

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"By moving to crush state safeguards for prediction markets in court, the CFTC is giving gambling companies a green light to prey on all Americans," said one critic.
A key federal regulatory commission has announced that it will be fighting against individual states' powers to regulate prediction markets.
Mike Selig, chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), wrote in an editorial published by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that his agency has exclusive powers to regulate prediction markets, and that it would be backing an appeal by Crypto.com aimed at overturning state regulations.
Selig, who was appointed to his post by President Donald Trump last year, said this action was necessary because the prediction markets "face an onslaught of state-driven litigation," with many states claiming that these markets are subject to their laws regulating gambling.
"The CFTC will no longer sit idly by," Selig declared, "while overzealous state governments undermine the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products."
The CTFC commissioner also disputed that prediction markets constituted gambling, saying instead that they are derivative instruments of the kind that the CFTC was given sole jurisdiction to regulate under the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act.
"These exchanges aren’t the Wild West, as some critics claim, but self-regulatory organizations that are examined and supervised by experienced CFTC staff," Selig concluded. "America is home to the most liquid and vibrant financial markets in the world because our regulators take seriously their obligation to police fraud and institute appropriate investor safeguards."
Selig's announcement was greeted with skepticism by Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director for the Demand Progress Education Fund, who warned the CFTC was making the same mistakes made by regulators that led to the 2008 global financial crisis.
"The 2008 financial crisis happened because we let bankers gamble on housing," said Peterson-Cassin. "Now the CFTC is trying to let gamblers gamble on every aspect of life. By moving to crush state safeguards for prediction markets in court, the CFTC is giving gambling companies a green light to prey on all Americans and is setting the stage for another financial crisis."
The CFTC announcement was also criticized by Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who said that state regulations for online betting markets are fundamentally different from the kinds of futures markets traditionally regulated by the commission.
"I don’t remember the CFTC having authority over the 'derivative market' of LeBron James rebounds," he wrote in a social media post. "These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling—pure and simple. They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah."
Cox further vowed to "use every resource within my disposal as governor of the sovereign state of Utah, and under the Constitution of the United States to beat you in court."
Former Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also criticized Selig for trying to interfere in the rights of states to regulate betting markets, arguing that "sports betting is not a derivative, it’s gambling."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasNews, raised suspicions about the effort to undo state regulations on betting apps and pointed to Donald Trump Jr.'s connections to popular prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi.
As reported by the New York Times last month, Trump Jr. "is both an investor in and an unpaid adviser to Polymarket, and a paid adviser to Kalshi," as well as "a director of the Trump family’s social media company, which recently announced it would start its own platform called Truth Predict."
They showed little appetite for questioning the party’s democracy-threatening turn—or much of any other right-wing orthodoxy, for that matter.
The latter half of this year brought us the first GOP debates of the 2024 election cycle. From August to December, the Republican candidates—save for frontrunner former President Donald Trump, who has refused to participate—faced off in four debates sponsored by the Republican National Committee.
Trump’s absence from all of the Republican primary debates has marginalized them in terms of their ostensible purpose of helping GOP voters choose a candidate. Far from fading out of the public’s consciousness, ABC News’ election-tracking page, FiveThirtyEight, shows that Trump has gained in the polls since the start of the debates: The day before the first debate, 52% of Republican voters said they would vote for him, a number that climbed to 61% by the fourth debate. In fact, the week after a debate often brought a surge in popularity for the former president.
The candidate who has consistently polled second—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—never surpassed 16% during the debate period, making the RNC debates more a ritual than a meaningful forum for picking a Republican standard bearer. Yet they still offered an opportunity to clarify where prominent members of the GOP stand on the most important issues to voters, and to put them on the record about Trump’s attacks on democracy. But the questions the journalist moderators asked revealed that they had little appetite for challenging the GOP’s democracy-threatening turn—or much of any other right-wing orthodoxy, for that matter.
One of the most important questions hanging over the 2024 presidential election is whether the country’s threadbare democracy will hold together in the face of GOP attacks on voting rights and rule of law, led by Trump but widely embraced in the party.
The first debate (8/23/23) was hosted by Fox News and moderated by Fox correspondents Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. The second debate (9/27/23) was hosted by Fox Business and moderated by Dana Perino and Stuart Varney from Fox News and Ilia Calderón from Univision.
NBC News hosted the third debate (11/8/23), with moderators Lester Holt and Kristen Welker of NBC and Hugh Hewitt of Salem Radio Network.
The fourth and final RNC debate (12/6/23) was hosted by NewsNation and the CW. That debate was moderated by Megyn Kelly, who hosts the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM; Elizabeth Vargas from NewsNation; and Eliana Johnson of The Washington Free Beacon.
FAIR recorded 218 questions across the four debates, assigning them to one or more issue categories. The topic that dominated every single debate was foreign policy, with 73 questions, closely followed by social issues (71), and then economics (38), non-policy (27), governance (19), immigration (16), and environment (1).
The economy is the top concern for voters overall, but especially for Republican voters (Pew, 6/21/23, Redfield & Wilton, 12/8/23), making the relative dearth of economy-related questions surprising.
The first question of the first debate (8/23/23) was about the economy, though Fox moderators Baier and MacCallum approached the topic in an unusual way: They played a montage of clips from President Joe Biden celebrating “Bidenomics,” juxtaposed with Republican voters lamenting inflation and mortgage rates.
The video concluded with a short clip of the song “Rich Men North of Richmond,” which was No. 1 on the Billboard charts at the time. MacCallum described the lyrics as rife with “alienation” and “deep frustration with the state of government and of this country.” (The song also includes an attack on “the obese milking welfare” and an apparent nod to the QAnon conspiracy theory.) She then asked DeSantis, “Why is this song striking such a nerve in this country right now? What do you think it means?”
Across all debates, the moderators asked no questions about economic policy proposals that are popular with both Democrats and Republicans but get next to no traction in the GOP or the media, like raising taxes on billionaires or raising the federal minimum wage.
The other candidates were each given an opportunity to weigh in, some with vague prompts and others with more leading ones, such as MacCallum’s question to South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott: “You have been a senator though for 10 years. So what have you done to rein in the increasing size of government?”
The second debate (9/27/23) saw a much bigger economic focus, opening with a discussion of the United Auto Workers strikes in Milwaukee. There were 15 total questions about the economy during the second debate, with subtopics ranging from surging gas prices to unaffordable childcare and economic competition with China.
NBC’s Welker (11/8/23) asked every single candidate in the third debate whether they would be “open to” cutting Social Security, leading off the questions with the framing: “Americans could see their Social Security benefits drastically cut in the next decade because the program is running out of money.”
Welker’s question repeated the longstanding media myth that Social Security is nearly bankrupt (see FAIR.org, 6/25/19). In fact, since all on-the-books workers pay into Social Security, it will never go bankrupt, though a relatively small shortfall is projected in the coming years. The shortfall could easily be fixed by removing the payroll tax cap that lets high earners exclude much of their income from the Social Security tax (CEPR, 2/28/23). And voters from both parties strongly prefer taxing the rich to cutting benefits (Data for Progress, 8/1/23)—but Welker didn’t press any of the candidates to make the rich pay their fair share.
Moderators of the fourth debate asked only three economy-related questions total. Across all debates, the moderators asked no questions about economic policy proposals that are popular with both Democrats and Republicans but get next to no traction in the GOP or the media, like raising taxes on billionaires or raising the federal minimum wage.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was asked more questions about the economy than any other candidate, despite DeSantis receiving more questions total—52 questions to Haley’s 43.

The foreign policy-related questions in the first two debates were dominated by three topics: how to “deter” China, policy towards Latin America concerning both drugs and migration, and the continuation of aid to Ukraine. During the two debates following Hamas’ October 7 attack, questions about each candidate’s approach to Israel’s assault on Gaza also became prominent.
