Tag Archives: Krugman

Heritage’s History

Those of us who know about Project 2025–and were properly horrified by it–also know that those 900+ pages attacking everything that makes America America was a product of the Heritage Foundation. (Now we know just what sort of “heritage” that organization was created to protect.)

Earlier this month, Paul Krugman traced the Foundation’s history, in a newsletter he titled “The Decline and Fall of the Heritage Foundation.”

Krugman began with the “fall” part– the recent controversy triggered by the response of Keven Roberts, Heritage’s president, to Tucker Carlson’s interview of rabid neo-Nazi and anti-Semite, Nick Fuentes. In a video, Roberts defended Carlson and attributed the uproar to “the globalist class,” a turn of phrase that–as Krugman notes–is routinely used to attack Jews.

Why did Roberts weigh in on the Carlson-Fuentes controversy? He obviously felt he needed to express support for the right of conservatives to be conspiracy-theory antisemites — despite the fact that Heritage itself has an antisemitism task force. Unsurprisingly, many of the task force members have now resigned.

Media reporting on this story has been excellent and revealing. However, I believe that much of the commentary misjudges the true nature of Heritage, portraying it as a genuine think tank that picked the wrong leader or was corrupted by MAGA.

According to Krugman, Heritage has always been a fraud rather than a genuine think-tank,  “a propaganda mill cosplaying as a research institution.” Its problem now is that its “original scam” was designed for a different time. Back in the Reagan years the Right’s bigotry and intolerance were far more discreet; those prejudices were more subtly employed to elect Republicans who could then be counted on to deliver deregulation and tax cuts. Heritage was there to lend superficial respectability to policies that were regressive and discriminatory, and that overwhelmingly benefitted the rich.

Krugman writes that he first encountered Heritage when the organization was working for repeal of the Estate tax, arguing that the tax was a “massive burden on small businesses and farms, which was simply a lie.”

In 2004 only around 300 small businesses and farms owed any estate tax at all. No, I’m not missing zeroes. And the number has gone down over time. These days basically no small businesses or farms pay the tax.

So Heritage wasn’t doing research. It was just pumping out dishonest propaganda.

Krugman cited another example, this one from 2011, the year Heritage released widely ridiculed projections about the positive effects we might expect of Paul Ryan’s budget proposals–again, producing propaganda rather than economic research.

But telling lies on behalf of the wealthy isn’t enough in the MAGA era. To be a right-winger in good standing you also have to be a sexist, a racist, and an anti-Semite, while promoting QAnon and other conspiracy theories.

Krugman cites the “economists” employed by Heritage as examples of its true purpose. In 2014. it was Stephen Moore, a fixture in right-wing circles, who mainstream economists describe as utterly incompetent.  He was replaced by E.J. Antoni, who Trump tried to install as head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Antoni’s nomination was withdrawn after reports surfaced that his Twitter account was filled with “sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories, and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.” (CNN also reported that Antoni “repeatedly tweeted that liberal economist Paul Krugman was a pedophile, a smear for which there is no evidence – and one he also hurled at former President Joe Biden and former FBI director James Comey.”)

Heritage lists Antoni as its “Chief Economist.”

Krugman is correct when he insists that Heritage’s history is consistent with–and illustrative of– the story of the modern Right as a whole.

Heritage was never a respectable institution doing honest research. It was always in the business of telling lies on behalf of its wealthy supporters. But now it’s trying to turn itself into a MAGA/Groyper institution, less focused on telling economic lies and more focused on bigotry and conspiracy theories.

Krugman’s analyses are amply corroborated by Project 2025, which Wikipedia accurately describes as a political effort to “reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies.”

Roberts hasn’t changed the historic character of Heritage. He has merely–and probably accidentally– illustrated its true mission.

Comments

Civil Resistance

In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman shared a transcript of his interview/conversation with Erica Chenoweth, author of Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know. During Trump’s second term, Chenowith, a Harvard professor, has become well-known for her studies of resistance to autocracies across the globe–especially her conclusion that peaceful civil protest by 3.5% of a country’s population is usually effective in overcoming an autocratic regime.

