New Progressive Muckraker

22/07/2025

So...after almost 10 years since the 2016 election, Epstein is the story that finally starts turning MAGA against Trump, huh?

Well, we New Progressive Muckrakers all know that if Trump were not still the public face of the MAGA movement, then the MAGA movement would be little more than the Tea Party on steroids.
From Matt Kerbel of Wolves and Sheep, published yesterday:

"Would Richard Nixon have resigned the presidency if there had been a right-wing media universe in 1974?

"We’ll never know, of course, but given the events of the last decade it isn’t a stretch to imagine that he could have convinced 40% of the country that the Watergate break-in was a hoax staged by Democrats to bring him down, which would have given cover to the Republican senators who were prepared to convict him in an impeachment trial. Without the threat of being removed from office, Nixon would have had the latitude to stick around, attack his enemies, and complete his term.

"But in 1974, everyone got their information from the same small set of sources, which reported the same news from essentially the same perspective. There was no credible way for Nixon—or any political figure—to escape the consensus framing of media gatekeepers who set the political agenda. Through a frame of reference that was tethered to reality, the entire country learned that the break-in was part of a political espionage ring operating out of the White House and that Nixon himself was behind an effort to cover it up.

"The lack of agreement over basic facts like these is the hallmark of our time, perpetuated by a fragmented media environment that allows us to operate within information bubbles of our own liking. If some number of people are willing to believe that a sinister deep state operated by Democrats is covering up a child s*x trafficking ring that Donald Trump has promised to expose, well, it isn’t difficult for them to find the reinforcement they’ll need to confirm it.

"Which is what makes the trajectory of events over the past week so noteworthy.

"The Jeffrey Epstein story is not following the pattern of every other scandalous outrage Donald Trump has faced. Trump has tried his usual tactics but he has been unable to get the story to disappear. He has been dismissive of its importance, called elements of the story fake, berated people who think it matters and filed a lawsuit against a (usually friendly) media outlet that published an incriminating story about him.

"Still, the weekend began with CNN’s website hosting a banner headline raising 'Five Big Questions about Trump’s Ties to Epstein.' The Sunday New York Times prominently featured five stories grouped under the heading 'Jeffrey Epstein Fallout,' with the most prominent headlined, 'Parties, Young Women, and a Private Jet: Inside the Trump-Epstein Friendship.'

"This story isn’t going away. And here are the two datapoints that explain why.

"Most people think Trump is hiding something in the Epstein matter. And almost everyone wants Trump to release all documents related to the case.

"Literally. Almost everyone.

"A YouGov poll conducted last week finds that by a 74-point margin, Americans want to see the Epstein files. That’s 79% of respondents who say they do, to only 5% who do not.

"The same poll shows that 64% of Americans think the administration is covering something up. Only 8% do not.

"You just don’t see lopsided results like that in opinion surveys. And you certainly don’t see results like that in our polarized political world.

"The Epstein matter has cut through our usual divisions because both MAGA and not-MAGA are—for different reasons—appalled by what’s happening.

"Trump dismissing the Epstein evidence undermines one of the core promises he made to his base about being an anti-deep state superhero, so the more Trump equivocates on releasing the Epstein files, the more he implicates himself in the thing he promised to expose. Add MAGA’s rejection of Trump’s defenses to the rest of us who already assume that he is complicit in Epstein’s crimes and you get numbers like these.

"You also get an unfolding pattern of scandal coverage that bears a resemblance to the feeding frenzies of the pre-social media days.

"Absent two competing universes of facts to confound the truth, the Epstein scandal is playing out in a manner not unlike what we saw fairly frequently in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

"At the heart of these scandals was a candidate or official who gets caught doing something indefensible politically. In each case they actually did the thing or some facsimile of the thing they are accused of doing. They calculate that they would sacrifice their political viability if they own up to it, so they issue a denial. Reporters do not accept the denial, and dig for evidence that contradicts it. As that evidence surfaces—sometimes in drips and sometimes in bombshell revelations—the pressure mounts for the official to admit to the accusations, but now with the country paying close attention the cost of doing so has escalated. With each subsequent denial, their position looks more tenuous and unbelievable. They try to change the narrative but the story won’t go away. It usually doesn’t end well for them.

"This is the trajectory of the Watergate scandal in the 70s, the marital infidelity scandal that ended Gary Hart’s presidential bid in the 80s, and the Clinton extramarital affair story that led to his impeachment in the 90s, among others.