The most frequent foreign policy topic did not have to do with either of the ongoing military campaigns in Ukraine (14 questions) or Gaza (14), both made possible with billions of dollars in funding from the United States. Rather, the spotlight fell on China, with 23 questions, nearly all of them framing China as a threat, either militarily or economically. Ten had to do with the candidates’ plans to ward off a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan. Others ranged from potential Chinese interference on TikTok, to Chinese economic and political competition, and even Chinese chemicals in fentanyl.
In one example, Baier (8/23/23) contextualized a question to North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum by citing Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, the possibility of 1,500 Chinese nuclear warheads “in the coming years,” and Chinese spies in the U.S. military. “So the question is,” Baier asked, “how would you deter China, as President Burgum?”
Twelve out of the 19 Latin America questions regarded the flow of fentanyl from Latin America into the United States. The issue of drugs coming through the southern border was one of the only topics to be brought up in questions during every single debate.
Eight of those questions mentioned the use of lethal force, either at the border or in Mexico itself, to deter dealers, which some candidates had been promising. During only one exchange—between NewsNation’s Vargas and DeSantis—did a moderator question the legality of that strategy.
According to the Pew Research Center (6/21/23), 64% of Republicans and right-leaning independents indicated drug addiction was a “very big problem” facing the country. But every question in the RNC debates about the drug crisis focused on the importation of drugs; the moderators asked zero questions about drug treatment or mental healthcare related to drug use.
The conflict in Gaza came up in two debates. In the third debate (11/8/23), NBC’s moderators asked mostly vague questions about what the candidates would tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do, though Lester Holt’s question to Haley included the only mention of anything resembling de-escalation: “Would you consider humanitarian pause, for example?” Then Holt passed the baton to Matthew Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who asked Vivek Ramaswamy what he would “say to university presidents and college presidents who have not met the moral clarity moment to forcefully condemn Hamas terrorism.”
In the fourth debate (12/6/23), the Israel/Gaza questions turned more hawkish. NewsNation’s Vargas asked multiple candidates whether they would “send in American troops” to rescue the American citizens taken hostage in Israel on October 7. The Washington Free Beacon’s Johnson then pressed Ramaswamy: “The Hamas terror attack left dozens of Americans dead and was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Why wouldn’t it be a good thing to finish Hamas?”
Moderators asked about Ukraine in three debates. In the first debate (8/23/23), the Fox hosts asked, “Is there anyone on stage who would not support the increase of more funding to Ukraine?” In the third debate, NBC’s Welker likewise asked about funding, but with a more leading set-up:
The United States has given Ukraine financial and military support since the war began more than 600 days ago. President Zelensky told me on Sunday, if Russia isn’t stopped now, “The price will be higher for the United States,” and Americans would be forced to “send your sons and daughters to defend NATO countries.”
But perhaps the most leading Ukraine question came in the second debate (9/27/23), the only Ukraine question asked in that debate. Fox‘s Perino asked DeSantis:
Today, the Republican Party is at odds over aid to Ukraine. The price tag so far is $76 billion. But is it in our best interest to degrade Russia’s military for less than 5% of what we pay annually on defense, especially when there are no U.S. soldiers in the fight?
This came after an ad by Republicans for Ukraine, and echoed the argument of the ad (Daily Kos, 9/28/23).

FAIR categorized as “social issues” a number of topics, which included criminal justice (20), abortion (14), LGBTQ issues (10), education (10), healthcare (7), social media (7), race (5), and religion (2).
The low number of healthcare questions was striking, given that the Pew poll found the second most important issue among U.S. voters to be the affordability of healthcare, with 64% of respondents indicating it was a “very big problem.” Among Republican and right-leaning independent voters specifically, this percentage drops down to 54%—lower, but still the majority of conservative voters.
DeSantis was the only candidate asked about health insurance on two different occasions; both questions pointed out Florida’s high rate of uninsured people.
The abortion questions were overwhelmingly framed in terms of the issue’s impact on Republicans—as a “losing issue”—and asked how candidates could find a winning “path forward.” Only one question alluded to the impact of abortion policy on pregnant people, and even that was framed electorally, when Fox’s MacCallum (8/23/23) asked Haley:
Abortion has been a losing issue for Republicans since the Dobbs decision. In six state referendums, all have upheld abortion rights in this country. And even in red states, there are more swing state referendums that are coming up as we head into the elections, as well on this. So, Governor Haley, what do you say to your party and to your state, which today confirmed a six-week abortion law as well, especially the impact on women suburban voters across this country?
Moderators occasionally asked questions that challenged GOP talking points on social issues. Univision’s Calderon (9/27/23), for instance, pushed Burgum on gun violence:
For the first time ever, a Univision poll found that mass shootings and gun safety are one of the most important issues for Latino voters. Mental health concerns are not unique to the United States, but gun violence is. What is your specific plan to curb gun violence?
But many questions and their lead-ins were strongly skewed to the right, as when SiriusXM’s Kelly (12/6/23) posed this LGBTQ-related question to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie:
Governor Christie, you do not favor a ban on trans medical treatments for minors, saying it’s a parental rights issue. The surgeries done on minors involve cutting off body parts, at a time when these kids cannot even legally smoke a cigarette. Kids who go from puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones are at a much greater likelihood of winding up sterile. How is it that you think a parent should be able to OK these surgeries, nevermind the sterilization of a child, and aren’t you way too out of step on this issue to be the Republican nominee?
Similarly, Fox’s Baier and MacCallum larded a question to former Vice President Mike Pence (8/23/23) with misleading right-wing talking points about crime, homelessness, and lockdowns:
Murders in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, all up 30% between 2019 and 2022. Homelessness is up 11%, the largest jump in recorded history. Vice President Pence, a lot of this began in the Covid era. How much of what we are seeing happening around this country is a result of those Covid lockdowns? And is your administration in part to blame for how we got here?
Studies have found no positive correlation between Covid restrictions and homicide rates (e.g., Criminology and Public Policy, 8/21; Statistics and Public Policy, 6/22).
Meanwhile, homelessness had been on the rise pre-Covid, and actually leveled off during the pandemic—when federal aid and eviction moratoriums helped keep people in their homes, despite rising housing costs. It has only spiked again now that that aid has run out (NPR, 12/15/23).
Rather than use their only reference to homelessness across four debates to attack Covid lockdowns, the moderators might have more usefully asked Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson why he turned away federal Emergency Rental Assistance funding last year when evictions were soaring in his state (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/22/22).
One of the most important questions hanging over the 2024 presidential election is whether the country’s threadbare democracy will hold together in the face of GOP attacks on voting rights and rule of law, led by Trump but widely embraced in the party. Yet the moderators asked only 19 questions about governance, only 10 of which touched on this core issue—and nine of those came in the first debate.
Baier noted that all candidates had signed a pledge (required by the RNC for participation in the debates) to support the eventual party nominee, and asked for a show of hands of those who would still support Trump if he were “convicted in a court of law.” (All of the candidates except for former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Hutchinson indicated they would.) He asked three candidates to explain their position, and, as a follow-up, MacCallum asked five of the candidates whether Pence “did the right thing on January 6″—referring to his certification of the election.
The 10th question about election integrity was not asked until the fourth debate (12/6/23), by guest questioner Tom Fitton of the right-wing activist group Judicial Watch, who offered an unsurprising right-wing spin:
Many Republicans are concerned about the legitimacy of elections. A federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania must count undated mail-in ballots, and, unlike Alabama, many states still don’t require any identification to vote. What should states do now to increase election integrity and voter confidence for the 2024 election?
One of the most striking things almost entirely ignored in the debates was the climate crisis. Across all four debates, a single question was asked about the issue, and not by a journalist moderator but a guest questioner, Alexander Diaz from Young America’s Foundation, during the first debate (8/23/23):
Polls consistently show that young people’s No. 1 issue is climate change. How would you, as both president of the United States and leader of the Republican Party, calm their fears that the Republican Party doesn’t care about climate change?