Krugman’s first question is one most of us would ask: do protests like No Kings really matter? As Chenoweth noted, that question is slightly different from the question whether civil resistance matters.

On the protest side, just immediately speaking, there are a lot of papers about this. There are papers in my discipline (political science and sociology and econ) even about trying to understand the impacts of even a single day of protest and widespread participation, and a single day of protest on things like shifts in public opinion, changes in policy, shifts in election turnout for particular parties, the tendency for people to run for office, all kinds of reforms.

I think the general answer is that, on a number of dimensions, even a single day of protests with very widespread participation can often lead to shifts and those different outcomes, even if there’s sometimes modest shifts in places like the United States where a modest shift in voter turnout can actually be quite decisive because of the nature of our voting rules. “First past the post,” that means elections can be completely changed by small margins. So it’s easy to overstate the impact that a single day of protest can have. But it’s also easy to underestimate it, given where the scholarship is on this topic.

Chenoweth then turned to the “slightly different” question of civic resistance, which she explained is a broader phenomenon than protest, involving more sustained levels of nonviolent mobilization and organization. It extends beyond protests to other methods of non-cooperation like strikes and boycotts.

Chenoweth noted that, in the 20th century,  these tactics initiated democratic breakthroughs in Poland, the Philippines,  Serbia, Brazil, and Argentina, and prompted the Arab awakenings of the early 2010.

Krugman and Chenoweth returned to the impact of the recent No Kings protests; Krugman observed that those events weren’t simply peaceful–they were joyful, and the festive atmosphere arguably attracted more participants, while the act of participating encouraged a belief in the possibility of change.

Chenoweth agreed, citing studies on the impact of participation in the civil rights movement on those who participated. Engagement in those protests gave rise to a belief that the situation could be changed–not only that each individual should do something to effectuate that change, but more importantly, that individuals could do something to change it. Once that recognition dawns, “there’s no going back to the previous status quo where it felt like the situation was permanent, only going to get worse, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

The No Kings mass resistance also accompanied other defections: Chenoweth cited incidents of prominent people resigning– or refusing to resign and forcing the administration to fire them; the archbishop of Chicago releasing a statement calling the  administration’s policy toward immigrants intolerable;  the Chamber of Commerce suing the Trump administration over its H-1b policy (on the basis of it being unconstitutional, not just on the basis of it being harmful for their industries); the multiple airports refusing to run Kristi Noem’s TSA commercial. These are all examples of non-cooperation. Krugman added the example of universities refusing to sign the administration’s “compact.”

The preparation that went into the No Kings protests–preparation that worked to ensure that they would be non-violent–was important. As Chenoweth put it,

The more representative the crowd is of the general population, the more likely it is to have non-escalatory impacts with police or with bystanders or anything else. Part of that is just because it’s very clear to all who are observing it, that these are folks from every walk of life, regardless of what the GOP wants to say about these people, they’re plainly peaceful protesters, some of them engaging for the first time in a political protest in their life…That’s the needle that civil resistance campaigns thread, which is to say they’re able to convey a political threat without threatening people and property around them.

Chenoweth says we are experiencing something new to the U.S.–authoritarianism has captured federal power. We the People must strengthen the civil society response, uphold the institutions that need upholding, and “renew and improve the institutions that need renewal and improvement without bloodshed. I truly believe that we have the capacity to do that.”

I hope she’s right.

Comments

Jimmy Kimmel And The Light At The End Of The Tunnel

In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman addressed what had been my own somewhat optimistic “take” on Disney’s retreat during the Jimmy Kimmel episode.

Krugman began by acknowledging Trump’s efforts at autocracy–and noted that, as his poll numbers have fallen, he has amped up his efforts to intimidate, secure in the knowledge that “craven congressional Republicans and a complicit Supreme Court” will continue to abet his destruction of democratic safeguards. The administration’s demand that Kimmel be removed from the airwaves was part and parcel of that autocratic ambition.

But as Krugman also points out, thanks to American public opinion, Trump’s efforts to mimic Putin and Orban are failing.

