SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
economy
What a Study of Oligarchs' Second Acts Heralds for Trump 2.0
They’re usually worse off during their subsequent terms in office. So are the rest of us.
Nov 13, 2024
On November 5, Donald Trump was elected as the 47th U.S. president. Trump is an oligarch—an economic or political actor who secures and reproduces power and wealth, then transforms one into the other. And now he is in the small minority of oligarchs across history who have had second acts—having lost power or wealth, they find a way back. What can we learn from those experiences that might inform our understanding of Trump’s second term?
To answer that question, we looked at the track records of three other business oligarchs like Trump who have served as heads of state or government since World War II. Business oligarchs begin their journey by accumulating wealth, then move to power.
In our book The Oligarch’s Grip: Fusing Wealth and Power, we wrote about Chilean president Sebastian Piñera. He served two non-consecutive terms in office (2010-14 and 2018-22). His second act was decidedly worse than his first. During his first term in office, per capita income in constant dollars grew by 14%, while life expectancy expanded by 0.9 years. Sure, there were controversies, such as the appointment of Pinochet-era figures as cabinet ministers and protests over the end of the school voucher system. But, in general, Chileans felt better off.
While we are hesitant to make any grand predictions for the Trump second term based on these cases, it does seem questionable that it will be any better than the first.
By contrast, Piñera’s second term was disastrous. Per capita income rose by only 2% and life expectancy contracted by 0.8 years. The Covid-19 pandemic played a role in these outcomes, but it wasn’t the only driver. Piñera’s poor handling of a second, larger set of student protests has also led to his relatively low ranking among modern Chilean heads of state. He died in a helicopter accident in 2024.
Trump has been compared to Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s three-time prime minister (1994-95, 2001-06, and 2008-11). We will focus on his second and third terms, which are longer. Per capita income expanded by 3.5% in that second term, and life expectancy grew by a remarkable 1.4 years. Ambitious goals aimed at constitutional and tax reform were thwarted, but, still, Italians felt better off, even if they narrowly backed a center-left coalition that removed Berlusconi from office.
His third term was dominated by the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the Great Recession of 2008-09, and the 2009-10 eurozone crisis. Italy’s economy was one of the most highly indebted in Europe, and higher interest rates led to a 6.8% GDP decline during 2008-09. Per capita income declined by 3.6% during this term, while life expectancy increased by 0.6 years. Having been ranked by Forbes as the 12th most powerful person in the world in 2009, Berlusconi resigned in 2011 as a deeply unpopular and polarizing figure.
A similar pattern of a poor second act emerges with Rafic Hariri, Lebanon’s prime minister for two terms (1992-98 and 2000-04). Per capita income grew by a substantial 44% during his first term, while life expectancy expanded in the post-civil war period by 2.2 years. But when Hariri returned to office for a second term, results were much less compelling: income up by 16% and life expectancy by 0.6 years. Political tensions led to his assassination in 2005. His son Saad served two terms as well and also left office under a cloud. A third oligarch prime minister, Naguib Mikati, is in his third term and, given the recent Israeli invasion, is unlikely to have a successful ending.
Does history offer any relief from this picture of disappointing second acts? Not really. For example, Marcus Licinius Crassus—one of the Roman Republic’s richest and most powerful men, served as consul twice (70 and 55 BCE), both times with often rival and sometimes ally Pompey. The first consulship led to the Triumvirate Alliance of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. The second consulship led to Crassus being named governor of the endlessly wealthy province of Syria, where he was defeated by the Parthians and died in 53 BCE.
These examples suggest some preliminary findings and cautions. First, oligarchs’ second acts generally end badly. Sometimes, external circumstances drive this result. Other times, it seems that oligarchs don’t show much evidence of learning from their first terms.
Second, many oligarchs never serve in decision-making roles as heads of state or government like Piñera, Berlusconi, or Hariri. Some have agenda-setting power through political contributions or media ownership. Others have ideological power, shaping the way we think and act. Based on our dataset at the Center for the Study of Oligarchs, we are unaware of any oligarchs who had and lost those types of power who were able to regain it. We also don’t know of any significant cases of oligarchs losing their wealth and then recovering it.
While we are hesitant to make any grand predictions for the Trump second term based on these cases, it does seem questionable that it will be any better than the first. During that first term, per capita in the U.S. rose by 2.9% and life expectancy fell by a jaw-dropping 1.7 years. That record helped earn Trump a ranking as the worst president in U.S history, according to the American Political Science Association survey.