"The closest recent example of this pattern was last year’s frenzy about Biden’s age (which contained a scandal element about whether Biden was covering up infirmaries but was largely a story about his ability to serve a second term). The drumbeat of negative stories that led to Biden’s withdrawal from the race was fueled by Democrats who wanted him out aligning with Republicans who had no use for him. Similar conditions apply to the Epstein scandal so far. With the country on the same page, Donald Trump is experiencing a bout of pack journalism where social media isn’t bailing him out.

"There is no way to know how this will end. It is possible that MAGA anger at Trump will turn to reflexive support if his supporters perceive him as being under partisan attack. Or Trump could try to ride it out and hope people lose interest. He has wiggled out of scandals that would have consumed other politicians, and he has yet to pull his favorite move of deflecting and escalating. Still, I would note that none of his recent efforts to deflect from less damaging stories have been effective, and the structure of this scandal makes attempts to change the subject look like admissions of guilt.

"For the moment, as the Epstein story explodes across legacy and social media, we find ourselves in a place that feels like a throwback to an earlier time when we could all agree on basic facts. Donald Trump almost certainly cannot survive in an environment like this, so look for him to rekindle our divisions as swiftly as possible. His political survival may depend on it." (BR)

17/07/2025

(BR)

15/07/2025

(BR)

🛎 If You're New Subscribe ► https://bit.ly/CKOSubscribeTRUMP'S BASE ATTACKS HIM OVER HIS EPSTEIN COVER-UP - 7.14.25 | Countdown with Keith OlbermannSEASON...

15/07/2025

From today's New York Times "The Morning" briefing, by Shawn McCreesh:

"A revolt

"After years spent spreading spidery conspiracy theories for his own political gain, President Trump has found himself wrapped up in the stickiest one of them of all. For more than a week, the political movement he created has convulsed with righteous fury over Jeffrey Epstein and the things the administration has said and done — or rather not done — about his death.

"Trump’s supporters simply cannot swallow the anticlimactic conclusion that the Justice Department reached eight days ago when it said: There’s nothing to see here, folks. No secret client list, no ties to foreign governments, no clique of Washington protectors who shielded the financier and his friends from justice for preying on girls. Over the weekend, a rabble of conspiracists who’ve been hand-fed for years by Trump broke into open revolt.

"The fallout is testing the power that the president holds over his most loyal followers, the ones who’ve trusted him all along and who believed they would learn a whole lot more about the Epstein saga if they returned Trump to office.

"The unconvinced

"Maybe the revolt will sputter out, but it has been stunning to behold. It is a Möbius strip of paranoia and distrust: A political movement that began with a conspiracy theory — lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace were central to Trump’s rise — is cannibalizing itself over another conspiracy theory.

"And in a novel twist, Trump’s usual playbook for getting himself out of trouble didn’t work. In a social media post on Saturday, he blamed Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for unresolved Epstein mysteries.

"But the base wasn’t buying it. 'People are really upset at the outright dismissal of it,' said Natalie Winters, a 24-year-old protégé of Stephen Bannon. As Mike Cernovich, the prolific pro-Trump social media commentator, wrote online, 'Trump’s persuasive power over his base, especially during his first term, was almost magical. … The reaction on Epstein should thus be startling to him.'

"One person close to Trump conceded that the president didn’t grasp how deep and wide the discontent was because he doesn’t spend all that much time on the internet, where Epstein conspiracies breed. The 79-year-old president’s media diet consists primarily of cable news and print newspapers. But by Monday, news networks like CNN were devoting much more airtime to the uproar.

"A test of loyalty

"This is not the first time Trump’s base has bristled at him. The faithful grumbled when he encouraged Americans to take Covid vaccines or dropped bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities.

"But the conjecture around Epstein’s crimes and death is a many-layered mania that can’t really be compared to anything else. The shadowy concepts that undergird the whole thing go to the 'very foundation of MAGA,' as Winters put it, because 'it gets to the heart of who is in control of the country.'

"She lamented that Trump and the people who work for him now had campaigned against the deep state and failed to deliver. 'Finally, you have the power to expose it, and either you’re not, because there’s nothing there, in which case it makes you a liar — and I don’t believe that — or you’re ineffective, or you’re compromised.'

"The fallout is fundamentally about whether Trump can corral the conspiracy-driven forces that he weaponized. He sprang to power at a time of deep mistrust in this country after two wars and a financial crisis, selling himself as the only one who would tell the truth about a corrupt uniparty cabal that sold out the United States.