When Putin and Orban were consolidating their autocratics, they were genuinely popular. They were perceived by the public as effective and competent leaders. Just nine months into his presidency, Trump, by contrast, is deeply unpopular. He is increasingly seen as chaotic and inept. As David Frum says, this means that he is in a race against time. Can he consolidate power before he loses his aura of inevitability? Will those who run major institutions – particularly corporate CEOs – understand that we are at a crucial juncture, and that by accommodating Trump they have more to lose than by standing up to him?

To put it bluntly, is the Jimmy Kimmel affair the harbinger of a failed Trumpian putsch?

When Putin and Orban began their respective takeovers, they enjoyed several years of popularity–mostly by improving the economic postures of their countries. Thanks to Trump’s incredible ignorance (and his insane belief in tariffs), he took the robust economy he inherited and is in the process of tanking it. Krugman shared the widely available poll results that document Trump’s unpopularity–he is in deeply negative territory, and the people who strongly dislike him vastly outnumber those who strongly approve of him.

If we had a working Congress, unpopularity at this scale would already have turned Trump into a lame duck, but as Krugman notes, he has instead been able to operate as a quasi-autocrat, thanks to a “party that accommodates his every whim, backed by a corrupt Supreme Court prepared to validate whatever he does.”

As a result, Trump has been able to use the vast power of the federal government to deliver punishments and rewards in a completely unprecedented way. But the fact is that Trump has not yet locked in his autocracy. Timid institutions are failing to understand not only how unpopular Trump is, but also how severe a backlash they are likely to face for surrendering without a fight.

And so we come to Trump’s thin-skinned assault on comedians–most recently, Jimmy Kimmel.

Krugman says the signs were there, but Disney ignored them. There were several such signs: Target’s effort to appease Trump by ending its commitment to DEI–an effort that led to a large decline in sales and a falling stock price; capitulating law firms that lost clients and partners to law firms that didn’t. And of course, Tesla…

And yet,

Disney was evidently completely unprepared for the backlash caused by its decision to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, a backlash so costly that the company reversed course after just five days — too late to avoid probably irreparable damage to its brand…

It’s important to understand that Trump’s push to destroy democracy depends largely on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Behind closed doors, business leaders bemoan the destruction that Trump is wreaking on the economy. But they capitulate to his demands because they expect him to consolidate autocratic power — which, given his unpopularity, he can only do if businesses and other institutions continue to capitulate.

If this smoke-and-mirrors juggernaut starts to falter, the perception of inevitability will collapse and Trump’s autocracy putsch may very well fall apart.

So how can we make a Trump implosion more likely? The public can help by doing what Target’s customers and Disney’s audience did — make it clear that they will stop paying money to institutions that lend aid and comfort to the authoritarian project.

Big corporations and fancy law firms may fold. Republican legislators may lack integrity and spines. Supreme Court justices may be unfathomably corrupt. But the effort to silence Kimmel has once again confirmed that We the People have the power to remind all of them that we are Americans who value our liberties more than our access to consumer products or entertainment.

The public response to the Jimmy Kimmel episode may well be the light at the end of our current dark tunnel…..

Comments

Short And Sweet

Sometimes, a brief summary says it all.

In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman succinctly described what Trump has done to the economy. Granted, his economic ignorance is only a part of the current devastation–there are also the daily assaults on the constitution and individual liberties, and the continuing restoration of the Confederacy and its out-and-proud racism and misogyny…

But a lot of people who don’t care about the American Idea or fundamental fairness do care about their bottom lines. So Krugman’s summary ought to matter. Here’s that summary:

He has imposed high tariffs, undoing the effects of 90 years of trade negotiations. His deportation policies are already creating labor shortages and supply disruptions in multiple sectors of the economy. His Big Beautiful Budget Bill, aside from being cruel, is fiscally irresponsible. Deportations will undermine Social Security and Medicare. His drastic cuts to scientific research will undermine U.S. technology, and hence long-run economic growth.

That recap was an intoduction to Krugman’s analysis of why the stock market hasn’t tanked (yet), which he attributes to faith in the promise of AI. (My jury is out on the question of whether that “promise” is really a threat…) He also points out that the market has historically been a poor predictor of longer-term economic trends.

