I do not understand why anyone would think President Trump’s business experience is a good thing. Every time someone refers to him as a businessman, they should include the word failed. He is a failed businessman. He is a bankrupted businessman. He is a convicted felon businessman. He is a businessman like Bernie Madoff, not Bernie Sanders.
Gabe, you are looking for a business philosophy from a con man. His only business philosophy is “what’s in it for me?”
Yes. Thank you Gabe for making this contradiction so easy to see.
In my POV, this opens up a campaign message for Democrats heading into the next election cycle. How can Republicans continue to weaponize “communist” or “socialist” as slurs when the very policies these accusations were meant to attack are now the defining economic features of the Republican Party under Trump? The government taking equity stakes in private companies, threatening price controls, comparing America to a state-run department store - these were the exact “nightmares” conservatives warned about for decades, and now they’re being implemented by their own standard-bearer without internal dissent.
Democrats should flip the script entirely and start using these same terms against the incumbent administration, but with a crucial twist. They can argue that some degree of socialism has been woven into America’s fabric since its founding - from public schools to Social Security to the interstate highway system - and when employed intelligently and compassionately, it actually serves the interests of the public rather than just satisfying a narcissist’s whims for power. The difference isn’t whether government intervenes in the economy, but how and why. Democrats could make the case for fewer corporate tax breaks and arbitrary price controls, and instead champion a stronger social safety net and strategic investments in areas that pay for themselves over time. Less frivolous spending on theatrical detention facilities and re-renaming military bases to honor the confederate generals they used to be named after, more investment in education and healthcare to raise a generation of innovators who can actually compete in the global economy. But first, that new generation needs access to high speed internet, well-funded schools, and vaccines.
I doubt the Republican Party will maintain this economic direction after Trump leaves office. The party seems primarily motivated by mafia-like fear of retaliation from the president for speaking against his message rather than any genuine ideological conversion. Once whatever is happening to Trump’s body finally puts an end to his political career, we’ll inevitably see politicians claiming to be his successor and inheritor of his movement. But because there’s no ideological continuity even within his current policies - simultaneously nationalizing companies while privatizing the postal service, imposing tariffs while cutting corporate taxes - I cannot imagine this embrace of what amounts to selective communism being inherited wholesale by the next narcissist who takes the reins. Trump’s economic philosophy is less a coherent worldview and more a collection of impulses centered around personal dominance and transactional thinking.
But while he’s here and wielding power with the full acquiescence of his party, Democrats might as well embrace the contradiction as a campaign message. Point out that Republicans are now the party of government ownership stakes, price controls, and state-directed capitalism. Then offer voters a choice: would they rather have these interventionist policies directed by someone’s personal whims and vendettas, or would they prefer strategic government action guided by actual public benefit? The old ideological battle lines have been completely scrambled, and Democrats would be foolish not to take advantage of this rhetorical gift that Trump and his enablers have handed them.
Yes and no. I’m past the point of frustration because I don’t have any expectation that the party system is an efficient way to develop a message that resonates with voters. Lobbyists and corporate PACs have made that impossible. So now that I have forgiven politicians for being bad at what we need them to do, not because of the weakness of individual politicians, but because the system is incentivized to contradict what people actually want, I have instead set my energy into a project of how to get the average voters to develop their own platform and then dare politicians to explain why they are against things as popular as universal healthcare and closing tax loopholes for the ultrarich.
The mainstream media thing doesn’t surprise me either. Most outlets are owned by the same wealthy interests that benefit from keeping these contradictions invisible. When your business model depends on access to power and advertising revenue from the companies being discussed, you’re not going to bite the hand that feeds you. The accountability heavy-lifting falls to us because that’s literally the only place it can happen anymore - the institutional mechanisms that were supposed to do this work have been captured by the very forces they were meant to check.
But here’s what gives me hope: when you poll Americans on actual policies without the partisan labels attached, the consensus is overwhelming. People want the government to negotiate drug prices, tax billionaires, and stop subsidizing profitable corporations. The disconnect isn’t between what voters want and what’s possible - it’s between what voters want and what the current system allows politicians to deliver. So instead of waiting for Democrats to figure out messaging, we can start demanding they explain why they won’t fight for the things that already have 70%+ support.
I am really looking forward to some potential unemployment coming up so I can actually put enough time into the project to make something in which people can collaborate with me. For now, just a bunch of ideas. :)
It will be interesting to see how these points are used in the mid-terms. If socialism is bad but our government is currently using tactics that can be called socialist, then what is the counter point? Will we see Republicans in certain districts where this polls well touting these things? How will it play out when someone with less charisma discusses these on the campaign trail?
I always come back to the same place- trump cares for trump. Period. Maga and the coward republicans fete him. Midterms are vital. And every vote matters as the last election proves.
I don’t think Trump did this for any other reason than to help himself, but I’m glad it got pushed through. I do worry that Trump will push a communist agenda, which is not what Sanders has wanted.
This is very interesting. I've heard Sanders voice so many times I can hear him reading that line in your article. It is a little confusing the calling out of socialism and demonizing of Sanders and then moving forward with policies that fall in line with both. I can appreciate a president changing their mind and doing what is in the best interest of the country. But this feels more haphazard than that. I wonder if we have seen any recent polling on the economy and how people 'feel'. Because as we've discussed before even if the traditional points for the economy are in good standing, how people feel matters. What is the overall consensus on these moves?
I do not understand why anyone would think President Trump’s business experience is a good thing. Every time someone refers to him as a businessman, they should include the word failed. He is a failed businessman. He is a bankrupted businessman. He is a convicted felon businessman. He is a businessman like Bernie Madoff, not Bernie Sanders.
