Connect with us

Economics

Democrats need to understand: Americans think they’re worse

Published

on

If you think Donald Trump is too crass or cruel or incompetent to be president—if you are disappointed or even astonished that, having tried and failed to subvert the will of the people in the last election, he has come back to win fair and square—you should be asking yourself this question: why, to so many Americans, does the Democratic Party seem worse?

This victory is a tremendous achievement for Mr Trump, who after his loss in 2020 and the attack on the Capitol on January 6th 2021 was counted out even by leaders of his own party. At the time Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, who privately regarded Mr Trump as “a sleazeball” and “stupid”, called the insurrection “further evidence of Donald Trump’s complete unfitness for office”, according to reporting he has not disputed in a new biography by Michael Tackett, a journalist.

Yet what might seem a psychological frailty—an inability to brook criticism or concede mistakes, much less defeat—has for Mr Trump been a mighty source of political strength, one that intensifies his connection to the voters he has made the base of the Republican Party. As in 2016, Mr Trump wielded his command of that bloc of voters this year to clear a path through crowded Republican primaries, and then relied upon “negative polarisation”, or fear of the other guys, to unite the party. “Can you believe he endorsed me?” Mr Trump chortled at a rally in North Carolina on November 3rd, gloating over how Mr McConnell eventually fell into line. Mr Trump felt no obligation to reciprocate. “Hopefully we get rid of Mitch McConnell pretty soon,” he said.

Mr Trump has shown courage, not only in weathering assassins’ attacks but in insisting on views on trade, entitlements and other matters that a few years ago were heresy within his party. With his sophisticated grasp of new and legacy media and his instinct for the basic needs and fears of many Americans, he has revolutionised how American politics is conducted and shifted the policy terrain over which it is waged. In terms of disrupting what came before, he has had more effect than even Ronald Reagan.

Unlike Reagan—or the other two-term presidents since, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—Mr Trump has never been very popular, though he managed, in this third run as the Republican nominee, at last to win the popular vote. Unlike those predecessors, Mr Trump has relied upon division, not addition, for his electoral maths. In his first term his average approval rating of 41% was the lowest ever measured by the Gallup Poll, which began tracking the statistic under Harry Truman. Democrats have good reason to think Mr Trump repels many voters when he calls adversaries “vermin” or “the enemy from within” or says illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”.

Yet, after this victory, whatever disdain Democrats have for Mr Trump should be cause only for humility and self-scrutiny. As in 2016, Mr Trump’s broad support will present his adversaries with a Rorschach test in which they can see their preferred image of America, and it will be ugly. For some, white supremacy and misogyny will explain Mr Trump’s success, while others may attribute it to tax cuts and greed. Some will conclude that poor, non-white or female Americans have been ensorcelled into voting against their self-interest. Rather than retreat into some grand theory, they would so better ro think through how, in a divided country, President Joe Biden might have nudged the balance a few points away from Mr Trump, rather than to him. Kamala Harris was no bystander, but pime responsibility lies with the president she served.

Mr Biden did not heed his own warnings about Mr Trump. He tried to eat into Mr Trump’s support with blue-collar workers through giant investments in manufacturing and infrastructure that offered something to everyone. But, unlike Mr Clinton or Mr Obama, he ducked choices that would have respected the concerns of most Americans but disappointed left-wing Democrats. A political strategy of addition still requires some division.

Most egregious, Mr Biden resharpened Mr Trump’s most effective political wedge by doing away with obstacles he had created to illegal immigration, with no alternative. By the time he restored some of Mr Trump’s restrictions this spring, more than 4m migrants had crossed the southern border, compared with fewer than 1m under Mr Trump. That was terrible for the Democrats as a party, and worse for people they want to help and the cause they believe in: under Mr Biden, Americans who say they want a decrease in legal immigration rose from a minority to a majority, as did the number who favour mass deportation.

How to defend democracy

Even where Mr Biden had accomplishments that undermined Mr Trump’s arguments, he let himself be constrained by his party’s loudest activists. Oil production rose to record levels, but Mr Biden did not boast about that. He was also no longer up to the demands of presidential communication that Mr Trump understands so well. He was not constantly, energetically promoting his success in sustaining economic growth and raising wages. His approval rating sagged as low as 36% just asother Democrats were forcing him to face the obvious: he should not be running again. In the short time Ms Harris had, she waged a good campaign. But any politician would have struggled under such burdens. She could not separate herself enough from Mr Biden, or from the video Mr Trump’s ads used, to devastating effect, of her recently declaring positions that were alienating to most Americans.

“We have learned again that democracy is precious,” Mr Biden proudly declared during his inaugural address almost four years ago. “Democracy is fragile. And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed.” Now it has prevailed again. Will Democrats get the message this time? 

Economics

At the state level, democracy in America is fracturing

Published

on

The residents of Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia share a border, a downtown and even a Nascar speedway. But thanks to the quirks of American federalism, the 27,800 Bristolians who live in the Volunteer State reside in America’s least democratic state, while their 16,800 neighbors to the north live in one of the most democratic.

Continue Reading

Economics

BOI Reporting and the impact of the recent Federal Injunction

Published

on

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency and mitigate risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities. The CTA aims to close loopholes and create a fairer business environment by requiring certain entities to disclose their beneficial ownership information. However, recent legal developments have temporarily impacted compliance requirements, bringing attention to the act’s ongoing litigation and implementation.

Federal Court Decision and Its Implications

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. (No. 4:24-cv-00478). This injunction temporarily halts the enforcement of the CTA, specifically its beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Additionally, the court order stays all deadlines for compliance.

As a result, reporting companies are currently not obligated to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). During the injunction, these entities are also shielded from liability for non-compliance with CTA mandates.

Despite this pause, FinCEN has clarified that companies may still voluntarily submit their BOI reports. This voluntary reporting option remains available for businesses that wish to align with the CTA’s transparency goals.

Overview of the Corporate Transparency Act

The CTA mandates that certain entities provide information about their beneficial owners—individuals who own or control a business. The act is intended to increase transparency, enhance national security, and reduce the anonymity that can facilitate financial crimes.

While the CTA has garnered support for its objectives, it has also faced legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. Courts in different jurisdictions have issued varying rulings, with some upholding the law and others granting temporary injunctions. For example, district courts in Virginia and Oregon have ruled in favor of the Department of the Treasury, asserting the CTA’s alignment with constitutional principles.

Compliance During the Injunction

Currently, the federal injunction exempts businesses from mandatory BOI filing requirements nationwide. This temporary halt will remain in place until further developments, such as a decision by an appellate court or a reversal of the injunction.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice, representing the Department of the Treasury, has filed an appeal. While the case proceeds through the legal system, FinCEN has confirmed its compliance with the court order.

Looking Ahead

The legal proceedings surrounding the CTA highlight the evolving nature of financial regulation. As courts continue to deliberate, businesses should monitor updates to remain informed about their obligations. By staying informed and prepared, businesses can effectively manage their compliance responsibilities and contribute to efforts that promote financial integrity and transparency.

Continue Reading

Economics

After a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal

Published

on

Donald Trump is the most powerful Republican politician in a generation, but the president-elect is still no match for the most nihilistic members of his own party. The budget chaos that unfolded on Capitol Hill as the Christmas break approached is only a preview of the difficult realities Mr Trump will face when he starts to govern next month.

Continue Reading

Trending