Whatever the market’s performance means–or doesn’t–it’s impossible to read that quoted paragraph without recognizing the enormity and inevitability of decline in American prosperity unless the mindlessness and madness aren’t reversed.

I wonder whether Trump voters will find the restoration of Confederate statuary and philosophy worth the economic costs…

Comments

The Power Of Image

In the wake of No Kings Day, we’ve seen a number of columns and news reports estimating turnout (current count: five million nationally) and comparing the enthusiasm of the protests with Trump’s lackluster and sparsely-attended parade in Washington. Many of those articles were interesting and even illuminating; one of the best–as usual–came from Paul Krugman, who took time off from his usual economic analyses to reflect upon the impact of such mass peaceful protests.

Krugman began with an important–and mostly ignored–observation: America is currently experiencing what scholars call “competitive authoritarianism.” Competitive authoritarian regimes are those in which formal democratic institutions are retained–elections continue to be held, for example, and other “democratic rules” are given lip service–but Incumbents violate the rules so often and to such an extent that the regime fails to meet the minimum standards for democracy.

Krugman says we’re not there yet, but that we are “teetering on the edge.” He also claims that “one of the most important ways we can step back from that edge is for ordinary Americans to engage in mass protests.”

Why should that matter? Why does the contrast between the poor turnout for Trump’s underwhelming exercise (what Krugman labeled as a “box office bust”) and the  enormous, enthusiastic participation in the No Kings protests matter?

It matters, as he explains, “because competitive authoritarianism rests largely on self-fulfilling expectations.”

While there is a cadre of Trumpist true believers who will obey the Leader under any circumstances, most of those doing the dirty work of undermining democracy and the rule of law are cowards and opportunists. They’re willing to participate in the destruction of America as we know it because they believe that many others will do the same. As a result, they believe that they are unlikely to face any personal consequences for their actions and may even be rewarded for their lawbreaking.

And what of those who oppose Trumpism? While there are heroes willing to take a stand against tyranny whatever the personal cost, most anti-Trumpists are reluctant to stick their necks out unless they believe that they are part of a widespread resistance that will grant them some measure of safety in numbers.

In other words, the victory or defeat of competitive authoritarianism will depend to a large extent on which side ordinary people believe will win. If Trump looks unstoppable, resistance will wither away and democracy will be lost. On the other hand, if he appears weak and stymied, resistance will grow and — just maybe — American democracy will survive.

Those of us who have been politically active will recognize the parallel to election campaigns, where momentum or an aura of inevitability sways less-informed voters to the probable winner’s side. (This is a truism that annoys the hell out of those of us who would love to believe that citizens vote after careful consideration of the policy positions of the contending candidates; unfortunately, in the real world, the desire to back a probable winner vastly exceeds such idealized behavior…)

So what we saw on Saturday was more than just the juxtaposition of a poorly attended parade that was supposed to glorify the Leader against massive, enthusiastic protests. We also saw a body blow to Trump’s image of invincibility and a demonstration that millions of Americans are willing to stand up for democracy.

It isn’t just the optics of five million plus citizens turning out in protest; as Krugman reminds readers, the resistance is gathering steam. He cites the “remarkable comeuppance” of the major law firms that bent their knee to Trump’s threats and are now seeing partners and major clients depart for firms that refused to be cowed, and the growing resistance to ICE’s lawless roundups of immigrants (including people who “look like” immigrants).

This isn’t the end of the assault on American democracy. It isn’t even the beginning of the end. But it may well be the end of the beginning. Trump spent his first 6 months in office trying to steamroller over all opposition, creating the impression that resistance is futile. Clearly, he hasn’t succeeded. On the contrary, resistance is stiffening, and those who preemptively capitulated seem to be paying a higher price than those who showed some backbone.

Although the tide may be turning, MAGA isn’t simply going to roll over and slink away. On the contrary, the administration’s power grabs will become even more aggressive and desperate, with growing efforts to intimidate, prosecute and even physically harm political opponents, as well as widespread efforts to suppress dissent with force.

Nonetheless, despite the difficult times ahead, America has just passed an important test. May freedom ring.

Comments