It is difficult to imagine how Trump will be able to successfully fight the dismal history of oligarchs’ second acts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Decision 2024: Neoliberal Fascism or Neoliberal Business as Usual?
Trump’s rise the result of the ongoing erosion of the political culture in the U.S. under neoliberalism, which has essentially become the dictatorship of big financial capital.
Nov 03, 2024
With just a few days left until Election Day, the fact that the race to the White House between U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump remains extremely tight is truly mind-boggling. Reason dictates that the Democrats should be set to win a landslide, but what could very well happen instead is the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
Unfortunately, there are some good reasons why this is a tightly fought election. First, the cold truth is that Kamala Harris is not an inspiring leader. What’s even worse is that she is a flip-flopper. She’s changed her position on fracking and on the infamous border wall (she is now against fracking natural gas bans and seems to be leaning in favor of building more border wall) and hasn’t done enough to explain her policy positions on several issues, including Medicare for All. Rational voters would not fail to take notice of such shortcomings in a presidential candidate.
Second, Kamala Harris represents a party that has lost the working class and is perceived as being one with the elites. Harris’ own campaign has been too focused on winning over wavering Republicans, preferring to share the stage with Liz Cheney and billionaire Mark Cuban over progressive icons like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-N.Y.), and attacking Trump as a threat to democracy.
Neoliberalism is incompatible with democracy as it alters society’s balance of power overwhelmingly in favor of big capital, transforms citizenship into an exercise of consumer choice, and undermines policy initiatives aimed toward the common good.
Both strategies appear to have backfired. First, because working-class people represent a much larger segment of the electorate than wavering Republicans, and because cozying up to anti-Trump Republicans and receiving the endorsement of the warmongering Cheneys has alienated progressives. Second, exhorting citizens to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket because Trump represents a threat to democracy isn’t making inroads with average folks who are mainly concerned with how to make ends meet. Most adult citizens have no confidence in U.S. institutions and in fact mistrust the electorate system, which is why millions of citizens do not bother to vote and the voter turnout in the U.S. trails that of many other Western countries.
Third, Harris has not distanced herself from the Biden approach on Israel and Gaza, which has been nothing short of a moral catastrophe, and has subsequently alienated the young, progressive and non-white voters who overwhelmingly sided with President Joe Biden in 2020. Not only that, but she and the Democrats have managed to create the impression among a large swath of voters that they are now the real warmongers, which is not far from the truth.
In the meantime, Trump’s support has remained stable and defined in spite of what he says. Trump exerts a cult-of-personality influence over his followers like no other populist leader in the Western world. Of course, this is the result of the ongoing erosion of the political culture in the U.S. under neoliberalism, which has essentially become the dictatorship of big financial capital. Neoliberalism is incompatible with democracy as it alters society’s balance of power overwhelmingly in favor of big capital, transforms citizenship into an exercise of consumer choice, and undermines policy initiatives aimed toward the common good.
Neoliberalism must be understood not only as an economic project, but also as a political and cultural project. And nowhere else in the Western world is civil society’s neoliberal transformation so pronounced as it is in the United States. Even the right to unionize, a fundamental human and civil right, faces massive challenges due to the political power of the corporate world. This is because democracy in the U.S. has always been of a very fragile nature and the consolidation of democratic ideals has faced resistance and opposition down to this day. Under such circumstances, the rise of the authoritarian strongman government that Donald Trump represents must be seen as an inevitable outcome.
Indeed, the unwavering appeal of Donald Trump among his supporters, in spite of all his crimes and scandals, speaks volumes both about the nature and scope of the cultural divide in the U.S., as well as about the political and economic effects of neoliberalism. This is the only way to understand why the white working class and less-educated voters, the traditional base of the Democratic Party, have flocked to Republicans in recent decades and now represent Trump’s base. White working-class and less-educated voters broke ranks with the Democratic Party when the New Democrat faction severed completely its ties with the “New Deal” policies and embraced in turn economic policies that are the backbone of the neoliberal project.
By the same token, the old stereotype of the Republicans as the party of the rich and the elite no longer holds sway with many voters. And there is ample evidence to explain why this is the case. Virtually all of the wealthiest congressional districts across the country are now represented by a Democrat, while it is the Republicans who claim to represent the people who struggle.
In the end, it is probably not mind-boggling at all that election polls show a very close race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than 80% of registered voters said that the economy is the most important issue for them in the 2024 presidential election. And in a final Financial Times poll, voters expressed preference for Trump over Harris to lead the economy.