"But now that he is the one in control of the government, he is telling his supporters to move on from all of that. It has left many of them mystified." (BR)

10/07/2025

From Olivia Troye: published yesterday:

"No Sirens, Just Darkness and Floods.

"Texas was left unprotected by policy and design. The rest of the country should pay attention.

"Before we go any further, let me say this: behind every number is a human being. These aren’t just statistics, they’re children, parents, grandparents. Loved ones. Writing this wasn’t easy. Over the last few days, my emotions have swung between heartbreak and fury. What happened in Texas wasn’t just a natural disaster. It was a preventable tragedy. The more I dug into the failures, at every level of government, the angrier I became. Because I want a system of governing, from local to national, that protects all of us, not just the lucky, the wealthy, or the politically aligned. I spent most of my career working inside that system, and I believe in doing everything we possibly can to keep Americans safe.

"My home state is underwater.

"The Texas Hill Country just endured a catastrophic flood, one of the worst in our history. Over a foot of rain fell in six hours. The Guadalupe River surged more than 26 feet above flood stage. Cabins at Camp Mystic were swept away in the dead of night. Helicopters rescued campers. Over 170 people are still missing, and the death toll has climbed to 119. Governor Greg Abbott has warned both numbers may continue to rise. This isn’t just a storm. It’s a policy failure and a warning for every community in the country. Towns across America are experiencing severe flooding, from North Carolina to California, and just this week, Ruidoso, New Mexico, a place I often visited while growing up in the southwest.

"Imagine being a parent, jolted awake in the blackness of night by the roar of floodwaters. Your phone didn’t ring. The alert never came. By the time headlights flicker through the rain, it’s already too late. That’s what happened in Kerrville, Ingram, and Hunt. The National Weather Service (NWS) issued alerts on Thursday afternoon, but it wasn’t until early morning hours that the urgent flash-flood warnings raised the risk of catastrophic damage and severe threat to life. Kerrville’s mayor said it plainly: 'We didn’t even have a warning.' This tragedy reflects a warning system under pressure, stretched thin by rising climate threats, and now facing questions about the timing and effectiveness of its early morning alerts.

"Texas Had a Chance to Warn Its People. It Chose Not To.

"In the months leading up to the deadly floods, Texas lawmakers had an opportunity to address their broken emergency alert system. They didn’t. House Bill 13, a bipartisan proposal in the Texas Legislature, would have created a statewide emergency response council, supported first responder grants, and, most critically, helped fund outdoor warning sirens and statewide emergency alert systems. It passed the Texas House but was killed in the state Senate earlier this year, mainly over cost concerns. Lawmakers are now left second-guessing their decisions.

"Republican State Rep. Wes Virdell, who voted against the bill, told The Texas Tribune: 'My vote would probably be different now… I think even if you had a warning system there, this came in so fast and early in the morning it’s very unlikely the warning system would have had much effect.'

"But survivors say even a few extra minutes could’ve made the difference between life and death.

"A Broken Federal System By Design

"While Texas stalled, the federal government under Trump has taken a sledgehammer to the very systems meant to warn and protect Americans.

"Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and his allies have raced to dismantle our emergency infrastructure, following the extreme roadmap laid out in Project 2025 (p.166), which calls for ending federal disaster aid, privatizing weather alerts, eliminating resilience grants, and limiting FEMA to only the most catastrophic events.

"Here’s what Trump’s second term has already put into motion:

"*Dismantling FEMA- Trump established a FEMA Review Council through an executive order, triggering a strategic reevaluation of the agency's core missions. He has vowed to phase out FEMA entirely after the 2025 hurricane season.

"*Canceling the BRIC Program- FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants, vital for community preparedness, were terminated in February. That funding could have bolstered Texas’ defenses before the flood.

"*Quadrupling the Disaster Threshold- Fewer communities now qualify for federal disaster aid. Small towns, like those just hit, could be on their own.

"*Slashing NOAA and the NWS- On July 4, Trump signed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” slashing $150 million from NOAA and cutting over 800 jobs, including more than 100 forecasters from the NWS. The plan moves us toward outsourcing public weather alerts, potentially opening the door to delayed or paywalled warnings. You know that frustration when you click a news link and can’t read it without a subscription? Now imagine that same wall, but it’s between you and the alert that tells you a flash flood is heading straight for your home. The sky is black, the storm is here, and the warning you need is stuck behind a corporate login.

