Picking Up the Pieces

America is broken.

To survive, our political system—like any system—must be able to protect itself. And it has not done so. The 2024 election elevated to the highest office in the land a narcissistic and deceitful demagogue who less than four years ago tried to destroy this system through lies, scheming, and violence. When he failed to sabotage it, the system did not punish or expel him. Though many who work within it tried to—a majority, actually, if you look at Congress alone—they did not succeed, and the rules allowed him to remain a participant. This was a historic failure, and now Donald Trump, who was convicted of 34 felony counts for falsifying business documents to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star and found liable for fraud and sexual assault and who has been described by former aides as a “fascist” and a clear and present danger to American democracy, has won a presidential election with the support of more than half the nation. The system has not worked, and its very existence is now threatened.

How did this come to pass? In the days following Trump’s triumph, there’s been much jawboning and thumb-sucking about what transpired. Did Vice President Kamala Harris lose because the sour mood of the country could not be overcome by a candidate connected to the status quo? Was it because of her gender and complexion? Was it because the Democrats have been written off by too many white working-class voters (for cause or not)? Was it because many Latino voters were drawn to Trump’s claim he would improve the economy and were not put off by his racism and vow to implement mass deportations? (The Latino vote increased by 13 percent for the GOP ticket over 2020, ending up with only a 53–45 percent edge for Harris.) Was it because white women, despite the Republican bans on abortion, ended up siding with Trump by an eight-point margin? Was it because Harris did not draw more younger or Arab American voters because of the Biden administration’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza? Was it because Harris had supported gender-affirming operations for prisoners (a Trump administration policy), a position that became the target of a massive ad blitz for the Trump campaign?

Yes. Probably all of that and more. There were multiple causes of this defeat for the Democrats. And many commentators tried to seize the moment to advance their own narratives and notions. New York Times columnist David Brooks slammed the “educated class” for being condescending toward the non-college-educated. He accused elitist Democrats and “many on the left” of focusing “on racial inequality, gender inequality and L.G.B.T.Q. inequality” instead of “class inequality.” Brooks contended that Trump, by attacking the establishment, effectively positioned himself as the legitimate champion of the left-behinds and left-outs.

In a far less elegant manner, Dave Portnoy, the social media personality, Trump supporter, and owner of Barstool Sports, a sports and culture website, issued a similar critique. He blasted Democrats for possessing a “moral superiority complex” that has alienated half the country. He cited as proof the Democratic argument that Trump, who was backed by millions, was a threat to democracy. “Their pure arrogance and their morality,” he ranted, “have driven people away. If you say you’re voting for Trump, suddenly you are a Nazi, you’re Hitler, you’re garbage...[They’re] acting like you’re better than us, smarter than us...Trump’s a threat to democracy? That was the entire Democratic campaign.”

These supposed explanations left out essential pieces of the story or falsely shaped it. Harris never called Trump supporters Nazis, while Trump called Harris voters “scum” and idiots. And Portnoy was wrong to say all Harris did was to bash Trump as a danger. She peddled many policy ideas, including assistance to small business owners and first-time homebuyers and an expansion of Medicare to cover home health care. Trump mainly offered grand promises of an economic “golden age,” and proposed super-tariffs that economists said could trigger inflation, inflict financial hardships on low- and middle-income families, and explode the national debt.

As for the bigger picture, it was the Reagan Republicans and free-traders who oversaw the beginning of deindustrialization of the United States, which led to the loss of manufacturing jobs that had supported working-class towns and cities across the nation. Many Democrats did join with Republicans in the 1990s to back NAFTA and other trade agreements, which didn’t help. But over the recent decades, the Democrats, when it comes to policy, have promoted far more initiatives to assist working-class Americans than the Republicans. That includes the Biden-Harris administration, which arguably has been the most pro-labor White House in decades. It has protected union pensions and supported overtime pay. Biden was the first president to walk a picket line. And his infrastructure bill, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other measures led to job creation. Biden expanded broadband in rural America. And the Affordable Care Act now provides access to health insurance for 45 million Americans—many of them in the working class.