But rather than asking candidates to answer Diaz’s question, Fox’s MacCallum reframed it: “So, we want to start on this with a show of hands. Do you believe in human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”
After DeSantis jumped in to try to thwart the hand-raising exercise and redirect the conversation away from the climate crisis, pharmaceutical executive Ramaswamy interrupted to announce, “I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this—the climate change agenda is a hoax.” He added that “more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”
Fox’s Baier, rather than focusing on Ramaswamy’s outrageous climate claims, proceeded to ask Haley and Scott whether they were “bought and paid for”—and then went to a commercial break, bringing the climate conversation to an abrupt end.
Even in 2015 the Republican primary debates featured more climate questions, with six across four debates (FAIR.org, 12/14/15).
Moderators, especially in the earlier debates, seemed especially interested in hearing from DeSantis. In the first debate, Fox’s Baier and MacCallum singled out DeSantis nearly twice as much as any other single candidate, with 10 direct questions, compared to most other candidates’ six.
Despite this apparent tilt in DeSantis’ favor, recaps of the debate from mainstream media mostly expressed disappointment about his performance. Politico (8/24/23) wrote that DeSantis “faded into the crowd” in their summary of the night, while Vox (8/24/23) noted that he was “hardly ever the center of attention.” The Hill (8/24/23) reported: “DeSantis arrived in Milwaukee needing a big night. He didn’t get it.”
Things evened out considerably during the second debate, though DeSantis still came away with the most direct questions.
Haley, who gained the most in the polls over the course of the four debates, and DeSantis received 14 questions apiece during the third debate. The NBC-hosted debate was, in general, a much more level playing field between all of the candidates, perhaps because fewer candidates meant more time for each one; almost every question was fielded to the whole slate of candidates. Tim Scott followed close behind DeSantis and Haley with 13 direct questions, while Christie and Ramaswamy took 11 questions each.
Though DeSantis’ lead over the others on stage had narrowed substantially by the fourth and final debate, he once again pulled away with the most direct questions from the moderators (13). The other three candidates were all addressed roughly the same amount of times—Nikki Haley got nine questions from the moderators, Chris Christie got eight, and Vivek Ramaswamy came away with seven.
Should he somehow, despite four criminal indictments and multiple trials, return to the White House on January 20, 2025, we can’t say we weren’t warned.
On February 19, 1942, two months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. It initiated a Department of Defense program that resulted in the rounding up and incarceration of about 122,000 individuals of Japanese descent. They were to be placed in federal “relocation centers” that would popularly become known as “internment camps.” As it happened, they were neither. They were prisons set up to house and so violate the civil and human rights of a despised and racially different group defined as “the enemy.”
Although that executive order did not, in fact, mention a specific ethnic or racial group, it was clearly understood that the prisons were not being established for citizens or residents of German or Italian descent, the other two nations then at war with the United States. While not a single person of Japanese ancestry was found to have spied on this country or to have committed acts of sabotage against it, pro-Mussolini and pro-Hitler demonstrations, rallies, and propaganda had been commonplace. Before the war, fascist groups had been allowed to organize and spread propaganda from coast to coast. Some even had influence over and alliances with members of Congress, mainstream journalists, and well-known scholars.
Such a travesty of justice was not just being pushed by Roosevelt, one of the most liberal presidents in American history, but by notables like California judge Earl Warren (later to become a liberal Supreme Court justice) and renowned journalist Edward R. Murrow.
It’s important to keep this history in mind since Donald Trump and his MAGA associates are planning to emulate it on a grand scale in a second (and what they hope will be a never-ending) administration.
Although lawsuits challenging the prison camps were filed, the Supreme Court allowed them to continue to operate. More than half of those incarcerated were U.S. citizens. None had been charged with any crimes. Often under the banner (made popular again in our time) of “America First,” far-right, racist policies had been put in place and millions suffered from them.
The openly discussed basis for unity in those years was, at least in part, opposition to non-Aryans and non-Protestants, whether they were Japanese, Jewish, or African American.
In 1981, 36 years after World War II ended with the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities, a Presidential Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians issued a report making clear that the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent in such striking numbers “was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions which followed from it… were not driven by analysis of military conditions. The broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”
It’s important to keep this history in mind since Donald Trump and his MAGA associates are planning to emulate it on a grand scale in a second (and what they hope will be a never-ending) administration. Promises of new “camps,” should The Donald be elected a second time in 2024, are already pouring out of Trumpworld. These would be “huge camps” for migrants near the border with Mexico, as The New York Times reported recently, “to detain people while their cases are processed and they await deportation flights.” To ensure that Congress has no direct role in funding them, they will be built and operated with money taken directly from the military budget.
Just to be clear, Trump isn’t against all immigrants. Anything but. After all, he married two, one from the Czech Republic and the other from Slovenia, countries that most Americans would have to google to find on a map of Europe. Instead, the targets of the pending Trumpian anti-immigrant tsunami will, of course, be individuals and families from the Global South. The racism embedded in such a future effort isn’t beside the point, it is the point.
Trump’s former adviser and fellow xenophobe, Stephen Miller, stated that such a new administration would build “camps”—think: prisons—that could house up to a million undocumented immigrants while preparing them for mass deportations. As he told The New York Times, “Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown. The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”
When Trump tells his followers that “Our cruel and vindictive political class is not just coming after me—they are coming after YOU,” he means that he hates the very same people they do.
And rest assured about one thing: The next Trump administration won’t just go after undocumented immigrants trying to enter the country. It will build an unprecedented gulag system to round up and deport millions of people of color, one that would be unimaginable if those undocumented immigrants came from Canada or Denmark. The Trump gang has stated that they will end TPS (temporary protected status), reinstate the former president’s Muslim ban, reimpose and expand health restrictions on asylum seekers, revoke visas for foreign students who participated in protests against recent Israeli actions, shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and deport immigrants who had been allowed into the United States for humanitarian reasons.
Mind you, Trump proposed or tried to institute much of this while still in office, only to be thwarted by his administration’s ineptitude, Democratic resistance, grassroots organizing, and the courts. If, in the wake of the 2024 election, the GOP were to gain control over both chambers of Congress as well as the White House—a formula that would ensure the appointment of ever more Trump-friendly federal judges—success (as he defines it) will be a given for many of these efforts.
When Trump tells his followers that “Our cruel and vindictive political class is not just coming after me—they are coming after YOU,” he means that he hates the very same people they do and will provide the retribution for all the harm supposedly done to them by immigrants (of color), Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native peoples, feminists, and other enemies.
While Trump is the likely GOP nominee in 2024, the election is still a year away and any number of unforeseen developments could lead to someone else being nominated. At this moment, the other potential Republican candidates are Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, business executive Vivek Ramaswamy, and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie excepted, there isn’t a sliver of policy difference between any of them and Trump. And notably, Christie supported Trump for nearly all of his administration. In addition, each of them would need the former president’s far-right MAGA base to win the nomination.
Trump’s people have cloaked themselves in an “America First” aura without in any way owning that as a meme. In fact, it harks back both to the second rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and the American fascist movement of the 1930s. By the mid-1920s, the KKK had ballooned to between 3 and 8 million members and, as scholar Sarah Churchwell notes in her remarkable book Behold, America: A History of America First and the American Dream, it had already adopted “America First” as a motto.
While both Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and Republican Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge had used the term earlier to promote American isolationism, nativism, and “exceptionalism,” it was the KKK that truly embraced its white supremacist core ethos. As one example, 1,400 Klansmen chanted “America First” as they marched in a Memorial Day parade in Queens, New York, in 1927. And consider it more than ironic that, as Churchwell documents, their presence evolved into a riot that led to the arrests of five Klansmen, one bystander (by mistake), and under circumstances that remain less than clear, Fred Trump, the father of the future 45th president of the United States.
Like fascists and racists of old, Donald Trump and the America First crowd are demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents.
In 1940, the America First Committee (AFC) was founded. At its height, it would have more than 800,000 members. Initially, it was seen as isolationist—that is, against American entry into the war already being waged in Europe—and even anti-imperialist. As a result, its ranks initially included liberals, progressives, and socialists, as well as conservatives, libertarians, and avowed fascists. The latter, however, would eventually come to dominate, especially after the nation’s leading antisemite and pro-Hitler celebrity, pilot Charles Lindbergh, became its most popular spokesperson. The fascist-loving AFC then joined other U.S.-based far-right groups in celebrating German nazism and Italian fascism, while making America First their rallying cry.