"*These cuts delay radar processing, weaken flood modeling, and reduce the lead time families have to seek safety. That’s not hypothetical. That’s exactly what just happened in Texas.

"This Is Climate Change, and We’re Choosing Not to Prepare

"Here’s what almost no one is saying out loud: This was a direct result of climate change. The Texas Hill Country flood wasn’t just a freak event. It was a climate-fueled disaster, made worse by rising temperatures, slower-moving storm systems, and overloaded waterways. And yet, Trump’s FY2026 budget eliminates nearly all federal weather and climate research. Entire NOAA divisions, including the National Severe Storms Laboratory, are being defunded. When you strip away scientists, silence forecasters, and eliminate early warning systems, you're not just unprepared; you're choosing to be blind.

"As someone who coordinated on federal disaster response as Homeland Security Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, I understand how these systems are intended to function. And I also know what it looks like when the system is deliberately dismantled.

"I watched Donald Trump slow-roll aid to blue states, attack governors who challenged him, and put his image and political agenda ahead of American lives. What we’re seeing now, from Project 2025 to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” is the same playbook I witnessed firsthand, now formalized and expanded into official policy. That playbook has real consequences, especially for communities now left exposed and unprotected.

"And then there is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, vacationing in Greece while Texans drowned, returning after backlash only to warn others not to 'politicize' the tragedy. This, after recently inserting language into the very legislation that slashes funding for storm research and public alerts. You can’t claim moral outrage while actively enabling the very policies that left people to die.

"This isn’t 'efficiency.' It’s depravity. When a government starts treating emergency alerts as a 'business opportunity' and disaster relief as 'pork,' people die.

And yes, Project 2025 (p.186) explicitly refers to FEMA grants as 'pork.' In its own words:

“'FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups... DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated.'

"That includes the very programs used to train first responders, fund flood sirens, harden cyber defenses, and support shelters. The plan argues that these investments should be scrapped, and that states should 'bear the costs' themselves, even after disasters they didn’t cause and can’t afford to recover from. In other words, if your town needs a flood alert system, a school evacuation plan, or shelters to keep people alive, it’s now your problem.

"Americans deserve real accountability.

"Because when emergency alerts are delayed, dismantled, or sold off to private firms, someone always profits. But it’s never the families trying to outrun rising floodwaters in the dark.

"Start by asking:

"Why did the Texas Legislature kill House Bill 13, knowing our alert systems were outdated? What lobbyist decided lives weren’t worth the cost?

"Why were extreme flood warnings delayed? Were NWS offices too understaffed to act? Once recovery is underway, we need a full accounting of what went wrong and why.

"Which radar systems and storm modeling tools were slashed, tools that could have bought families precious minutes to escape?

"Why are Trump and the Heritage Foundation so set on trying to sell off the National Weather Service?

"Why is basic weather safety becoming a luxury, something you have to pay for?

"Who profits from privatized weather forecasting?

"Why is broadband-based alerting treated as sufficient when so many rural and low-income areas lack access?

"How are small towns expected to rebuild with no BRIC program or FEMA aid?

"And to the most ardent 'America First' supporters, many of whom have written to me, why does the U.S. spend so heavily on military defense, but so little on protecting its own people from floods, fires, and climate disasters here at home? Your communities are the ones paying the price for these policies.

"The Community Foundation of the Texas Hill Country has launched a relief fund to help displaced families, small businesses, and emergency responders. Please consider donating. I’m deeply grateful to the volunteers, neighbors, and first responders who showed up with courage and compassion in the face of unthinkable loss.

"Texans, and Americans across the country, are stepping up, as they always do. But kindness alone can’t rebuild systems that were never built to withstand this. The floods will recede. The damage from these cuts won’t.

"If you live in a floodplain, a wildfire zone, or a hurricane corridor, pay attention. The warning that never came in Texas may never come for you. Find out what your town, your state, and your elected officials are doing to prepare for disasters or what they’ve quietly stopped doing.

"This isn’t leadership. It’s deliberate neglect dressed up as policy. And it’s getting people killed.

"More soon,

"Olivia" (BR)

10/07/2025

From Matt Kerbel of Wolves and Sheep, published yesterday:

"Responsiveness and Responsibility: Republicans passed the bill; now they should own it.

"Here’s how it’s supposed to work in a democracy: We elect our representatives. They take a measure of their constituents’ interests and do their best to legislate accordingly. They are rewarded with re-election if they represent their constituents well. If not, they are voted out.

"It’s a pretty simple process.