Of course, analyses that expose Trump’s myths about the economy and warnings by experts that his own economic plans would worsen inflation and wreak havoc on U.S. workers and businesses while increasing the gap between the haves and the have-nots either do not reach his supporters or simply leave them unfazed. In either case, indifference to truth is a symptom of our extremely polarized times and, in a society that has lost its vision for the common good and has allowed in turn the rich to hijack the political system, all that matters now is that people believe in their own reasoning. Demagogues like Trump are fully aware of the existing social realities and not only exploit the available circumstances but make an art out of the belief that reality is what you make of it.
As sad as it may be, the 2024 presidential election is a choice between neoliberal fascism and neoliberal business as usual. Some would say there is still a difference between the two options; others might call it irredeemable politics. But these are the only two choices that U.S. voters have.
Keep ReadingShow Less
William Barber Joins 1,000+ Faith Leaders in Endorsing Harris
"My choice is to oppose the dangerous politics that Trump and the MAGA movement have unleashed by supporting the ticket that can defeat this potential for American fascism," Barber said.
Oct 27, 2024
Bishop and Poor People's Campaign co-chair Rev. William Barber II joined more than 1,000 religious leaders on Sunday in endorsing U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris for president over former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Other prominent faith leaders who have signed on to the endorsement include Rev. Kevin R. Johnson of New York City's Abyssinian Baptist Church; Rev. Teresa L. Smallwood, vice president and dean of academic affairs at North Carolina's United Lutheran Seminary; and the Rev. Andrea C. White, who teaches theology and culture at New York City's Union Theological Seminary. Barber and the other leaders offered their endorsement in their personal capacities and not on behalf of any congregation or institution they are affiliated with.
"In a moment like this, I am compelled to be clear that every voter must make a choice, and my choice is to oppose the dangerous politics that Trump and the MAGA movement have unleashed by supporting the ticket that can defeat this potential for American fascism," Barber wrote in a statement explaining his endorsement on social media.
"I'm endorsing Harris and Walz because we are in the midst of a crisis of civilization and democracy."
Barber gave several reasons for his opposition to Trump, including the former president's frequent lies, embrace of guns, inflammatory anti-immigrant statements, and economic agenda that favors the wealthy over the poor and marginalized. In particular, he blamed Trump for undermining the strong economy he inherited from former President Barack Obama by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy while refusing to raise the minimum wage
"I must oppose Donald Trump and his policies of catering to the greedy, attacking healthcare, and working against living wages," Barber wrote.
He also alluded to Trump's violent rhetoric, such as his recent threat to deploy the National Guard against his political enemies if elected.
"I must prophetically oppose Trump's candidacy because he is threatening to use the office of the president for retaliation and destruction and refers to himself as the only answer to the troubles of America, which is a form of idolatry," Barber said.
In contrast, Barber said he was endorsing Harris and running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz because they "are seeking to speak truthfully about the issues of our nation, and, at the same time, to lead us toward a way of working together on issues that matter."
In particular, Barber praised their economic agenda, such as their commitment to increasing wages and expanding healthcare access. He also said they would offer equal protection to all U.S. residents and tackle the climate crisis.
"I'm endorsing Harris and Walz because we are in the midst of a crisis of civilization and democracy," Barber said. "We don't need more despotism. We must work together for a Third Reconstruction."
Barber, a North-Carolina based preacher and organizer, has criticized both parties for failing to address the needs of poor and low-income voters and mobilized those voters to make the parties heed their concerns. In early October, he blasted the presidential and vice presidential debate organizers and the candidates for not addressing the causes of poverty or offering in-depth solutions. He also joined a vigil outside the White House calling for a cease-fire in Gaza last fall.
"I am not endorsing Harris and Walz because I believe they are perfect," Barber wrote in his statement. "No person of faith should ever do that. I don't endorse them because I agree with them on every issue. I am endorsing them because I, like every American, must make a choice about who will lead this nation and set our public agenda for the next four years."
Barber further explained his decision to CNN.
"There's no middle ground when it comes to fascism," Barber said. "I've got to be clear as an individual and hope that other moral and religious leaders will do the same."
Speaking on the issue of Gaza policy specifically, Barber told CNN that he thought a Harris administration would be easier to negotiate with than a future Trump one.
In his statement, he said he believed Harris and Walz's "commitment to diplomacy offers the best chance of a lasting cease-fire in Gaza and averting wars that will consume untold resources and precious lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular