Listen To Nick Hanauer

I have previously referred to billionaire Nick Hanauer, and his clear-eyed view of what economic evidence tells us. Hanauer has, for example, explained multiple times why raising the minimum wage, not cutting taxes, creates jobs: it’s when people have enough disposable income to buy your widgets that employers hire people to make them. (When Seattle ignored the plutocrats’ warnings and raised its minimum wage, Hanauer’s position was vindicated.)

In 2023, Hanauer and a co-author wrote a book titled “Corporate Bullshit,” intended to help readers identify the “pernicious propaganda” promulgated by the wealthy. The book identified six categories of falsehoods that Hanauer says repeatedly thwart progress on issues ranging from civil rights, to wealth inequality, climate change, voting rights, and gun responsibility.

As Hanauer points out, Americans have a bad habit of giving credence to arguments made by the wealthy and powerful simply because those making the arguments are wealthy and powerful. (It always reminds me of that lyric from  Fiddler on the Roof’s “If I Were A Rich Man.”  “The most important men in town would come to call on me, asking questions that would cross a Rabbis eyes–and it won’t make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong…When you’re rich they think you really know.”)

Recently, on Facebook, Hanauer shared a letter he’d sent to one of the “movers and shakers” who spoke at Davos. Since he publicly shared it, I assume I can share it as well.

Here’s his letter:

I listened closely to your remarks at Davos, and you’re right about the core problem: capitalism is losing public trust because prosperity has left too many people behind. I warned us all about this when I wrote “The Pitchforks Are Coming for Us Plutocrats” back in 2014. You’re also correct that GDP and market caps are terrible proxies for whether an economy is actually working for working people.

But here’s the thing—this isn’t a mystery anymore, and it hasn’t been for a long time.

For more than a decade now, I’ve been having conversations—often with people who run large institutions, manage serious capital, and employ thousands—about exactly what to do next.

On Pitchfork Economics and in conversations across the ecosystem, we’ve talked with people like Joseph Stiglitz, Heather Boushey, Mariana Mazzucato, Robert Reich, Todd Tucker, Elizabeth Anderson, Mark Blyth, and many others who have laid out, in plain language, what will actually fix this problem.

They all point to a similar set of solutions:
–Tax extreme wealth and income at levels that reflect their real social cost
– Rebuild antitrust enforcement and curb monopoly power
– Strengthen labor markets and worker bargaining power
– Invest aggressively in public goods that make broad-based prosperity possible

None of this is radical. In fact, it’s how the U.S. built the most prosperous middle class in history. So when you say the answer is more “conversation,” I have to strongly disagree. We’re past the conversation phase. There are many ideas on the table, from every corner of the world. The evidence is overwhelming. And the political backlash you’re worried about is already here precisely because action hasn’t followed conversation.

On behalf of the handful of us zillionaires who have benefited from this system, we don’t need more panels or better messaging. We need the courage to support policies that will redistribute power, not just wealth—and to do so even when it’s uncomfortable or expensive for people like us.

You said that in order to solve inequality, the mountain—meaning Davos—needed to come down to earth. It’s a nice image, but it doesn’t reflect reality. What really needs to happen is the mountain needs to stop extracting from everyone else.

It’s fashionable these days to bash all billionaires, and a large number of them certainly deserve that bashing. But billionaires–like all other groups of people–are not a monolithic category. Just as all Somalis aren’t guilty of fraud in Minneapolis, all Jews do not support Israel’s activities in Gaza, and (possibly) all ICE agents aren’t thugs. We lose our grasp of reality when we fail to recognize the differences within identifiable populations.

Billionaires aren’t all like Jeff Bezos and Larry Ellison. There are also people like Nick Hanauer and Abigail Disney. When the people with pitchforks come for the billionaires, as Hanauer has warned, they’ll need to be selective….



Comments

The Smell Of Hypocrisy In The Morning…

I know we Americans are facing truly horrific challenges–the White House is occupied by a man whose malevolent insanity is impossible to ignore. His ICE agents are America’s version of a (masked) Gestapo. Our “guardrails” have failed us, with feckless Congressional Republicans refusing to honor their oaths of office and a corrupt Supreme Court enabling the madman in the Oval Office.

It’s an ugly picture, and I don’t want to minimize how dire things are. But what has really incensed me–probably out of proportion to the severity of all the other threats we face–is the unbelievable hypocrisy of both Trump and MAGA.

Let’s talk about guns. Trump wouldn’t have won in 2024 without the gun lobby–his victory was thin. He sold himself to the NRA and other Second Amendment “patriots” as a defender of their ahistorical application of that Amendment. Now, he defends the murder of a peaceful protester by his ICE thugs by declaring that the protester’s lawful possession of a gun–which that protester never held and certainly never “brandished”–justified killing him, saying “You can’t bring a gun. You just can’t.”

I’m waiting for those intrepid Second Amendment protectors in Congress to call for his impeachment…

Then there’s Trump’s even more egregious lie about why he sent ICE into Minneapolis–and his rhetoric about stamping out “fraud” that he attributed to all Somali residents (they’re Black, you know, so they must all be guilty). It was immaterial that those allegations, which involved a small number of Somalis, had already been investigated and addressed by state law enforcement. That excuse was really rich, coming from a President who continues to pardon people found guilty of multiple crimes–including fraud–by juries. Of course, those pardons only issue when the fraudster or a relative pays him off, or when–like the January 6th rioters–they engaged in criminal behaviors at his request.

And don’t get me started on Trump’s excuse for bombing fishing ships out of international waters and murdering an estimated 124 people on board without any due process or evidence. His excuse was that those boats were carrying drugs. Meanwhile, he granted a full and complete pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was given due process, and who had been convicted in a court of law for conspiring to import over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.. 

Perhaps the most blatant hypocrisy is coming from Minnesota, where Trump’s MAGA supporters are having what one pundit called a “toddler tantrum” over the fact that hundreds of Minneapolis area businesses have put “NO ICE SERVED HERE” signs in their windows. The MAGA people fulminating over this “outrage” are the very people who have spent years protecting the “religious rights” of business owners. They are the same people who’ve gone to court to protect the “First Amendment rights” of bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, and to protect web architects from having to design websites for gay folks.

And they won. Our disgraceful Supreme Court went out of its way (okay, out of the Constitution’s way) to accommodate those very “sincere” religious folks, to allow them to refuse to serve people whose very existence offended their “sincerely held” beliefs. Our home-grown theocrats celebrated the “liberty” of business owners to discriminate on the basis of principle. Their current outrage is just evidence of what the rest of us have always known: they were hypocrites. They weren’t interested in defending just any “principles” or moral beliefs upon which a given business owner might sincerely be acting–they were only interested in sending a “religious” message to particular people of whom they disapproved.

Trump’s hypocrisy is nothing new.

Back in 2022, Austin Sarat wrote in The Hill that Trump’s hypocrisy undermines democracy by eroding trust and breeding cynicism. “What Trump practices and what he preaches have little in common. He feels no compunction about doing the very things that he denounces and uses to demonize his political opponents.”

But democratic politics cannot thrive, or perhaps even survive, when hypocrisy becomes the norm. Political scientist John Keane has rightly observed that “Hypocrisy … is the soil in which antipathy towards democracy always takes root.”

Keane argues that democratic politics rests on a foundation of trust among citizens and between citizens and their representatives. Hypocrisy erodes that trust. It leads people to discount what others say in the political arena and promotes a corrosive disgust with politics.

“Corrosive distrust.” Sounds like a pretty apt description of where we are….

Comments

Echoes Of Infamy

Trump’s promise to MAGA –as I’ve noted before, the only promise he has kept–was to Make America White Again, with all that promise entails. (It isn’t just skin color that marks some citizens as “Other”– just being female or practicing the “wrong” religion will remove you from MAGA’s “Real American” category…)

The administration’s hysterical war on DEI and “woke-ism” has been unrelenting, underscoring the belief of MAGA folks that efforts to reduce discrimination against women and/or minorities are really discrimination against White males–that “inclusion” of women and minorities is really just code for exclusion of White “Christian” men.

Historians tell us that the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow, that they “borrowed” from the legal structures that disadvantaged Black folks in the American south to craft the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor– the Nuremberg Laws that laid the  groundwork for the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust and World War II.

Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, and the Trump administration is now returning the favor.

As many of us have recognized–and as the New York Times has recently documented–the administration’s social media posts have increasingly adopted the terminology of Nazi racist propaganda. Its posts increasingly echo neo-Nazi literature, use terminology approving of ethnic cleansing and even QAnon conspiracies, and have “promoted lyrics from an anthem bellowed by the far-right militants of the Proud Boys.”

Their authors are not on society’s fringe. They are in the offices of the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, using official government accounts.

To some people, the administration’s posts sound patriotic. Others might sense at most a faint dog whistle to extremists. Some posts may just look odd. But those well-versed in the abstruse codes of right-wing extremism hear klaxons.

Some of us noticed this in the advertisements recruiting for ICE.  Ads on Instagram, Facebook and X all used an overlay with the words “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.”

That’s also the name of a song, written by members of a self-described “pro-White fraternal order,” that has been embraced by the Proud Boys and other white-nationalist groups. Hundreds of explicitly neo-Nazi and white-supremacist accounts have shared the song on Telegram, an encrypted messaging app, since 2020. The white supremacist who killed three Black people at a Jacksonville, Fla., dollar store in 2023 included lyrics from the song in his writing.

Most Americans would miss the significance, but White Supremacists (and those who study them) understand the message.

I’ve posted previously about other ads and social-media posts that have included pictures and symbols associated with far-right extremist groups, and websites excluding previously pictured women and Blacks. The Labor Department has posted an image with the words “TRUST THE PLAN”– a central catchphrase of QAnon, and the White House’s X account has posted a photo of Trump and the word “remigration.” The Times article points out that “remigration” is a “decades-old European concept centered on the expulsion of nonwhite people and immigrants deemed unassimilated.”

Tens of thousands of Germans protested the concept two years ago after the country’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland party secretly met with neo-Nazis to discuss plans to implement it. (More than a dozen AfD politicians have reposted Mr. Trump’s “remigration” photo on X.)

The Labor Department has also posted a video captioned “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage,” a caption that clearly and ominously echoes a Nazis slogan from World War II, “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer,” or “One People, One Realm, One Leader.”

Experts cited in the Times article appeared confident that the apparent allusions were not accidental. One sociologist pointed to the use of “secret codes and numerological clues” in the ICE recruitment ads, which he believes have been designed to appeal to “a very specific segment” of Americans. These are “young men who live online and are disaffected by what they see as unwanted changes in American life.” The thuggish behavior of that cohort in Minneapolis would seem to confirm his conclusion.

Let’s be honest: this country has always had a significant number of Nazi and “Nazi-adjacent” citizens. In the 1930s, the the German American Bund had tens of thousands of members and held rallies with Ku Klux Klan members. In 1959, George Lincoln Rockwell founded the American Nazi Party; it employed a “White Power!” slogan and insisted that Nazism was “American patriotism.” The National Alliance, founded by the author of The Turner Diaries, spewed  white supremacy and antisemitism.

We’ve had bigots in the White House before, but never one who was such an enthusiastic descendant of those organizations.

Comments

The Ten Commandments–Again

Indiana’s terrible legislature is at it again. Lawmakers have advanced revised legislation that would allow — but not require, as in the original proposal — public schools to post the Ten Commandments in school buildings and classrooms.

This effort pops up repeatedly, and each time it passes, it is predictably challenged in Court and found unconstitutional. So rather than writing about the current effort, I just went back into my archives and found what I’d written about previous attempts to force our legislative overlords’ version of religiosity on captive student audiences.

This one was from 1997.