Of course, the historically challenged Donald Trump undoubtedly doesn’t know much, if anything, about this history. But give him full credit. From the beginning, with the instincts of both a fascist and a white nationalist, he intuitively grasped the mobilizing value of seemingly patriotic but xenophobic slogans. Count on one thing, though: Some of his allies know all about the noxious roots of “America First” and still embrace it. Such jingoistic patriotism has, in fact, become a thinly veiled cover for a revised and expansive contemporary version of white nationalism.
The proliferation of America First groups run by former Trump staffers and supporters is daunting. The dizzying array of them includes America First Legal, America First Action, America First Policies, America First Policy Institute, America First P.A.C.T. (Protecting America’s Constitution and Traditions), America First Foundation/America First Political Action Conference, and America First 2.0, the latter a contribution from Republican presidential aspirant Vivek Ramaswamy.
America First Legal is run by Stephen Miller and promotes itself as an alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union, but its deepest focus is on defending whiteness and amplifying Miller’s white nationalist proclivities. During the 2022 midterm election cycle, it typically produced radio and television ads like this fact-free one:
When did racism against white people become OK? Joe Biden put white people last in line for Covid relief funds. Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to non-white citizens first. Liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color. Progressive corporations, airlines, universities all openly discriminate against white Americans. Racism is always wrong. The left’s anti-white bigotry must stop. We are all entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Decrying (fake) racism against whites fits well with Trump’s hysterical, desperate accusations that Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg are all “racists” out to prosecute him because he’s white, not because he broke the law in their jurisdictions. (So far, none of Trump’s Black supporters have echoed that call—perhaps a bridge too far even for them—but Miller and others on the far right certainly have.)
Linda McMahon, former head of the Small Business Administration under Trump, is now the president of the America First Policy Institute, which claims that its guiding principles are “liberty, free enterprise, national greatness, American military superiority, foreign-policy engagement in the American interest, and the primacy of American workers, families, and communities in all we do.” That well-funded group takes on policy and culture war issues. You undoubtedly won’t be surprised to learn that it recently held a gala at—yes!—Mar-a-Lago.
The America First P.A.C.T., led by former Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward, focuses on running state candidates on a far-right MAGA agenda and prioritizes raising funds for GOP candidates. Blasted across its website is the phrase “A weak Republican is more dangerous than a Democrat.” Ward is under investigation in Arizona for her alleged involvement in a 2022 fake-elector plot there.
Perhaps this country’s best-known white nationalist (and former Trump dinner guest) Nick Fuentes is the founder and president of the America First Foundation. It sponsors the annual America First Political Action Conference, an unabashed gathering of white supremacists and other far-right and extremist elements. Fuentes founded AFPAC because he thought the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was too moderate. However, the political distance between the more traditional CPAC and AFPAC has narrowed. Noted Islamophobe Michelle Malkin, for example, spoke at both in 2019, as did conservative journalist Jon Miller in 2020. Neither Malkin, who is Asian, nor Miller, who is African American, called out Fuentes and other bigots at the conferences on their racism.
The 2022 AFPAC conference featured a who’s who of contemporary American extremists, including disgraced former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, defeated Arizona election-denier Kari Lake, longtime founder and publisher of the white supremacist American Renaissance Jared Taylor, Florida-based Islamophobe and anti-immigrant warrior Laura Loomer, extremist activist Milo Yiannopoulos, and former too-toxic-for-even-the-House-Republicans Representative Steve King. Current Republican congress members who have spoken at AFPAC include (you undoubtedly won’t be surprised to learn) Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar.
Like fascists and racists of old, Donald Trump and the America First crowd are demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents. In October 1923, Klan leader and Imperial Wizard Hiram Evans gave a fiery anti-immigrant speech in Texas railing against the “polluting streams of pollution from abroad” that immigrants were bringing to the United States. This October, exactly 100 years later, Trump gave an interview to the far-right National Pulse in which he declared that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
In his 2024 campaign, he’s not only planning to go after immigrants, but a broader group of liberal and progressive citizens and even Republicans who stand in the way of his fevered lust for heading a genuinely authoritarian government. If he returns to the Oval Office, he’s already declared that he’ll “root out” what he’s called “communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”
“Vermin” (a classic Hitlerian word choice) and those who would “poison” the nation must be wiped out, annihilated. Responding to criticism of such language, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the very notion “ridiculous,” even as he reinforced the point by insisting that the former president’s critics suffered from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and “their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”
None of what Trump and his allies plan to do is likely to be passively accepted. In fact, they’re already anticipating a massive popular revolt and preparing for it. As The Wall Street Journal noted, in 2020 Trump first contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to employ the military to enforce federal laws under special circumstances, to break up protests related to the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans by the police and racists. He was talked down. Its use was then suggested by Trump ally Roger Stone and evidently considered by the president as a way to “put down” any “leftwing protests” related to the 2020 election. Again, the idea went nowhere.
The third time, however, could be the deadly charm. The Washington Post has reported that Trump is now considering invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office. One thing is certain: Should he somehow, despite four criminal indictments and multiple trials, return to the White House on January 20, 2025, we can’t say we weren’t warned.
It seems pretty safe to wager that if a Republican wins in 2024, they will be starting up a new conflict with any one of the countries mentioned in the third Republican primary debate Wednesday night.
If there was ever any doubt that Republicans running for president in 2024 will start up another needless war, let that myth be dispelled after the third GOP debate. Whether it’s North Korea, China, Mexico, Iran, Russia, or Venezuela, one major distinction between the candidates seems to be which country they’ll bomb first.
Off the bat, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott shredded “diplomacy only” as a “weak” strategy, saying “appeasement” leads to war. Scott vowed that if elected president, he would “cut the head off the snake” by bombing Iran: “My foreign policy is simple. You cannot negotiate with evil, you have to destroy it.”
Nikki Haley, a former board member at Boeing, echoed Scott’s dream of kicking off another catastrophic war in the Middle East and claimed that without Iran, there would be no Hamas in Gaza, no Hezbollah in Lebanon, no Houthis in Yemen, and no “Iranian militias” in Syria and Iraq to target U.S. troops still occupying both countries.
If mentions are any indicator as to which country is next on America’s long imperial hit list, it would be China.
Vivek Ramaswamy tried to differentiate himself from the hawks by offering a brief monologue about neoconservative wars in Iraq and Syria, yet still neglected to use his platform to call for pulling troops from either country.
Instead, he spent a portion of his time on the debate stage defending Israel’s “right to defend itself”—a phrase which has essentially become a euphemism for Israel’s “right” to bomb and kill with total impunity. According to Ramaswamy, Israel should “smoke terrorists” on their southern border, while in the U.S., he plans to do the same to “terrorists” along the border with Mexico.
Ramaswamy has also made it clear in past comments that he would launch strikes inside Mexico with—or without—the country’s permission, a sentiment shared by his more openly hawkish counterpart, Nikki Haley.
Asked what her colleagues at the United Nations would think if her administration launched U.S. attacks inside Mexico without approval from the country’s government, she scoffed and openly admitted she “doesn’t care.”
Likewise, Florida Governor Ron Desantis was also curling his heel-covered toes with absolute joy at the thought of what would likely become a U.S. war with Mexico, openly stating his intent to send U.S. troops to the border: “I’m going to stop the invasion cold,” he said. “I am going to deport people who came illegally, and I’m even going to build the border wall and have Mexico pay for it like Donald Trump promised.”
Additionally, Desantis said he would “turn the screws” on oil-rich Venezuela and reinstate economic sanctions against the country, all while emphasizing that he believes the “top threat” facing the U.S. comes from China.
The other GOP candidates appeared to share his fear.
