the police and judges and public health officials and election workers or anybody who opposes them. It's in Project 2025. They attacked congress, violently, on the day the legislative body of of the government was formally recognizing the peaceful transfer of power as a fundamental traditional hallmark of democracy and the rule of law. And then Trump skipped the inauguration, and now they're giving him another chance-- because he cheats and still loses every election but insists he's being cheated so three strikes you're out?!

Trump is a real-life Frankenstein caricature of the 1980s neoliberal economic model, as if scripted for an over-the-top apocalyptic remake of Robo Cop. His ridiculously self-dealing "greed is good" monopoly capitalism, his branding and celebrity popularity, and his big-government-is-the-problem austerity economics is like a cartoon caricature drawn by Grover Norquist. It's a loser project, kicked to the curb over and over statistically, by mainstream economic measures, but thrives as zombie economics boosted by free marketeers right and left. More tax cuts for the rich (which they turn into stock buy backs and stiff workers), burn baby burn, and then trash government, public infrastructure, public goods as ineffective, and which they consistently prove whenever in office. 

(Mainstream economists love to trash Stephanie Kelton, the deficit myth economics professor, but there is a simple observation in her work that is undeniable: why do both parties compete to outspend each other on the military, never calling such spending deficit spending, even though it is quite obviously every bit as much deficit spending as any social spending on health care, public education, environmental protections, etc? And where Dems fret about how we can pay for it and Repugs condemn it as reckless, wasteful deficit spending? That the rich and corporations do not pay a tax sufficient to generously and prosperously support basic public infrastructure that makes possible their wealth accumulation; housing, health care, public education, full employment, public safety, roads and bridges, food safety, environmental protections, etc. Sure, it's a lot but actually probably some very manageable progressive tax margins, a hard 15%, would cover it but the rich have resisted this kind of democratic reform, frequently violently, and relentlessly, since the Roman Republic. It's fundamental orientation of political economy in world history, the rich insisting on margins that enrich them and impoverish labor.) 

And this astonishingly self-destructive national movement, Trump (the most litigated, and first felon, candidate for potus in American history)and his MAGA republican party, has a big following, like Elon Musk, meaning the biggest media platform, one only a small handful of celebrities in popular media can achieve. The craven effort to buy the election in the name of Trump's bigot fascism and hustler's market capitalism is a terrifying prospect. But they do a slightly more benign version of something like this in Seattle all the time; i.e., local corporate interests buying elections. So, I dunno. It could happen! And I find it hard not to hyperventilate about the peril the country and the world and environment and freedom and peace loving peoples everywhere face in Trump's candidacy. 

(Also precisely what Grump's minions like best: Owning the Libs.) 

Trump should have been disqualified for Jan 6 alone and many times over for a variety of other high crimes and misdemeanors; treason, election interference, financial fraud, promoting violence, sexually harassing women, etc. Hopefully there is some law and Deep State left that can get in the way and block his worst humanitarian crimes and his catastrophic crony capitalism, but the polling experts are saying the election is a tossup. Which, alone, feels like an astonishingly huge fail for the country, no matter the outcome of the election. 

Consider the run-up to this election. Failed coup attempt on Jan 6, 2021. The Supreme Court 1) helps Trump evade prosecution for Jan 6, 2) helps him get away with stealing top secret national security documents (that serious national security people say endangers America and Americans), and 3) ignores his blatant cheating in the 2020 election. In the latter case, Roberts wouldn't even show up for the impeachment proceedings in congress, already betraying SCOTUS's complicity in Trump's failed coup attempt. And the legal system-- with Barr, just like Iran Contra in the early '90s, right?-- ultimately helps hide Trump's traitorous collusion in 2016, spearheading Putin's first and ongoing attacks on our democratic elections. Make no mistake, ratification of-- or a total slam-dunk rejection of-- all this fake news fascism is on the ballot. 

And make no mistake, even if down to the wire the NY Times and WaPo would like to obscure, normalize, and "sane-wash" the matter, the election is right/wrong, up/down clear: a vote for the Dems is a vote for democracy, workers, a sustainable and democratic future, and a vote for Trump and the Repugs is a vote for dictatorship, corruption, violence, environmental destruction, and stupid bigotry. 

And, shamefully, and damning proof the economic wisdom of Billionaires isn't what it's cracked up to be, Big Tech Bros are sponsoring his candidacy and the fake news about pet-eating immigrants and other anti-immigrant/LGBTQ rage porn on social media and the internet and now in commercials on local TV broadcasts around Seattle. This is the so-called wisdom or smart money of corporate rule: flagrant fake news disinformation, even explicitly Nazi bigot stuff; see X, Fox, Sinclair, etc.  

Even if Trump loses, and he likely will and certainly must, his constituents are hoping for an electoral college steal. How could he win a majority, really? People cannot be that stupid and self-destructive can they? He is an active national security threat; his first campaign manager was a Putin asset. Anyway, we'll be living down the violent reaction and criminal corruption of the Trump era for a long time. 

“Trump has a habit of assuming other politicians act in the same way as he would,” Glenn Kessler wrote in WaPo. So he looked into why Trump would have accused Biden “of raiding the FEMA disaster fund to handle undocumented migrants. It turns out that’s because he did this.”   

In the middle of hurricane season in 2019, Kessler explains, Trump took $155 million from the FEMA disaster fund and redirected it to pay for detention space and temporary hearing locations for immigrants seeking asylum. “No, Biden didn’t take FEMA relief money to use on migrants,” the article title reads, “but Trump did.” 

And they withheld PPE funding in the pandemic because they thought it would mostly be going to blue cities. I mean, really, you can't make up how bad this sick fuck was. It's kleptocracy straight up and some people go for it because they like the Trump scenery-chewing spectacle of violence and abuse against their perceived enemies. 