Republicans have tried to weaken unions and passed tax cuts that benefit the rich (embracing debunked trickle-down economics). When he was president, Trump cut back a proposed expansion of workers eligible for overtime pay. On policy, there is no contest. The Democrats, even though they are influenced, funded, and sometimes inhibited by corporate interests, have generally shown more concern for workers than Republicans. (See the fight over increasing minimum wage.)

Yet despite all this, the Democrats are routinely lambasted as the dismissive enemy of the average Joe and Josephine, swells who are more focused on identity politics than economic matters. During the Reagan years, the GOP succeeded in winning over working-class and union voters by initiating culture wars against Democrats and libs on assorted wedge issues, such as abortion, gun rights, gay rights, and affirmative action. The Democratic positions on economic issues were no match for this. And Trump has done something similar. He mirrors and exploits the anger and resentment felt by many Americans toward those in charge. They may be upset about economic conditions, but their grievances also fixate on various societal changes, including immigration, shifting demographics, and secularization. And for some, these sentiments are intermixed with racism, misogyny, and religious fundamentalism. This is a brew of unease that Trump exploits.

It's been tough for the Democrats to blunt the culture war attacks with progressive economic policies, which often have been weakened by compromises necessary to enact them. It is easier to bang the drum on values than to affect the massive American economy and deliver substantial economic progress. Both the Obama and Biden administrations failed to convey their policy successes to many voters. Every day—in the White House or on the campaign trail—Trump repeated his propaganda ad nauseam. (I am great. I am/will do great things.) Biden manages to pull off a look-at-this-new-bridge event once in a while.

The Democrats have not connected with disaffected and pissed-off voters, even though they have implemented or proposed measures that aid them. They certainly don’t echo and reinforce these voters’ outrage that the economy is not producing enough high-wage jobs for non-college-educated workers or their anger at elites who benefit from the status quo. Trump does, and, for them, that’s enough. It doesn’t matter that when he was president he failed to enact an infrastructure bill, promised to deliver better and cheaper health care but never produced a plan to do so, and essentially lost a trade war with China. And, yes, there was his mismanagement of a pandemic that caused the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.

Which brings us to Sen. Bernie Sanders. The day after the election, Sanders released a statement decrying the Democratic Party: “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned the working class would find that the working class has abandoned them.” This was his version of the Brooks/Portnoy complaint that the Ds are elitists who care little for working-class Americans. (The Black working class, by the way, has not abandoned the Democratic Party, even if more Black men voted for Trump than last time.) Though Sanders has been supportive of Biden’s agenda and vigorously campaigned for Harris, he now accused the Democrats of being beholden to corporate interests and failing to “understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing.” He basically contended that the Dems should turn to Medicare for All and his more progressive policy agenda to cure what ails them. He also seemed to hint that he’d be participating in conversations about possibly finding an alternative to the Democratic Party. (Dividing the opposition to a fascist in the White House would be a mistake.)

Did Sanders’ missive signal yet another civil war within the Democratic Party (though he’s an independent socialist and not a Democrat)? Jaime Harrison, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, fired back with a sharp rebuttal: “This is straight up BS...Biden was the most-pro worker President of my life time—saved Union pensions, created millions of good paying jobs and even marched in a picket line and some of VP’s plans would have fundamentally transformed the quality of life and closed the racial wealth gap for working people across this country. From the child tax credits, to 25k for a down payment for a house to Medicare covering the cost of senior health care in their homes.”

I’m sympathetic to Sanders’ policy prescriptions. But I’m not convinced that only a sharp turn to the left will revive Democratic prospects. One of the most pro-working-class US senators, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, lost his reelection bid to a wealthy car dealership owner who in 2023 had to settle more than a dozen wage-theft lawsuits. No friend of the working stiff was he. But he was a Trumper. And let’s remember that Sanders, with his progressive populism, could not win over a plurality of Democratic voters in the 2020 election.

There’s much to ponder when assessing this election. For instance the role of disinformation and misinformation. An Ipsos poll in October found that “Americans who answer questions about inflation incorrectly are more likely to prefer Trump over Harris on the economy. The same pattern holds true on immigration and crime.” I don’t want to come across as a condescending liberal snob, but what does it mean when a large portion of the electorate is ignorant and, thus, more supportive of a demagogue? Also to consider: the role of oligarchic power (see billionaire propogandist Elon Musk), how the media covered the race (including the normalization of an authoritarian aspirant), and the fractured information ecosystem (how to reach those voters who eschew the news media). I’m sure I’m missing other major factors.