On at least two separate occasions, Ramaswamy referred to China as “our enemy” and promised to “get tough” with them once the U.S. declares “economic independence.” Ramaswamy also provided what was an otherwise accurate critique of Ukraine’s failing democratic values, but then proceeded to condemn U.S. involvement in the war because it is “driving Russia into China’s hands.”
Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie labeled China, along with Iran, Russia, and North Korea, as part of the “Evil Foursome” while warning that if it isn’t stopped, Russia would try to “put the old band back together” and invade Poland.
And Nikki Haley called for arming Taiwan to deter China and bragged about how she once negotiated with both China and Russia to impose the “largest set of sanctions against North Korea in a generation.”
If mentions are any indicator as to which country is next on America’s long imperial hit list, it would be China. According to a debate transcript, China was mentioned by name approximately 61 times. Iran was a close second, coming in at 31. Following these, Russia came in at 21, Mexico at 11, Venezuela at 10, and North Korea at two.
In any case, it seems pretty safe to wager that if a Republican wins in 2024, they will be starting up a new conflict with any one of these countries—assuming, of course, Biden and the blue wing of the two-party war machine doesn’t beat them to it first.
This piece was originally published in The Screeching Kettle.
As traditional pensions continue to disappear, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.
On Labor Day, we celebrate the contributions of workers. The best way to honor those contributions is to increase their economic security. A key component of economic security is retirement security, which we can substantially improve by protecting and expanding Social Security for current and future generations of American workers.
Social Security and Medicare are deferred compensation. Just as we earn our current cash compensation, we earn our Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck. Sadly, too often these earnings are inadequate.
Today’s workers are facing a retirement income crisis, where too many will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. As traditional pensions continue to disappear, replaced (if they are) by riskier, less reliable, inadequate 401(k)s, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.
While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.
Social Security has many strengths. It is extremely efficient, secure, nearly universal, excellent for both long-term and mobile workers, and fair. Its one shortcoming is that its benefits are too low. By expanding those modest Social Security benefits, we are renewing our promise to workers and promoting the security of all American workers for generations to come.
In recognition of Social Security’s increasing importance for workers and their families, several bills have been introduced during this Congress to expand Social Security’s modest benefits.
Representative John Larson’s (D-Conn.) Social Security 2100 Act, which has over 175 cosponsors, would increase benefits across-the-board for all current and future Social Security beneficiaries. It would improve the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) to better match the true costs that seniors face. The bill would improve benefits for widows and widowers, students, children living with grandparents, public servants, the most elderly Americans, lower-income seniors, those with disabilities, students, and more. And it pays for all of this by making the wealthy finally pay their fair share.
Similarly, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have introduced the Social Security Expansion Act. Their proposal would increase Social Security benefits across-the-board by $200 a month and update the way that COLAs are determined to better reflect the costs seniors and other beneficiaries face. Further, it would update and increase the minimum Social Security benefit and restore student benefits. Again, it would pay for all of these increases and restore Social Security to long-range actuarial balance by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.
Additional bills that would make positive changes to Social Security have been introduced as well. All of these bills not only address our nation’s looming retirement income crisis, but other challenges as well, including rising income and wealth inequality. In fact, rising inequality has cost Social Security billions of dollars each year. Those are billions of dollars that should go to expanding Social Security.
While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.
As president, Trump released budget proposals that would cut Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office. He even attempted to defund Social Security by threatening to eliminate the system’s primary dedicated revenue source, payroll contributions. And, after leaving office, he stated that Social Security cuts are on the agenda if he is elected to a second term.
The other Republican presidential candidates are even more open about their designs on our earned Social Security. Former Vice President Mike Pence wants to raise the retirement age for younger Americans and privatize Social Security. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security, and he wants to subject our earned Social Security benefits to a means test, transforming them from deferred compensation to welfare.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott both supported Paul Ryan’s infamous Social Security and Medicare-cutting budget proposals when they were in Congress. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley also wants to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security. Vivek Ramaswamy wants to get rid of civil service protections and fire 75% of federal employees. Imagine trying to get help from the Social Security Administration under a President Ramaswamy, with up to three-quarters of the SSA staff missing and out of action.
This is a moment to build upon the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the other founders of our visionary Social Security system, not a moment to undo the vast, essential gains to workers’ economic security represented by Social Security. The choice in the upcoming presidential election could not be starker.
Every generation has built on the strong foundation laid down 88 years ago, when Roosevelt—and his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (the first woman ever to serve in a presidential cabinet)—shepherded Social Security into law. Now it is our turn. Expanding Social Security is the best way to honor our nation’s workers in the Labor Days to follow this one.
It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest, each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
The 2024 Republican primary officially kicked off on August 23—my birthday—with its first presidential debate. It’s been comical to see headlines about the debate’s “biggest highlights.” Biggest highlights? Were there that many to choose from? You could make a more appealing “highlight” reel from a dentist’s video of the bacteria in your gums.
Pundits might describe the debate as a circus. That’s unfair to the Big Top. It wasn’t a circus. It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest. Each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
(A friend of my wife’s once had an astonishingly ugly dog, with a body like a moldy potato and a Picasso-esque nightmare head. He had eyes in different quadrants of his face and a single tooth that might have been passed around by the Furies of Greek mythology. But I digress.)
They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill.
While the GOP candidates had a certain vulpine quality, they seemed to lack the empathy inherent in canines and some humans. Their mirror neurons have rusted over so badly they must look like old beer cans in sea water.
Their words and demeanor were, by any objective standard, abnormal. Their presentation was utterly detached from real people and real-life problems. And yet, they were taken seriously by pundits and politicians. That reflects a deep social psychosis, a detachment from reality so profound it would call for clinical treatment in a human being.
I didn’t watch the debate on my birthday—what a grim augury for the year that would have been—but now I have. I will live with these memories forever. Seeing these characters arrayed from left to right was like those M.C. Escher drawings of staircases where, no matter which way you go, you’re always headed down.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House as he accepted the resignation of Nikki Haley as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on October 9, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)“I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House,” Nikki Haley told the audience, which means she’s cornered the vision thing. “Our kids are never going to forgive us” for emergency Covid-19 spending, she added, a statement that’s not only implausible but requires our kids to be alive.
I saw Haley address a conservative women’s dinner a while back. Her speech was typical right-wing red meat, the kind she served up when she ran for governor with the backing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Haley hewed to xenophobic tropes, dismissing the United Nations as a “club” and diplomatic norms as “a culture.”
“When I first came to the U.N.,” Haley said, “I told my colleagues that the United States was taking names. Taking names of the countries that didn’t have our back.” That seems like an unnecessary bookkeeping chore. Why not put down the pencil and pad and just look up the countries we’ve bombed and sanctioned?
The media loves to treat Haley with legitimacy because she’s a former U.N. Ambassador. But she was reprimanded in that job by a federal ethics watchdog for improperly endorsing a political candidate as a political appointee. An independent ethics group also called for an investigation of Haley’s flights on wealthy executives’ private jets, a perk whose value she reportedly failed to fully disclose.
And yet, for all her extremism and questionable ethics, Haley can still seen like a class act—at least, compared to the other guys. Like, for example...

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaks.
(Photo: AP/Rich Schultz)
Him again? We’ve seen his schtick before. Sure, it’s fun to hear him attack former President Donald Trump, although he didn’t do much of that in the debate. And yes, he’s funnier and slightly more watchable than the others, but that’s because he makes fun of people. He’s the political equivalent of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. But Triumph is funnier and has better politics.
Back in 2012 I wrote about Christie’s hostility to women, his servility toward lobbyists, and his overall nastiness. Please don’t make me do it again. Christie displayed utter contempt toward working people that year, insulting the jobless and the elderly. As governor, he was a bully and probably corrupt.
Nothing has changed since then, except his newfound tendency to insult other Republicans. He should stick to that.

Vivek Ramaswamy speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/ via Wikipedia)
Back in 1961 in Utica, New York, there was a little kid—we’ll call him “Brucie”—who went from house to house singing a song called “Artificial Flowers” for all the moms in their kitchens. If that sounds like it might be a bad song, friend, you don’t know the half of it. It was about a poor little orphan girl who survives by selling those flowers—but not for long, what with (spoiler alert!) winter coming on and all. All the moms would “ooh” and “aah” over crooning little Brucie.
All of ‘em except my mom, that is. Her face, God love her, was a grim mask as she endured the maudlin tune. The compliment she finally mustered was transparently insincere. Not that it mattered. Brucie was extremely pleased with his performance; the possibility that anyone else might feel differently never crossed his mind.
Which brings us to Vivek Ramaswamy.
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night.
Ramaswamy is a salesman, a hustler, a pitchman. What he sells is as artificial as the orphan girl’s flowers. Sure, he hits all the right buttons for a conservative crowd, which means he says things that are clinically insane. But who knows what he really thinks? He’s all nerve ends, and the signals coursing through each one of them spell out “always be closing” in Morse code.
Also, he’s a phony. “My parents came to this country with no money 40 years ago,” he said. “I have gone on to found multibillion-dollar companies.” He leaves out the part about his father and mother being well-to-do professionals during his childhood—his father as an engineer and patent attorney for General Electric and his mother as a psychiatrist—and he omits his fancy education at a private high school, Harvard, and then Yale Law School.
Vivek constantly says things like, “I’m not a politician. I’m an entrepreneur.” That’s like the flu product whose advertising says it was “invented by a teacher, not a doctor.” It sounds good until you think about it for a second.
An entrepreneur is the last thing we should want for a president. That is, unless you think the problem with our politics is that there’s too much substance and too little salesmanship...
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night. But Vivek doesn’t just talk like an AI output. His entire being seems like something you’d get by typing a few phrases into an AI program—phrases like “insufferability incarnate,” “unwarranted self-love,” “Dr. Sardonicus death-rictus smile,” “the kid everybody hated in junior high,” and, “what’s with the hair?”
Said young Vivek:
“This isn’t that complicated, guys, unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal and embrace nuclear, put people back to work by no longer paying them more to stay at home, reform the U.S. Fed, stabilize the U.S. dollar, and go to war.”
With that sentence, Ramaswamy finally outpaced Mike Pence in the category of “Most likely to portray the Antichrist in a direct-to-video movie.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence gives a speech.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6. But then there’s the rest of his life, which shouldn’t be left out of the conversation. Besides, obeying the law doesn’t make somebody qualified for the presidency. It doesn’t even make them a good person, necessarily. Deterrence theory relies heavily on fear of punishment, and if there’s one thing that shines through Pence’s personality it’s fear of punishment—divine and otherwise.
Pence has a long record of right-wing extremism and the forceful insertion of his private religious beliefs into the public sphere.
Poor ol’ Mike was his usual joyless self in the debate. He isn’t just wrong; he’s also, unfortunately, quite dull. (His court testimony, however, should be interesting.)

Senator Tim Scott speaks with then-President Donald Trump in 2017.
(Photo: The White House/ via Wikipedia)
“I regard all life as sacred,” Tim Scott says via his website. Then he says, “I will rebuild a military so lethal and powerful that our adversaries will fear us and our allies will respect us.”
And yet: Scott maligns lifesaving programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as “the entitlement state” and says things like, “We have to wrestle this beast to the ground.” Apparently, some lives are more sacred than others.
That privileged group includes insurance executives. While calling to tame the costs of “entitlements,” Scott sided with other Republicans to protect the siphoning off of Medicare funds to private wealth under the so-called “Medicare Advantage” scheme.
For all the hype—if you can call Scott’s sporadic coverage “hype”—it turns out he’s just a typical Republican.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks in North Carolina.
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)Do we have to? Oh, okay. Everybody knows what he’s been up to in Florida, so we’ll stick to his debate performance.
It was sad.
On Wednesday night, DeSantis mentioned yet again that he was “deployed with the Navy SEALS in Iraq.” Naturally, that left everyone with the impression that he was a Navy SEAL. He wasn’t. The elite-educated DeSantis served as an attorney, not a combat soldier.
By choosing his words carefully enough to leave a false impression without actually lying, DeSantis sounded like a fighter but demonstrated what he really is: a lawyer.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks before a meeting of the Republican Party of Orange County.
(Photo: Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)Somebody said that Asa Hutchinson seems like a decent man.
You mean the Asa Hutchinson who pandered to Islamophobic bigotry by pledging to close his state to innocent Syrian refugees? The Asa Hutchinson who, after serving in the Department of Homeland Security, made a million dollars with a secretive company that trades with that department? The Hutchinson who carried out a hasty and chaotic spree of death row executions in his state soon after taking office, almost certainly killing at least one innocent man? Who urged businesses not to comply with mandated protections to public health and worker safety and dictatorially forbade local communities from democratically deciding how to protect their own health?
You mean that Asa Hutchinson?
“Decent” is not a synonym for “occasionally takes a break from doing execrable things.”
Nah.

Donald Trump speaks
(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)As the debate groaned on, Tucker Carlson released a one-on-one interview with Donald Trump where, like any good wingman, he made his alpha pal look good by making himself even less attractive. Carlson lobbed extremely crazy statements to Trump, whose responses—being merely very crazy—looked sane by comparison. But crazy is as crazy does.
Incidentally, these comments aren’t personal. Nikki Haley and her compatriots were very nice at that dinner. Some of the Republican senators and representatives I’ve met have been nice, too. Hey, I was on Tucker’s program once and I even liked him, just as I’ve liked other Fox hosts. (Not you, though, Hannity.)
But their public personae are—politically, historically, existentially—who they really are. And what they really are is bad. They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill. It’s insane to treat them like serious political figures. That our media and political cultures do so reflects a profound societal sickness.
If Trump doesn’t lead his party again next year, one of these yo-yos probably will. The fact that the Democrats could lose to them—which they could—says more about the state of our nation than many of us would ever care to know. That’s understandable. After all, to see insanity is to risk becoming insane yourself.
PS: I apologize to ugly dogs everywhere, including my wife’s friend’s dog. He was a good boy.
His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway.
It’s election season, and the leading candidates for president are barnstorming from state to state on the stump-speech circuit. Or, in the case of former president Donald Trump, to keep court dates.
As they say: priorities.
Trump was indicted last week, along with 18 other defendants, in Fulton County, Georgia. That makes the fourth jurisdiction in which the former president is facing criminal penalties, following the cases in Washington, D.C., where he was charged in federal court with conspiracy to overturn the election (four counts), and in Florida for illegally possessing classified documents (40 counts, including superseding indictments, for obstructing the government’s efforts to get them back), and in New York for paying off an adult film star to cover up an affair (34 counts of falsifying business records).
In Georgia, Trump himself faces 13 counts in the latest indictment, out of 41 total charges that also target 18 co-defendants. Trump’s charges include violating Georgia’s racketeering laws, and several that stem from the conspiracy to submit a false slate of electors to the Electoral College—and which also include the “absolutely perfect phone call” to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome of the election.
If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
Among the flurry of indictments and addenda and superseding indictments, it’s hard to keep track of which ones are important. The answer is that all of them are vitally important. If four indictments seem excessive, it’s because Donald Trump was excessive in committing crimes in multiple jurisdictions.
In the words of another former president, Trump is in deep doo-doo. But that doesn’t mean we can let down our guard.
We need to come to terms with an uncomfortable truth: the fact that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. His ability to campaign may be limited by his legal woes, but his supporters will vote for him anyway. We’re entering a presidential election phase where the Biden-vs.-Trump rematch is 99% certain, and that 1% hedge has only to do with both candidates being decades older than the average American president.
No viable candidate is going to emerge on the Democratic side to challenge an incumbent president with a largely successful term in office under his belt. First, we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a new darling of the right whose dangerous anti-vaccine crusade has been shown to be just the surface of his conspiracy-mongering and transphobia. Second, we have Marianne Williamson, whose “politics of love” nonetheless failed to win over American hearts in 2020, and whose own views on vaccines are likewise suspect, even if they’ve since been eclipsed by those of RFK Jr.
And it’s been obvious from day one that the Republican Party is setting itself up to repeat the 2015 primary race, where Trump picks off, one by one, a large number of third-tier politicians too cowardly to challenge him directly. Just as in 2015, he won’t even need a majority of the Republican vote, because he’s the only candidate who will have more than 20% to begin with.
(The one possible exception to this is former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he’s in the race specifically to try to take Trump down. More power to him if he does, because no one can defeat Trump by ignoring him—he has to be confronted head-on and destroyed. Maybe Christie is the one to do that, but I’m still waiting for evidence.)
In 2023 though, Trump’s already polling well above 50% among Republicans, despite the indictments. That’s because the GOP since 2015 has largely purged itself of its establishment wing, leaving the extremists in control. (Meanwhile, 53% of Americans actually approve of the indictments, and they may be hurting Trump’s overall favorability as the campaign season begins.)
And, while the indictments seem to be fueling a modest dip in Trump’s national polling numbers, the indictments are boosting his polling numbers within the Republican primary. That’s because his followers believe, with all the fervent religiosity of cult members, that the Big Bad Woke Government is persecuting loyal, patriotic Republicans. The charges only feed their persecution complex, which is what feeds the hand-wringing commentators urging us not to prosecute Trump, out of fear of what his supporters will do. As if his supporters haven’t already tried to violently overthrow the government.
Let’s disabuse ourselves of another fantasy. Even if Trump goes to prison because he’s found guilty, or he’s put in jail for contempt by a judge who refuses to tolerate his taunts and threats, he will continue running for president, he will win the GOP nomination, and he could indeed be reelected. There ought to be a law, but there isn’t. The narrowly divided Congress has been unable to do the sensible thing and pass legislation barring him under the 14th Amendment from holding public office, or even just in response to his two impeachments.
I wouldn’t put much stock in the recent “conservative argument for barring Trump” articles either. They’re interesting arguments, and the law professors making the case are perhaps even correct that the 14th Amendment prohibition is automatic, with no Congressional action needed. But most state GOP officials who have the power to boot Trump from the ballot aren’t going to do that without a court order, and this is a party that has increasingly shown its willingness to ignore the law entirely.
This doesn’t mean Trump won’t eventually go to prison. But it’s very unlikely to happen before the next election, given the inevitable appeals and Trump’s expertise in delay tactics and avoiding accountability. After all, he still insists he won the 2020 election. This could go on for a long time.
But there are signs we will see some major results before the election.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who brought both the classified documents case in Florida and the election interference case in Washington, D.C., has indicated he isn’t going to accommodate Trump’s usual tactics and requested January 2 as a date for Trump’s election interference trial. Smith even indicated he’d allow the documents trial to be postponed to accommodate this one.
That’s important for two reasons. One, voters have a right to know if Trump is guilty or not guilty before casting their votes. More importantly, if Trump wins, he can, and will, simply dismiss any federal cases that are still pending. Maybe he’ll even settle the cases with a payout from the government to himself to cover his (likely inflated) legal fees. He may pardon himself if he’s both found guilty and wins the election, because his handpicked, subservient attorney general won’t stop him—and that’s even more of an argument to make sure Trump never again obtains power.
Speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’.
Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan also appears to be resistant to Trumpian antics, granting Smith’s early request to prevent Trump from sharing trial evidence publicly, as he is almost certainly going to do. She’s also issued a warning to Trump, indicating that she will take any necessary measures to stop Trump from intimidating witnesses or tainting the jury pool with his trial-by-tantrum strategy.
In 2016, someone who hadn’t been paying attention might be forgiven for not expecting the rampancy of criminal behavior once Trump ascended to national office. But the mass media can’t be forgiven, since it’s their job to be paying attention. And, speaking personally as someone who grew up on the East Coast in the 1970s and ’80s, it was pretty obvious back then that Trump was, at best, a tawdry huckster with a long line of shady deals and business failures to his name, both his own and others’. He was a regular of the New York Post’s “Page Six” gossip column and grocery store checkout-line magazines. By extension, the “serious” media should have done a better job warning American voters about someone they only knew from highly scripted appearances on The Apprentice.
In 2023, mass media no longer have an excuse, and largely they’ve been fairly good. But they’re still acting as if the Republican nomination isn’t a foregone conclusion. And the possibilities of more Trumpian violence, let alone another January 6-style insurrection, can’t be understated.
The United States is quite imperfect in living up to its ideals, but the general trend has been to get better at it. Allowing someone to escape justice just because he’s a former president, or because we’re afraid of his followers, undermines our commitment to have justice for all.
Fortunately, it appears we aren’t going to allow justice to be denied in this case. Prosecuting (and convicting) Trump won’t change the minds of his loyal base, and it may indeed push some of them over the edge. But it will show that the rest of the nation is willing to live up to its principles.
"The Republicans are openly admitting they want to steal your Social Security and Medicare and then force you to work till you drop dead," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Democratic lawmakers on Sunday took the 58th anniversary of Medicaid and Medicare as an opportunity to celebrate how the popular programs have ensured low-income and older Americans can access healthcare and how progressives have fought to strengthen the programs over the years—while warning that Republicans will take the first chance they get to weaken them.
In a statement Democratic Party noted that the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 "without the help of a single congressional Republican," including a $35 monthly cap on seniors' insulin costs, a provision allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, and a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare Part D recipients.
"Instead of joining the Biden-Harris administration in working to lower health care costs for American families," said the Democrats, "many 2024 MAGA Republican hopefuls are not only campaigning on rolling back critical cost-saving provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act but also support ending Medicare as we know it."
President Joe Biden and other Democrats took to social media to make sure voters could hear Republicans' plans for social services—which they have long derided as "entitlement" programs—from the right-wing lawmakers themselves.
"We all know where the real issue is in terms of long-term debt for the United States," former Vice President Mike Pence, who is running for president in 2024, was seen saying in an interview. "We've got to put [Social Security and Medicare] on the table in the long term.
In another video clip, former President Donald Trump was seen saying cutting Medicare and Social Security are some of "the easiest" solutions to the national debt. Trump, another 2024 candidate, polled 37 points higher than his closest competitor, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in a New York Times survey on Republican presidential candidates on Monday.
"The Republicans are openly admitting they want to steal your Social Security and Medicare and then force you to work till you drop dead," said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), who posted a video compilation of several Republicans discussing their plans to raise the retirement age.
Just after securing a deal with the White House in late May to raise the nation's arbitrary debt ceiling in exchange for painful cuts to non-military federal spending such as food aid, U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wasted no time in making clear that the cuts were only the "first step" in the GOP agenda and that "mandatory spending" such as Medicare and Social Security would need to be slashed.
In June, a panel of 175 House Republicans released a budget proposal that would raise the retirement voted in June to approve a budget proposal that would raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits and enact a "premium support model" for Medicare—replacing the program's guaranteed health coverage with a subsidized voucher that senior citizens could use to either purchase private health insurance or a Medicare plan.
The Democratic Party on Sunday pointed to reporting that showed DeSantis, a former congressman, supported budget resolutions "that would have voucherized Medicare for new beneficiaries, slowed Social Security cost of living increases, and raised the retirement age for both programs."
The party also noted that Republican candidates Chris Christie and Nikki Haley and GOP Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin—who is reportedly weighing a run—have explicitly threatened to slash Medicaid, which covers 1 in 5 Americans who can't afford for-profit health insurance, including 40% of children.
Youngkin called Virginia's expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act "sad," and under Haley's leadership as governor of South Carolina, the state remained one of 11 that did not expand Medicaid.
"We're going to have to reduce Medicare benefits. We're going to have to reduce Medicaid benefits," Christie said at a Koch family seminar in 2011. "We're going to have to do these things."
Progressives including Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said they are committed to "fighting to protect these critical programs, despite Republican efforts to end them."