Letters from an American Historian

"Rather than standing against slavery alone, those organizing in 1854 stood against an entire political system, opposing the small group of elite enslavers who had taken over the U.S. government in order to establish an oligarchy and were quite clear they rejected the self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Instead, they intended to rule over the nation’s majority, whose labor produced the capital that southern leaders believed only elites should control."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Not equal in height or strength or wealth and intelligence but equal in "certain unalienable rights," individual rights, the essence of our personal freedoms, including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

"Republican Abraham Lincoln articulated this worldview for his fledgling party in 1859 as it took a stand against oligarchs. Believing these principles accurately represented the aspirations of the nation’s founders, Lincoln called them “conservative.” People from all parties rallied to the party that promised to defend those principles."  

Kamala Harris in Wisconsin: “The president of the United States must not look at our country through the narrow lens of ideology or petty partisanship or self-interest,” Harris said today. “The president of the United States must not look at our country as an instrument for their own ambitions. Our nation is not some spoil to be won. The United States of America is the greatest idea humanity ever devised: the nation that inspired the world to believe in the possibility of a representative government. And so in the face of those who would endanger our magnificent experiment, people of every party must stand together.” 

"In this election, putting patriotism ahead of partisanship is not an aspiration. It is our duty,” Cheney said. “I ask all of you here and everyone listening across this great country to join us. I ask you to meet this moment. I ask you to stand in truth, to reject the depraved cruelty of Donald Trump." 

Letters from an American Historian

Yeah, but, as the saying goes, what if the "depraved cruelty" is the point? Along with owning the libs, ritual acts of violence, mass deportations, and state violence against targeted groups are more or less precisely what people who got off on Trump's first term and his immigrant family separation policy really want most, right? The Purge. Like some guy at a town meeting asking when he gets to start shooting liberals. 

And we, the people, the liberals, the 99%, we're hoping, wishing, preying, by contrast, that while way too many go for this Reality TV sadistic dumpster-fire, deaths-of-despair, and violent fascist politics, an overwhelming majority of Americans, Us, will say No to more Trump lies and treason, No to more MAGA bigot hate and misogyny and gun violence, and Hell No to Billionaire crony capitalist rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer economics.   

(We're for free enterprise and opposed to corporate rule. Figure it out.)

"Today the International Longshoremen’s Association suspended the strike after USMX agreed to wage increases of 62% over six years. The two sides agreed to extend the current contract until January 15 to address the issues of benefits and automation. Administration officials White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, top White House economic advisor Lael Brainard, Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg helped broker the temporary agreement." 

Trump won't grow the economy. And he won't help make life more affordable for workers and regular families. And, most preposterously, he won't make America stronger in the world or safer at home. Trump will grow violence and corruption and insecurity. We know this. Unless you only watch Fox News, we all saw it on TV 2017 to 2020. And we don't want to watch the rerun. It'll only be worse. Trust me. 

More Plutocratic Bias in Mainstream Media

In a critical story about Trump in WaPo today, too rare, I still ran across this erroneous line: "Most polls show that voters believe he [Trump] is better able to handle the economy and inflation." And I still see such remarks in NY Times on the regular, just this past week: Trump is stronger on the economic "fundamentals," goes a common refrain in reporting. Recent polls conducted by the Financial Times beg to differ. Harris has been more trusted than Trump on the economy since the beginning of August. And as an even more dramatic representation of the misinformation at work here see the second graphic below. The only economic "fundamentals" Trump excels at, super majorities realize, are advocating for large corporations and the wealthy. Not workers or small businesses or most voters. Mainstream economic commentators and popular substack writers are frequently unreliable on this subject as well. Sure, the rich think Trump is better on the economy, better for them. He promises to cut their taxes again (which will only push up deficits and squeeze government services, by the way). If nothing else, after over forty years of this economic hustle we should have learned by now: tax cuts and deregulation for the rich doesn't trickle down but actually imposes economic austerity on the rest of society. In truth, Trump's economic model is based, and this has always been the case, almost entirely on celebrity branding and financial fraud. And his economic policies, such as he's shared in this campaign cycle anyway, are stupid (no, tariffs on foreign trade won't pay for child care) or ridiculously inflationary (deporting millions of workers). But the mainstream press keep insisting Trump's more trusted on the economy and inflation, like it's a settled fact that everyone should know. It's not. In fact, the truth is closer to the opposite of this claim. 



I cherry picked the graphics from Adam Tooze's Chartbook and the story behind the graphics (behind a paywall) comes from the Financial Times


Childless Cat Lady Endorses Harris/Walz

 

By the way, I like Tortured Poets Department. Late night pop. Swift is a clever lyricist. She knows how to make the most out of telling concrete details; she had to be a hit with her English teachers. I'm exhausted by her romantic travails but I'm an old crank. But not so cranky that I'm unmoved by a sentimental fool with so much resilient strength. Swift gives every bittersweet note a melodic turn, ringing clear as a bell with hope and grit and all heart. Plus she's a pop superstar that recognizes right from wrong. Extra bonus!  

Still don't believe me? You think I'm just shilling for her endorsement? Try this one. 

She's big and kind of wonderful, no? That bit where she runs out, more like skips out onstage with her guitar from backstage. It's just a few moments, and flickers by. From the dark of backstage she skips with her guitar through a doorway into the the bright lights of her huge stage like an Orson Welles shot, a singularly iconic personification of Elvis and Madonna and going on a century of live rock & roll hitting the stage. Love that and the whole thing, really. "I Can Do It With A Broken Heart." Faking it until you make it. She makes her story anthemic and fun. She's an independent working woman, like a Mary Tyler Moore for the 21st century, making pop songs for the broken hearted in all of us.