3 ms·
We're in the second inning actually, not at the beginning. It started with the post great recession, Occupy Wall Street movement. That was the first major popu
by adventured 7y ago
We're in the second inning actually, not at the beginning.
It started with the post great recession, Occupy Wall Street movement. That was the first major populist movement in the US in the 21st century. Even though that largely failed to result in anything draconian (fortunately), the US banking system was brought under far stricter control. The Fed with the Treasury is capable of dictating almost everything about the businesses of the large financial institutions. Today the US financial system is by far the strongest and safest financial system of any major economy. It's due in part to that populist response after the crash.
Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash, against electing more of the same political dynasties (Clinton / Bush) that had come to rule the US. Trump defeated powerful, massively well-funded representatives of both entrenched dynasties to win the Presidency (which tells you just how dramatically voters were willing to reject a continuation of the old). Trump is the first populist President that the US has had in a century. Nearly every organization and individual that was part of the entrenched establishment was against Trump and he won regardless. And no matter what people think of Trump, his election will represent a permanent split with the past when it comes to the US political system. Things will never be the same, to put it mildly. AOC, as one example, is in Congress solely due to this cultural shift, new outcomes are possible (variations of Democratic Socialists were exceptionally rare in the past; they won't be rare in the near future). Obama was also partially responsible for and representative of this process that is underway; it's no coincidence he won immediately following the great recession crash, as the backlash and desire for a different direction is part of what made him possible (Hillary Clinton or McCain win that election otherwise).
- jacobush 7y agoObama was also very populist. (I suspect at first he drank his own koolaid but that he was ground down from within.) Trump is the kind of populist you get when the first one fails. Trump has many former Obama voters.
- electriclove 7y agoObama promised Change but it was the same old machine. Trump is actually delivering Change (whether you see it as good or bad).
- choppaface 7y agoOne thing missing from this narrative is that Trump lost the popular vote and that barely half of eligible voters even participated. That said, the seven faithless electoral votes do underscore a theme of disapproval during the 2016 election.
- code_sloth 7y ago> Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash Trump lost the popular vote. It wasn't a populist backlash, it was a broken system.
- electriclove 7y agoThe system is broken, yes. But I think the point being made is that Trump received many millions of votes in spite of all Democrat and Republican contenders against him because of a 'populist backlash' against the status quo.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoSeparately from your rhetoric, Trump has perpetrated many chances in law and practice that benefit really wealthy people, exactly like the Sackler. These include massive tax cuts for really wealthy people, and reducing fines and legal exposure for wealthy people. He's the opposite of a reaction to reign in wealthy people. He is a rabble rouser who uses his rhetorical power to make actions that at least in taxes and wealth only hurt poor, populist supporting people.
- loeg 7y ago> Trump has perpetrated many chances in law and practice that benefit really wealthy people... These include massive tax cuts for really wealthy people Basically: no. First, Trump can't make law; he can only sign what congress puts before him. Second, while he can make executive actions, I don't recall any of those that benefit "really wealthy people." But I might just be forgetting, please remind me. If you're referring to the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (TCJA), which was passed by Congress and signed by Trump, still no. The US largely does not tax wealth at all; it did not directly tax wealth before TCJA and doesn't after, either. The only indirect wealth tax is the tax on capital gains and dividends, which basically didn't change under TCJA. You still have 0, 15, and 20% long-term / qualified brackets, with the same additional 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax ("NIIT") for high-earners retained. (NIIT was added under Obama as a follow-up legislation to the Affordable Care Act.) Those rates and brackets basically didn't change. The top marginal Federal rate on LTCG is still 23.8% and the qualifying income brackets didn't shift substantially. > and reducing fines and legal exposure for wealthy people For example? > He's the opposite of a reaction to reign in wealthy people. Well, we can definitely agree there :-).