"One measure of the health of a democracy is how responsive Congress is to constituents and how effectively constituents hold representatives responsible for their actions.

"By this measure, American democracy has been ailing for a long time. Even before Republicans stuffed the megabill through the legislature last week, it wasn’t difficult to think of examples where Congress consistently refused to respond to the public interest. Gun safety and campaign finance reform measures come immediately to mind, but it shouldn’t be hard to think of other issues where well-funded special interests use influence and money to override the public will.

"If we are going to restore our democracy after we salvage it, this is going to have to change. Imagine how much better off we would be today if over the past decades we had a legislature that reflected and represented the interests of the country that elected it.

"Over the summer, I plan a series of posts to address this and a host of other ways we can lift up democracy when we finally get the opportunity to take meaningful action—along with why I think there’s a decent chance that time will come more quickly than it may seem.

"For now, I’d like to focus on what happened in Congress last week and what needs to come next. The process Republicans used to pass the megabill violated democratic principles, and we need to use the corrective mechanism democracy gives us to hold them responsible.

"Republicans voted against the interests of their constituents. And they knew they were doing it.

"They knew the public was strongly against this legislation. They had access to the same polling averages available to us, showing levels of disapproval so dreadful that not even one-third of the country is behind it.

"They knew they were voting against constituents who depend on Medicaid. They knew they were voting to undermine rural hospitals. They knew they were voting to hurt people who rely on SNAP.

"How do we know this? Because they told us.

"Because Josh Hawley said he couldn’t support a bill that took away his constituents’ health care—before he voted for it.

"Because Lisa Murkowski carved out rural hospital and food assistance exceptions for the people of Alaska, then anguished that the bill she voted for is not good enough for the rest of the country—where no other state gets the protections she negotiated by virtue of being the decisive vote.

"Because sixteen House Republicans put their objections to the bill in writing—before supporting it.

"If these Republicans were allowing an informed perspective to override their constituents’ preferences, then maybe you could be charitable and concede they were operating within the boundaries of their jobs. There is a view of representation that says the wisdom of the member should prevail at times when the public doesn’t know what’s best. Setting aside the inherent paternalism of this perspective, it can make sense in some circumstances, like if people were behind a foreign intervention that a member thought was ill-advised.

"But that’s not what happened here. Republicans weren’t exercising their better judgment. They were folding to pressure from Donald Trump.

"There is no theory of representation that says members of Congress should bend fully and completely to the wishes of the president. The branches are designed to keep each other in check.

"There is no theory of representation that says members should vote for a bill against their better judgement.

"There is no theory of representation that says members should knowingly vote against the interests of their constituents.

"But there is a theory of representation that says the electorate should fire a Congress that bends fully and completely to the wishes of the president. That votes against their better judgement. That votes against their constituents.

"Under these circumstances, firing them is an essential democratic act.

"Fortunately, it looks like plenty of people are going to feel this way.

"Even before the bill became law, and well before any of the effects of the legislation have been felt, the country soured on this MAGA Congress. Polling shows that a favorable electoral environment for Democrats has already started to build, with Democrats registering an early lead in the generic congressional ballot. A high-profile predictive model with a long history of successful forecasts shows Democrats in a strong position to take back the House and potentially the Senate. Outsized results for Democrats in special elections point to off-the-charts levels of motivation among Democrats and voters opposed to Trump and his party.

"Reclaiming Congress next year will be critically important for keeping Trump in check for the remainder of his presidency, but it would also make an important statement about the ability of democracy to function despite the damage it has sustained.

"As a party, Republicans abdicated their obligation to be responsive to the public and to their own clear understanding of what the megabill would do. In so doing, they forfeited the privilege of leading Congress.

"So now democracy requires us to hold them responsible.

"We need to vote them out." (BR)

10/07/2025

From Matt Kerbel of Wolves and Sheep, published July 7:

"The Rebranding is Complete: Add the Republican party to the list of things Trump has destroyed.

"The Trump Republican Party

"Donald Trump understands branding. He spent his life slapping his name on everything in his sight. Buildings. Casinos. An airline. A 'university'. Steak. Water.

"The allure of the Trump brand was success. Donald Trump branded himself a winner, therefore anything with his name on it shared the attributes of winning. He was famous, glamorous and allegedly rich. Associate yourself with his name and you could be these things too.

"The reality, of course, was quite different, but that doesn’t matter much when you can sell the fantasy. The reality of the Trump brand is flimflam, deceit, smoke and mirrors—a gaudy veneer covering a cesspool of lies. It’s closer to the truth that his legacy is a litany of failure.

