Showing posts sorted by date for query HOOVER DEPRESSION. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query HOOVER DEPRESSION. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, September 12, 2026

The old order is dying as America faces a full-blown political reckoning

REUTERS/Eric Lee

September 11, 2026 
ALTERNET

“The old order is dying and the new cannot yet be born; in this interregnum, monsters appear.” —paraphrase of Italian anti-fascist Antonio Gramsci


While Hakeem Jeffries revealed, as he trash-talked Medicare for All, that he doesn’t believe we’re in a full-blown populist moment in America, Trump, Bannon, and the neofascist tech bros and billionaires fully realize what’s going on — and are committed to making the most of it. As are Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, El-Sayed and hundreds of other Democratic candidates this year.

At its core, populism is a way of understanding politics as a struggle between ordinary people and a powerful elite that has stopped serving them. It’s not inherently left- or right-wing; it’s really a way political scientists describe a moment when the majority of a population has lost faith in the existing system and is looking for alternatives to it.

Arguably, the greatest failure of government in the past century was the Republican Great Depression, kicked off by Herbert Hoover with GOP tax cuts and tariffs in 1929 and lasting largely through the end of World War II. It created a populist moment that brought to power a Bernie-like populist in America named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It also brought to power a Trump-like populist in Germany named Adolf Hitler.

Because populist moments or eras typically evolve out of desperation — a third of Americans and Germans were unemployed in the 1930s — they open the door to people who offer solutions that radically depart from the norm. Breaking the old model and replacing it with a new one, in fact, is the essence of that populist pitch, be it coming from the fascist or the democratic socialist side.


And make no mistake: America is now being pulled in both directions by powerful movements from both sides. A recent Pew poll found that while almost 90 percent of Americans trusted our government to “do the right thing” for them in the Eisenhower/Kennedy 1960s, today that number sits at a shocking 17 percent.

The ground for a major, wrenching transformation of America has been seeded and the neofascist movement — which figured it out first — has, for the moment, captured control of our federal government along with about half of our states. But there’s also massive progressive pushback and dissatisfaction that, if anything, is amplifying the widespread populist sentiment.

So, which side will prevail?


The creation story of this moment is found when Reagan’s campaign cut a deal with the Iranian mullahs to hold onto their American hostages until after the election of 1980, thus destroying President Jimmy Carter’s chance at reelection. Reagan immediately began to execute a neofascist vision that had been presented to him by the billionaires who funded the Heritage Foundation with their 1981 “Mandate for Leadership,” that era’s version of Project 2025.

He destroyed the American union movement, slashed wages for working class people gutting the middle class, made it harder to retire on Social Security, made deep cuts to FDR’s social safety net, ended free college, killed Carter’s solar energy programs, gave trillions of tax dollars to billionaires while raising taxes on working people, slashed funding for our public schools, and repeatedly blamed the nation’s problems on Black people and “elites” in our universities.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton picked up Reagan’s neoliberal mantel and brought us “the end of the era of big government” and “the end of welfare as we know it” as Reagan’s draconian tax cuts — which no Democratic president since has seriously challenged — began the modern explosion of billionaires and monopolistic corporations.


President Obama, although he campaigned on the populist-sounding slogan of “hope and change,” continued the neoliberal plan, turning our healthcare system over to a handful of massive insurance companies and their billionaire executives.

Forty-five years of neoliberalism, as I document in detail in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America, have taken us from two-thirds of us being in the middle class with a single paycheck in 1981 down to a mere 41 percent of us claiming that status and having to have two full-time jobs to do it today.

Like the Republican Great Depression devastated average voters, so has this failed neoliberal experiment, bringing us to this second modern populist moment.

On the neofascist side, there’s a populist movement initially led by tech and fossil fuel billionaires that’s been joined by the over 200 billionaire families and foundations who spent nearly one in five of all dollars used in the 2024 election.


They’re aided daily in their efforts by propaganda operations run by Vladimir Putin (internet trolls), Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, and Benjamin Netanyahu (AIPAC), all committed to spreading strongman ethnonationalist movements across the world at the expense of democracy. And, of course, Donald Trump and his seizure of our federal government and police agencies.

Their most compelling weapon is their control of most of our media, particularly the powerful social media sites Facebook and X. As Peter Theil wrote in 2010, quoted in the opening of Gil Durand’s brilliant new book The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy:
“The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically overturn the monetary system of the world… the basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority… But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world—without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who were never going to agree with you—through technological means… technology is this incredible alternative to politics.”