Gabe, you are looking for a business philosophy from a con man. His only business philosophy is “what’s in it for me?”
Yes. Thank you Gabe for making this contradiction so easy to see.
In my POV, this opens up a campaign message for Democrats heading into the next election cycle. How can Republicans continue to weaponize “communist” or “socialist” as slurs when the very policies these accusations were meant to attack are now the defining economic features of the Republican Party under Trump? The government taking equity stakes in private companies, threatening price controls, comparing America to a state-run department store - these were the exact “nightmares” conservatives warned about for decades, and now they’re being implemented by their own standard-bearer without internal dissent.
Democrats should flip the script entirely and start using these same terms against the incumbent administration, but with a crucial twist. They can argue that some degree of socialism has been woven into America’s fabric since its founding - from public schools to Social Security to the interstate highway system - and when employed intelligently and compassionately, it actually serves the interests of the public rather than just satisfying a narcissist’s whims for power. The difference isn’t whether government intervenes in the economy, but how and why. Democrats could make the case for fewer corporate tax breaks and arbitrary price controls, and instead champion a stronger social safety net and strategic investments in areas that pay for themselves over time. Less frivolous spending on theatrical detention facilities and re-renaming military bases to honor the confederate generals they used to be named after, more investment in education and healthcare to raise a generation of innovators who can actually compete in the global economy. But first, that new generation needs access to high speed internet, well-funded schools, and vaccines.
I doubt the Republican Party will maintain this economic direction after Trump leaves office. The party seems primarily motivated by mafia-like fear of retaliation from the president for speaking against his message rather than any genuine ideological conversion. Once whatever is happening to Trump’s body finally puts an end to his political career, we’ll inevitably see politicians claiming to be his successor and inheritor of his movement. But because there’s no ideological continuity even within his current policies - simultaneously nationalizing companies while privatizing the postal service, imposing tariffs while cutting corporate taxes - I cannot imagine this embrace of what amounts to selective communism being inherited wholesale by the next narcissist who takes the reins. Trump’s economic philosophy is less a coherent worldview and more a collection of impulses centered around personal dominance and transactional thinking.
But while he’s here and wielding power with the full acquiescence of his party, Democrats might as well embrace the contradiction as a campaign message. Point out that Republicans are now the party of government ownership stakes, price controls, and state-directed capitalism. Then offer voters a choice: would they rather have these interventionist policies directed by someone’s personal whims and vendettas, or would they prefer strategic government action guided by actual public benefit? The old ideological battle lines have been completely scrambled, and Democrats would be foolish not to take advantage of this rhetorical gift that Trump and his enablers have handed them.
Timothy, isn’t it frustrating when D’s totally fail to take advantage of the countless rhetorical gifts Trump lays at their feet?
Also, that the mainstream news media totally ignores the contradictions?
Doesn’t it feel like we’re doing all of the accountability heavy-lifting?
Yes and no. I’m past the point of frustration because I don’t have any expectation that the party system is an efficient way to develop a message that resonates with voters. Lobbyists and corporate PACs have made that impossible. So now that I have forgiven politicians for being bad at what we need them to do, not because of the weakness of individual politicians, but because the system is incentivized to contradict what people actually want, I have instead set my energy into a project of how to get the average voters to develop their own platform and then dare politicians to explain why they are against things as popular as universal healthcare and closing tax loopholes for the ultrarich.
The mainstream media thing doesn’t surprise me either. Most outlets are owned by the same wealthy interests that benefit from keeping these contradictions invisible. When your business model depends on access to power and advertising revenue from the companies being discussed, you’re not going to bite the hand that feeds you. The accountability heavy-lifting falls to us because that’s literally the only place it can happen anymore - the institutional mechanisms that were supposed to do this work have been captured by the very forces they were meant to check.
But here’s what gives me hope: when you poll Americans on actual policies without the partisan labels attached, the consensus is overwhelming. People want the government to negotiate drug prices, tax billionaires, and stop subsidizing profitable corporations. The disconnect isn’t between what voters want and what’s possible - it’s between what voters want and what the current system allows politicians to deliver. So instead of waiting for Democrats to figure out messaging, we can start demanding they explain why they won’t fight for the things that already have 70%+ support.
I am really looking forward to some potential unemployment coming up so I can actually put enough time into the project to make something in which people can collaborate with me. For now, just a bunch of ideas. :)
It will be interesting to see how these points are used in the mid-terms. If socialism is bad but our government is currently using tactics that can be called socialist, then what is the counter point? Will we see Republicans in certain districts where this polls well touting these things? How will it play out when someone with less charisma discusses these on the campaign trail?
I always come back to the same place- trump cares for trump. Period. Maga and the coward republicans fete him. Midterms are vital. And every vote matters as the last election proves.
I don’t think Trump did this for any other reason than to help himself, but I’m glad it got pushed through. I do worry that Trump will push a communist agenda, which is not what Sanders has wanted.
This is very interesting. I've heard Sanders voice so many times I can hear him reading that line in your article. It is a little confusing the calling out of socialism and demonizing of Sanders and then moving forward with policies that fall in line with both. I can appreciate a president changing their mind and doing what is in the best interest of the country. But this feels more haphazard than that. I wonder if we have seen any recent polling on the economy and how people 'feel'. Because as we've discussed before even if the traditional points for the economy are in good standing, how people feel matters. What is the overall consensus on these moves?
"It is pointless trying to assign an economic philosophy to Trump" 😆 No truer words have ever been written.