"Now Donald Trump has worked his magic on the Republican party. In the first months of his second presidency, he has successfully rebranded it and set it on a course to share the same fate as the Trump Shuttle, Trump University, and Trump Steaks.

"The process culminated with the passage of the monstrous bill he signed into law on Friday.

"From Ronald Reagan’s election through Trump’s first presidency, Republicans maintained a strong brand identity that allowed them to dominate politics for more than a decade, then compete effectively with Democrats as the electorate became more balanced.

"If the key to a successful brand is simplicity, Republicans had it during the Reagan era.

"You could distill the Republican brand to a few words. Fiscal responsibility. Family values. Peace through strength.

"It’s so simple, you could write it on an index card.

"Even when this branding didn’t match up very well with reality, it served as a highly effective messaging tool. Republican presidents could explode the deficit but the party’s candidates could still run as responsible fiscal stewards because the brand was so enduring.

"And because politics comes down to a choice between options, if you’re the brand that’s responsible, wholesome and strong, what does that make your opponent? For decades, Democrats struggled with being branded the party of profligate taxing and spending, out-of-the-mainstream crazies, and global weakness.

"That is now changing, and the ramifications will extend well into the future.

"Because of Donald Trump, Republicans are now the party of pain and suffering that helps the rich at your expense.

"Three distinct events have combined to cement Trump’s rebranding of the Republican party.

"It started on day one with Trump’s broken promise to lower prices—the promise that most likely made the difference in the election. Of course, the idea that any president could magically lower prices was always ridiculous, but had Trump simply done nothing he was in position to take credit for the robust economy he inherited from Joe Biden.

"Instead, he plowed ahead with his chaotic tariffs that can’t actually be called a policy, upending markets and supply chains while raising the cost of goods and making it harder for businesses to plan. While it may take months or longer to realize the full effects of Trump’s tariff mayhem—with his next moves remaining unpredictable—Trump’s standing took a precipitous dive following the initial tariff announcement and has not recovered.

"At the same time Trump was breaking his core promise about prices, he was letting Elon Musk hack the bureaucracy. It did not go over well. After several weeks of hatchet-wielding, Musk left both the government and his personal brand deeply damaged. By the time he parted ways with the administration, Musk had made himself a symbol of uber-rich excess and arrogance. He had become deeply disliked by the public.

"Against this backdrop, Trump bludgeoned his party to approve a bill so obscenely damaging that before passage it was already one of the most unpopular legislative proposals in the history of polling. Despite Trump’s efforts to turn this reality on its head and claim the bill is both popular and glorious, it is that rare political document that offers nothing for anyone—except those at the very top of the financial pyramid. Some of the hardest hit will be rural voters in red states.

"There’s a good reason why Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, one of the most vulnerable House Republicans, disappeared from view to avoid the withering pressure he knew was coming from the White House after he voted against advancing the legislation to a floor vote. If not fearful of Donald Trump’s every whim, it is doubtful congressional Republicans would have allowed such a destructive—and self-destructive—measure to become law.

"Now they have to live with the results. And those results should reverberate loudly and for a long time.

"During every political regime in American history, one party enjoyed an electoral advantage over the other by virtue of having more support in the electorate. And those majority parties enjoyed a form of branding that resonated with the public strongly enough to reinforce their advantage until changing circumstances and weakening coalitions inevitably undermined it.

"During the New Deal era that stretched through the 1960s, Democrats and liberals were associated with improving the lives of working people. During the Reagan era, Republicans and conservatives were associated with economic and international strength.

"Although the alliances that made up the Reagan coalition were already fraying before the first Trump presidency, some of the stickiness of the Republican brand endured. It wasn’t difficult to find voters last year who looked positively on what they remembered as a sturdy pre-Covid economy under Trump, crediting him with being strong economic leader.

"In less than six months, he has blown that apart. Now codified as legislation, the damage Trump has done to his party will last long after he is gone, with the potential to define his party in the political alignment that emerges from the ashes of the Trump era.

"Trump’s tariff regime and the destruction brought about by DOGE have focused our attention on the cruelty of economic policies that disregard the needs of ordinary people, with Elon Musk as a symbol and the megabill—now megalaw—an emphatic statement of what Republican priorities really are.

"Add these things together and you have the rebranding of Republicans as the reverse Robin Hood party, hurting the working class and needy to give to the rich.

"It’s so simple, you could write it on an index card." (BR)