______________________

If I believed passionately that everyone would be better off for reading my religion’s version of the Ten Commandments, what would I do?
I’d probably start by distributing leaflets containing the Ten Commandments everywhere I could–on street corners, at the grocery store, at sports and entertainment events.
I might ask local churches and individuals to erect replicas of the Ten Commandments on their lawns or porches.
I could ask local newspapers to reproduce them; if the papers wouldn’t do so as a contribution, I might try to raise the money to buy a paid advertisement.
I would certainly use the Internet to find others who agreed with me on the importance of widespread distribution, and would engage them in my project.
I might sell t-shirts printed with the Commandments.
I might hold a rally, and bring in people to speak about the importance of the Ten Commandments in their lives.
And of course, I would do my very best to live up to the principles of the Commandments and other great religious precepts. ( “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” comes to mind; there are many others.)
Every single one of those methods for promoting the Ten Commandments and righteous behavior is constitutionally protected.
If, however, all I really want is for my government to send a message that my particular beliefs are the proper ones, I wouldn’t bother with any of these time-consuming activities. I’d just petition my local officials to post the Commandments so that everyone visiting a public building will know who really belongs in this country and who doesn’t. It will be important that my document appear on government-owned buildings, so it will be very clear what my government approves–and by implication, what (and who) it doesn’t.
Unfortunately for those who wish to be more equal than others, the First Amendment forbids government from issuing such endorsements, just as it would forbid the passage of laws requiring the posting of the Bill of Rights in all churches. The First Amendment protects our right to advocate in the public square, but it forbids us to enlist the help of the 800 pound gorilla– government– aka the public sector.
__________________
I saw no need to revise any of the foregoing…Indiana’s “Christian” soldiers are nothing if not repetitive and predictable.
Of course, our legislative culture warriors aren’t limiting themselves to their love affair with the Cecil B. DeMille version of the  Ten Commandments. Just in case they haven’t intruded into women’s healthcare sufficiently–while incidentally adding to the state’s brain drain and maternity-care deserts, and making it difficult for Indiana businesses to recruit women employees–they are intent upon passing a bill empowering individuals to sue companies that fill prescriptions of abortion-inducing pills.
As usual, these GOP “pro-life” warriors are supporting other measures that rather vividly demonstrate that they are actually  “pro-birth.” Once those babies are born, Indiana isn’t interested in either feeding them or providing them with medical care–Republican bills limiting poor families’ access to Medicaid and SNAP are likely to make it through the legislative process.

And Indiana wouldn’t be a “good Christian state” without a transgender bathroom bill targeting the vanishingly small number of transgender children whose very existence apparently contradicts their narrow and hate-filled theologies.

Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but if it wasn’t for extreme gerrymandering, it is doubtful that Indiana’s legislature would be dominated by this wildly unrepresentative super-majority. (Polls regularly show that some 55 percent of Indiana voters are pro-choice, for example. And the absence of faux-religious iconography in our public school classrooms rarely if ever makes the list of Hoosier political concerns.)

Most Americans are currently and understandably fixated on resisting the neo-Nazi takeover of our national government, but if and when actual Americans regain control, Hoosiers really will need to do something about our undemocratic and unrepresentative state government.

Comments

The Right Side Of History

In response to the growing, undeniable fascism of MAGA and the Trump administration,  good people have been asking an anguished question: What can I do?

For many of us, the answer is murky. We can–and. must–protest. We can–and must–refuse to sane-wash or ignore what is, after all, before our eyes. We can–and must–support candidates opposing the trashing of our constitution and the rule of law, by volunteering, voting and donating what we can.

But some people are in a position to do more. Some of the universities and law firms that have been targeted have “bent the knee” and opted to be on  the wrong side of history, but others have chosen non-compliance. And recently, that refusal to go along has gathered steam.

Some examples:

The Washington Post, among others, recently reported that Chris Madel, a Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota, dropped out of that race, posting to social media that ICE operations had been an “unmitigated disaster” and that he “could not support the national Republicans’ stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.” He said that continuing to identify as a Republican would mean he could not look his young daughters in their eyes.

That high-profile rejection was important, but the resignations of scores of federal workers took even more courage, because many of these people are walking away from careers and financial security.

Tracee Mergen, a supervisor in the FBI’s Minneapolis field office resigned after she was pressured by higher-ups in D.C. to abandon a civil rights investigation into the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good. The call for her to end her inquiry came from aides to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Lawyers, I am relieved to note, have been prominent among the resigners. Several career lawyers had already fled the Department of Justice, in reaction to Trump’s remake of that department, but resignations from DOJ increased after the murders in Minnesota. Six career prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced they are leaving the department in response to the administration’s edict that there would be no civil rights probe into the fatal shooting of Renee Good.

These resignations come from people who have chosen to be on the right side of history. So has David Jolly, a  former Republican who is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, who abandoned traditional political “civility” in a speech that should be echoed by every Democrat (and by the few Republicans who, like Jolly and Madel, have chosen to put country before party).

I am cutting this post short in hopes that readers will click through and watch Jolly’s speech. It deserves widespread distribution.

The bottom line is that we can all do something to be on the right side of history. Increasingly–and thankfully– the people who can do more, the people who can refuse to bend the knee or obey in advance, are doing it. It’s a welcome sign.

Comments