I’d be delighted to see the Democratic Party take a fierce stance against the powers that be and advocate for more progressive policies. But that might not do the trick. (Years ago, I wrote a piece contending that Medicare for All, while a good idea, was not a political winner for Democrats.) No doubt, there will be much squabbling within the party, within the left-of-center cosmos, and within the punditocracy about what the Democrats ought to do now. One thing to keep in mind is this obvious observation: In a presidential race, many voters vote for the person not the party, and that’s particularly true for the independents and voters who are not fully engaged in politics. So the who is probably the most important thing. A majority of voters must believe a candidate is on their side—wrongly or rightly—for that person to be victorious.

In the meantime, before there’s another presidential candidate, the debate over the Democrats’ response to this debacle will continue. But it will be partly academic. No strategy or person can be chosen until the nation sees how the second Trump term plays out. Will he round up millions, place them in camps, and then deport these people? Will he impose tariffs that spark inflation? Will he implement a national abortion ban? Will he and the GOP kill the Affordable Care Act? Any of these actions could shift entire blocs of voters.

The MAGA-ites will stick with Trump and perhaps with any anointed heir. But the Democrats need to either mobilize millions who sat this one out or swipe a couple million Trump supporters in the outer rings of his electorate. How best to do this probably cannot be determined at this point. And let’s not underestimate the difficulty for Democrats in reaching voters who are not worried about climate change (and who may believe it’s a hoax), who do not fear a revenge-obsessed, racist, and deceptive authoritarian in power, and who do not recoil at the prospect of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-science conspiracy theorist, overseeing public health. Moreover, the Dems and anti-Trumpers will be operating within a challenging media landscape and within a flawed political system that could not respond adequately to the Trump threat—a system that Trump and the Republicans will attempt to degrade to consolidate their power. The task for Democrats is arduous. They and their allies must protect the system from further collapse while figuring out how to forge a stronger bond with voters. This is a bit like trying to fix an airplane while it’s in flight. But that’s what’s necessary to avoid a complete disaster.

And if you didn’t catch my piece summing up the meaning of this election—headline, “America Meets Its Judgment Day”—here it is.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

On Election Day, the news broke that bomb threats were being sent to numerous polling sites in various swing states, including Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. They seemed aimed at areas that would favor Vice President Kamala Harris. There were 32 threats alone in Atlanta. And all these threats came from Russia. As the FBI said in a statement, “The FBI is aware of bomb threats to polling locations in several states, many of which appear to originate from Russian email domains.” The feds noted that none of the threats were “determined to be credible.” The mission appeared to be to disrupt voting, and the pattern suggested this was yet another Russian endeavor to boost Trump. The Russians were also recently caught disseminating fake videos that were obvious attempts to help Trump, and through the 2024 election, US intelligence officials said that the Kremlin was mounting covert operations and disinformation campaigns to benefit Trump.

So on Election Night, I posted a straightforward tweet about the bomb threats: “Russia again attacked a US election. To help Trump. This should be a big deal.” As it turned out, these threats did not cause much of an impact on the results. Still, they were more evidence that Vladimir Putin wants Trump in the White House—a rather salient fact.

Right-wing, pro-Trump media quickly pounced on my short tweet to deride the notion of Russian intervention in the election. Breitbart wrote, “In an attempt to deflect responsibility and shield the administration from blame, left wing personalities are already turning to a narrative that blames Russian interference for the election outcome.” It pointed to my post and exclaimed, “Russia Hoax Begins!” But in that tweet, I said nothing about Russia being a factor in Harris’ defeat. And a site called the Daily Signal reported that “David Corn, Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones, suggested that Russia had intervened. (Yes, Russia collusion is already back. Which side is the one about conspiracy theories, again?).” Actually, I had not suggested anything. It was the FBI that had stated Russia was again messing in an American election on Trump’s side. This was no conspiracy theory.

Why is it that the right cannot acknowledge that Russia has intervened in the 2016 election (the hack-and-dump operation and a clandestine social media campaign), in the 2020 election (pushing disinformation about Joe Biden), and now in the 2024 election? They keep covering for Putin. This is hardly America First.

The judges could not bear to bring themselves to scour all the coverage of the election results to identify the worst remarks of this tough week. But they did want to call attention to one comment—a post on X by billionaire Amazon chief Jeff Bezos: “Big congratulations to our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory. No nation has bigger opportunities. Wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”

The obvious punch line was, “Finally, here’s Bezos’ endorsement.” But this tweet was rather serious. Bezos, the second-richest person in America and the owner of the Washington Post, was not merely issuing an obligatory congratulation. He was hailing Trump’s “extraordinary political comeback,” glorifying Trump’s own narrative. But a comeback from where? From mismanaging a pandemic? From pushing the Big Lie and inciting political violence to subvert the constitutional order? And in wishing Trump success, was Bezos saying he hopes Trump succeeds in arresting and deporting millions of people who are not criminals? Or in imposing authoritarian measures that undermine American democracy?

This American oligarch, whose tax bill will be impacted by Trump’s decisions and whose companies have many interests before the federal government and could be dramatically affected if Trump imposes the high levels of tariffs he has promised, was bending the knee before this autocrat-wannabe and kissing the ring. For obeying in advance, Bezos earns an honorable mention. If there were a trophy, we would ship it to him free.

It was difficult this week to get through all the sacks of mail. Recent issues that looked at the 2024 election being a battle for reality and that examined why Trump voters accept and embrace his lies riled up readers. Here are a few of the many cards and letters we received.

Wendy Dickerman wrote:

The battle for reality was lost today, alas! The universe did not step in as I had hoped it would so fervently. Can we survive this man who will gleefully destroy our democracy, our standing in the world, our values and stability? And now your previous tongue-in-cheek fantasy re his VP becomes absolutely possible! OMG and WTF is wrong with our countrymen that they could make this choice?

Nancy Lane emailed:

Your newsletter article and Mother Jones articles shine a bright light through decades of dark lies. I know many people are vulnerable and gullible to gaslighting but failed to understand they were living in an unreality. Trump’s constant lies, hatred of all minorities, sexual abuse, and cruelty were infuriating, and the silence or excusing by the press left me sputtering about injustices to humans. Thank you for clear insights toward a deeper understanding of my family and neighbors.

Martha Ture referred to an academic paper I cited that sought to explain why Trump voters are drawn to a “lying demagogue”:

Here's the problem with Hahl and Sivan's explanatory view that one set of the society feels that it is not heard and thus is justified in supporting a powerful Caesar figure who will overthrow the elites and express their collective grievances in governing: Women and people of color. Neither women nor people of color have sought to overthrow the government by force and violence because their concerns were being ignored. So something else must be afoot.   

What if women and people of color were heavily armed and able to organize on the world wide web? No, this hypothesis is still not consistent with Hall and Sivan's view. We don't see evidence of Women and People of Color as groups arming themselves with assault weapons. It is not part of their cultures. So something else must be afoot. That something else appears to be the values of the Trump culture. 

George Monroe shared his concern about Elon Musk:

Here is a thought that glows brightly when I stick my head above the storm clouds and find a different perspective at a higher level of awareness: Elon Musk is bringing us a new Trojan Horse. He is gaining control of so many key parts of our defense systems that he will soon have the power to become king of America and eventually the world. Trump is an aggravating pawn in service to the party of oligarchs. Elon is their developing scion.

Musk, who spent at least a hundred million dollars to help Trump win the White House (and maybe much more), has become a Bond villain. I’m not sure he will be king of America, but he certainly has gained tremendous influence with Trump and has said that at Trump’s request he will identify $2 trillion to cut from the $6.5 trillion federal budget. Moreover, he will now use his sway to gain favored treatment for his companies and likely continue to run X as a pro-Trump platform. This is brazen oligarchy.

“It’s a beautiful day.”
“Do you know what happened, Moxie?”
“Would knowing interfere with my appreciation of this beautiful day? If so, you can tell me tomorrow.”
“What if tomorrow is a beautiful day?”
“Then we’ll be lucky.”