Biden's budget released earlier this year would further strengthen Medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices, extend health coverage to millions of Americans in states that didn't expand Medicaid, require Medicaid to cover 12 months of postpartum care, and take other steps to expand the programs.
At last week's day of action to celebrate Medicare and Medicaid's anniversary and speak out against Medicare privatization, advocacy groups including Social Security Works (SSW) joined progressive lawmakers in rallying supporters of the programs.
"Who gave us our Medicare? Who gave it to us?" asked SSW executive director Alex Lawson. "Us! No one 'gave' us anything! We pay into this system. It's ours. And we're not going to let anyone take it away from us."
In contrast with the healthcare President Donald Trump and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are receiving after being diagnosed with Covid-19, frontline workers who have put themselves at risk throughout the coronavirus pandemic--such as those in agriculture, meatpacking, construction, restaurants, grocery stores, nursing homes, and home care--are disproportionately less likely to have health insurance, limiting their access to care, according to a Public Citizen analysis published Monday.
"While Trump gets excellent taxpayer-funded care, millions of the frontline workers who are powering America are left without any care at all. This is unacceptable."
--Rep. Pramila JayapalTrump has been at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center since Friday night--except for a widely criticized drive to greet supporters.
Christie, who prepped the president before his debate last Tuesday against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, announced on Twitter Saturday: "I checked myself into Morristown Medical Center this afternoon. While I am feeling good and only have mild symptoms, due to my history of asthma we decided this is an important precautionary measure."
The president and Christie's hospitalizations have provoked personal stories of loved ones dying from the virus after being denied hospital stays as well as fresh calls for scrapping the United States' for-profit health insurance scheme that is largely based on employment in favor of a Medicare for All system that ensures healthcare to everyone as a human right. As of Monday morning, the U.S. had more than 7.4 million confirmed Covid-19 infections and nearly 210,000 deaths directly tied to the disease.
The new Public Citizen report, entitled Holes in the Safety Net, echoed those calls for a public healthcare system that serves everyone and elicited more demands from single-payer supporters including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of Medicare for All legislation in the House. Linking to the analysis, she tweeted Monday about the care Trump is getting while so many frontline workers remain uninsured.
"As Trump receives all-inclusive socialized healthcare at Walter Reed, essential workers are left to suffer," tweeted Public Citizen, highlighting the analysis.
Author Zachary Brown acknowledges in the report that sectors deemed "essential" during the pandemic have long functioned "on the backs of significant numbers of Black and Brown workers" who have faced "low wages, lack of adequate safety protections, and limited access to healthcare." Brown concludes that given the findings on how Covid-19 has impacted people in these industries and their high uninsured rates, "the argument for Medicare for All has never been stronger."
Brown found over half of agricultural workers are uninsured and farms nationwide have seen more than 130,000 contract the virus. About a quarter of restaurant, construction, and home care workers also lack insurance. That's also the case for over 10% of meatpacking and nursing home employees--and each of those industries has seen tens of thousands of Covid-19 cases this year. Among grocery workers, whose uninsured rate exceeds 12%, there have been over 11,000 cases.

"Just as the Trump administration has failed the country on Covid-19, the private health insurance system has failed essential frontline workers," Brown said in a statement. "These workers are risking their lives to ensure we have access to the healthcare, food, and other services we need. The least we could do, as a society, is to ensure they have health insurance so they don't go bankrupt when they get sick."
Brown's report notes that in addition to lacking health insurance, many workers in these fields have wages so low they are living beneath the federal poverty line; that's the case for about 1-in-4 farmworkers, about 13% of meatpacking workers, and 1-in-5 home care workers. On top of low pay, some workers in these key sectors are also facing layoffs, particularly those in the restaurant industry--and because of the employer-based system, losing a job often means losing health insurance too.
As the New York Times reported with a series of infographics Monday, about 12 million people in the United States are now jobless, a figure that has about doubled since January. Unemployment has fallen since its peak in April, but over the past six months, a growing number of people have lost jobs at businesses that have permanently shut down. The newspaper also pointed out that the total figure rises to 19 million when accounting for those not in the labor force but who want a job.
"Jobs numbers could worsen, especially if cases rise significantly, or restaurants or other types of businesses are forced to shut their doors as the weather gets colder," the Times added. "With a presidential election looming, how Americans are personally experiencing these trends will affect the choices they make in November."
As Common Dreams has reported in recent weeks, while Trump has continued to baselessly attack the security of mailed ballots and refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses to Biden, progressive advocacy groups have urged Americans to make a plan to participate in the election and take advantage of the early in-person and mail-in voting that is already underway in some states.

The case for Medicare for All was once again made by the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, Sen. Ed Markey tweeted on Sunday, after Republican politicians were able to check themselves into hospitals shortly after announcing they had tested positive for Covid-19.
Markey noted that throughout the coronavirus pandemic, in which more than 7.4 million cases have been detected and more than 209,000 people in the U.S. have died, people have attempted to get care at hospitals after testing positive and showing worsening symptoms, only to be turned away and "told only to come back when they could not breathe."
"Now politicians are checking into hospitals as a 'precaution.' Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege," Markey wrote. "We need Medicare for All."
The senator's statement came a day after former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a member of the president's debate prep team this past week, announced he was checking himself into Morristown Medical Center after testing positive on Saturday.
"While I am feeling good and only have mild symptoms, due to my history of asthma we decided this is an important precautionary measure," Christie tweeted.
Christie's announcement angered social media users whose own family members had been denied admission at hospitals even as their symptoms grew more severe earlier this year, as medical centers faced severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE)--and as the Trump administration seized shipments of the supplies and claimed the federal government was not responsible for ensuring healthcare workers were equipped to combat the pandemic.
"How many lives of 207,000+ lost could've been saved if hospitals had had the PPE they needed?" wrote one critic. "The surge ventilators they desperately requested? How many parents, children, wives, husbands would still be here if they could've gotten early care 'out of an abundance of caution?'"
Others noted that under the for-profit healthcare system in which insurance companies decide whether a patient's treatments and hospital stays are medically necessary and should be covered or if the person should have to pay out of pocket, the vast majority of Americans are in no position to simply decide to go to the hospital--or often, even to a doctor's office--as a precautionary measure.
My daughter's doctor admitted her to the hospital because they were afraid she'd go septic. The insurance just denied coverage because they didn't think she was sick enough.
Now, these politicians are checking themselves in "as a precaution"?
I hate everything.-- Andrew Kinsey (@KinseyAndrew) October 3, 2020
"Mystifying that people think this kind of class system in healthcare is worth fighting to preserve," tweeted journalist Steve Lubetkin.
The details of the president's condition, and how far into the illness he is, remained murky on Sunday after a press conference the previous day in which his physician, Dr. Sean Conley, suggested Trump had first been diagnosed with Covid-19 last Wednesday, rather than late Thursday night. After Trump on Sunday released a video of himself at Walter Reed Medical Center, where he's been since late Friday, saying he was feeling "much better," his medical team reported that his oxygen levels had dropped to 93%, below normal range and to the level that doctors generally consider a severe case of Covid-19. The president was reportedly given the steroid dexamethasone on Sunday as well as the experimental drug remdesivir. Dexamethasone has been shown to help patients with severe coronavirus cases.
The time and place where Trump contracted the coronavirus is unknown, but the ceremony he hosted last Saturday at the White House to celebrate his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court has been called a "super-spreader" event, after at least eight people in attendance have tested positive for Covid-19 in recent days. The White House is reportedly overseeing contact tracing of the event, where more than 100 people gathered both indoors and outdoors, social distancing was not observed, and few people wore face coverings.
On Twitter, journalist Anand Giridharadas summarized the last week in Trump's presidency, during which the New York Times also reported on his failure to pay taxes for 10 of the 15 years preceding his term, and that he paid just $750 in 2016 and 2017.
"The moral of the story is, he lied to you for months and encouraged you to live recklessly during a pandemic, and when it got to him he received every top tier treatment and medication to ensure his survival while your friends and family died alone," wrote comedian and writer Travon Free. "Remember that on Nov 3rd."