On the side that still embraces democracy, the populist progressive movement has been led by Bernie Sanders for decades, although that mantle is increasingly being picked up across the Democratic Party as politicians recognized over the past decade this populist moment.


Multiple polls from 2016 showed that Bernie Sanders could’ve easily beat Trump, if the Democratic Party machine and the big donors Bill Clinton brought along hadn’t sabotaged Sanders. It was verified by Politifact. Populist voters were ready to elect a populist in that election, and the only one offered them was Trump.

They rejected the neoliberalism of Reagan and the Clintons alike, and those who vote for Democrats are clearly now opting for a reinvention of America along the social democracy lines pioneered by the Scandinavian nations.

In his book I Paid Hitler, 1930s steel baron Fritz Thyssen confesses that he was entranced by populist Hitler’s promise to “resurrect” Germany from the depths of the Depression and its loss in World War I. He organized the first seed money that got Hitler into power in 1933 and brought along many of his fabulously rich peers.

Today’s heir to Hitler’s authoritarian populist mantle is Trump (although Vance and Rubio, among others, are waiting for the king to fail so they can step into the vacuum).


During that same time, the plutocrat and former New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt turned his back on his own class and embraced a Bernie-like populist message, claiming that he could put America back together by taxing the morbidly rich at 90% and using government to meet workers’ needs.

Today’s heirs to FDR’s progressive populist mantle could well be billionaire Illinois Governor JB Pritzker or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (although there are numerous competitors).

On both sides, the message is similar:
“The elites and the government have failed us, feathered their own nests while ignoring us and ours, and they must be overthrown and replaced. We need radical change in the direction of our government and our culture.”


The only difference is that the Republicans are saying they’ll fix things by handing the reins of government to billionaires and the stability of society to armed, masked ICE agents while Democrats are saying we must reverse Reaganism, tax the rich, and use that money to restore our middle class with free healthcare, education, and housing supports.

We’ve been in this populist moment since the middle of the GW Bush administration, although it was a slow boil until the 2016 election. The first indication was Obama winning with a populist message, and the for-sure proof was Trump winning twice on purely populist messages. The Trump movement, however, figured out that this was where America was at long before it occurred to Democrats (other than Bernie), and Biden’s efforts, although valiant, were too little and too late.

So, here we are at this populist moment, and our country faces a binary choice: fascism or democratic socialism.

Republicans are universally lined up on the fascist side, backing Trump and ICE while feeding at the trough of their billionaire donors. That unanimity gives them tremendous power; their only problem is that they’ve failed to deliver for the people and voters know it.

Democrats are split, between those corrupt neoliberals like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and John Fetterman who are deeply in the pockets of corporate and wealthy interests, and a new and growing generation of politicians who often describe themselves as democratic socialists or social democrats.

This schism, a remnant of the Clinton years, is weakening the Democratic Party’s populist appeal as many believe the Perez-style Democrats will prevent the AOC- or Pritzker-style Democrats from actually accomplishing the transition to a social democracy that America needs.

Some doubt that this is the most important election in our lifetime, noting that every cycle we hear that kind of rhetoric. But, given the stakes and the boiling populist energy arrayed on both sides, it’s hard to imagine this isn’t the most critical one since 1932 America and 1933 Germany.
Get Thom Hartmann's daily columns on his Substack, Hartmann Report. Click here to join for free.

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Tanking economy spurs stunning conclusion from analyst: Trump's doing it 'deliberately'



Travis Gettys
August 26, 2026 
RAW STORY


President Donald Trump's economic record has been so bad that one analyst concluded he must have wrecked it on purpose.

Rather than resulting from external shocks, the 80-year-old president's economic struggles stem largely from his own administration's decisions, MS NOW's James Downie argued Wednesday.

The column opens with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's exasperated response Monday, while announcing new sanctions on Iran, to the suggestion he might have deliberately damaged the economy: "Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?"

Downie argues he might have unwittingly made a reasonable point.

"Bessent may think that’s still a self-evidently ridiculous question," Downie wrote. "George W. Bush didn’t want a Great Financial Crisis, nor did Herbert Hoover seek to start a Great Depression. Surely no White House would deliberately hurt the global economy."

"Yet for the first time ever, that’s not the case," he added. "At home and abroad, the past few days have laid bare the extent to which President Trump’s troubles on the economy are self-inflicted."

The 30-year Treasury bond yield hit a 19-year high last week, prompting Bessent to expand government debt buybacks. Yields dipped only briefly before returning to prior levels, which the columnist attributes to investor concern over the $40 trillion national debt — a debt load it says traces substantially to the Bush-era and Trump-era tax cuts, citing an analysis from the Center for American Progress' Bobby Kogan.

The columnist also points to Trump's decision to allow 300,000 tons of tariff-reduced beef imports just before the midterms, framing his stated goal of lowering ground beef prices as a tacit admission that American consumers, not foreign exporters, have been absorbing tariff costs.

On the Iran conflict, Downie notes continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, sustained high oil prices, and reports that companies are raising prices on goods including beer, french fries, paint and packaging to offset rising costs.

The piece further highlights renewed U.S.-Canada trade tensions, with both countries announcing new tariffs. It quotes economist Paul Krugman's observation that the U.S. economy relies on Canadian goods more than commonly recognized, citing Canadian oil exports to the upper Midwest and electricity supplying roughly two million homes in Maine.

It comes as no surprise then, he argued, that July data shows retail sales fell for the first time in nine months and job losses in the broader economy.

"Presidents usually get far too much credit or blame for the state of the economy," Downie wrote. "But in Trump’s case, the causation is much clearer. And it means a key part of his political image is backfiring."

Saturday, August 15, 2026

'This is Trump's economy': Nobel winner butchers president's claims

"The Trump economy favors wealth over work.”


REUTERS Elizabeth Frantz

August 14, 2026
ALTERNET

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman left no room for U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to hide in a blistering Friday night fact check on MS NOW
.

Bessent recently promised that high inflation and rent prices would soon go down in a Newsmax in a Thursday interview, after first blaming immigrants for the price increases.

“The laws of supply and demand still work when you take illegals out of the workforce, working class wages go up. When you send them back home, rents go down,” Bessent said.

Oh, no, said Krugman.

“This is really Trump's economy,” Krugman quickly corrected. “There's never been in my lifetime a case of this dramatic — a set of, you know, blatantly irresponsible policies that are directly making life worse for the great majority of Americans.”


“It's amazing that these guys can be boasting about jobs,” Krugman added. “The reality is that in the last year of the Biden administration, America gained about 100,000 jobs a month. Under Trump, so far, it's a little over 30,000 a month. So we've had a real we've sort of fallen off a cliff in terms of job creation. So, this is not a great economy for anybody except, you know, a handful of people who are have bought the right stocks.”


“This is an economy that's been great for the oligarchs, for a handful of people. Really, it’s no longer the 1 percent. We're really talking about the 0.01 percent. A few hundred people are the ones who've done really well in this economy. And sure, they're the people that get to talk to Trump. So, he probably hears from them that ‘things are great.’ But what about the 99.9 percent who are not doing so good?”

He emphasized that unlike many presidents before him, Trump has no one to blame but himself and his policies for the mess now facing Americnas, and threatening Republicans in November.

“Oh, you know, there's an old truism among economists, which is that presidents get too much blame and too much credit because they don't have that much control over what happens to the economy,” said Krugman. “Now, Trump has broken that, if you're going to go and start a war that blocks one of the world's major shipping points for energy, if you're going to impose massive tariffs.”

“You know, in previous troubled times you couldn’t blame the presidents [catching the responsibility] for the economy. The economy of 2022 was not really Biden’s economy. That was global. It wasn't mostly things he did. And so on down the line. Even the Great Depression wasn't really Herbert Hoover’s fault, although his response was pretty bad. But this is Trump’s economy.”


Thursday, July 30, 2026

Red Scare 3.0


 July 29, 2026

Senator Joseph McCarthy (right) with a map of Communist Party organizations, 1954 – Public Domain

On July 16, 2026, the Trump administration launched the Red Scare 3.0.  In a press release, the White House proclaimed in bold type: “an unprecedented global offensive against the transnational threat of Radical Left terrorism.”  It then added, “Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, far-left extremism will be treated with the same seriousness and ferocity the world has long reserved for jihadist terrorism.”

Key administration spokesmen championed the new offensive:

+ Sec. of State Marco Rubio: “Today, we face a new wave of this old evil. Here in the United States, the share of left-wing terrorist attacks and plots has risen to levels not seen in decades… “

+ Sec. of the Treasury Scott Bessent: “…We will dismantle the networks that sustain political terrorism, however respectable their fronts may be. We will pursue those who enable political violence, however distant their jurisdictions.”

+ Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller: “… We must stay the course and be completely unflinching in the pursuit of justice against these enemies of civilization.”

Sec. Rubio, added, the U.S. “Department of State under the leadership of Secretary Rubio is convening governments from across the globe at the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism to address the rise of far-left political terrorism as a transnational threat.”

+++

American’s first Red Scare took place from 1917 to 1921.  Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s terror campaign against American radicals, dissidents, immigrants and workers makes the current Trump-Rubio effort look like a pathetic puppet show.  Wilson jailed his charismatic Socialist opponent, the 63-year-old Eugene Debs, for opposing America’s descent into the carnage of the First World War.

As members of the Industrial Workers of the World — known as the Wobblies — organized actions across the country. Debs declared, Lenin and Trotsky were the men of the hour.”

In response, on Flag Day in 1918, Wilson proclaimed, “Force, force to the utmost, force without limit.”  That year, his administration began overseeing the banning of small radical magazines like The Masses, and the hounding of any publication not on board with the war.

As Adam Hochschild reminds us in his book, American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis:

“angry mobs burned Black churches to the ground and chased down pacifists and immigrants. Well over a thousand men and women were jailed solely for what they had written or said, even in private. Department of Justice reports, an astonishing 250,000 people joined a nationwide vigilante group.”

Emma Goldman wrote, “We had nothing left, neither literature, money, nor even a home. The war tornado had swept the field clean.”

+++

The second Red Scare dragged on between 1947 and 1954.  In 1954, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (R-W) was at the height of his campaign against “communism,” alleging that hundreds of Communists had infiltrated the State Department and other federal agencies.

On March 9, 1954, millions of Americans watched as Edward R. Murrow used his national news program on CBS to attack McCarthy. He warned, “No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices.”

In June ’54, the Senator turned his rage against the U.S. Army, charging it with lax security at a top-secret army facility. (McCarthy’s chief counsel was Roy Cohn, Donald Trump’s early mentor.) The resulting Senate hearings, known as the Army-McCarthy hearings, galvanized the nation.

The Army was represented by Joseph Welch, a Boston attorney. On June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch’s associates, Frederick Fisher, was a communist. In response, Welch pointed a finger at McCarthy and declared, “Until this moment, senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness. … Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

Symbolically, the Welch-McCarthy standoff marked the end of the second Red Scare. Clay Risen’s Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America brings the past up to today, noting, “There is a lineage to the American hard right of today and to understand it, we need to understand its roots in the Red Scare.”

Looking back more than a half-century, Risen’s study is informed by a revealing insight: “It is a great irony of the Red Scare that by the time it began, the era of Soviet espionage was almost entirely in the past.”

Risen argues that the Red Scare began shortly after WW-II ended, in 1946, when Billy Wilkerson, the publisher of The Hollywood Reporter and a staunch anti-Communist Catholic, admitted at confession, “Father, I’m launching a campaign [against communists], and it’s gonna cause a lot of hurt.” The priest comforted him, saying, “Get those bastards, Billy.”

He reminds readers that the Red Scare was foreshowed by 1940 Alien Registration Act (aka Smith Act), which made it a crime to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government; in 1951, the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.

In 1947, Pres. Harry S. Truman, worried that he would lose to a Republican challenger in the upcoming ’48 election, took on the growing anti-communism issue and signed Executive Order 9835, “Prescribing Procedures for the Administration of an Employees Loyalty Program in the Executive Branch of the Government.” It established a Loyalty Review Board as part of the Civil Service Commission to investigate “the political sympathies, affiliations, and memberships of all federal employees.”

Risen argues that the “red scare” was an outgrowth of a long-simmering conflict between social conservatives (often middle Americans) and New Deal progressives (often big-city, Easterners) that took on intensified vehemence as the Cold War came to define U.S. foreign – and domestic – policy.  In addition to McCarthy, the book profiles many familiar figures like J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon as well as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Whittaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The book also retells many old tales involving House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Senate hearings as well as that of the Hollywood Ten, the Peekskill Riot and the trials of 12 Communist Party members. Equally revealing, it spotlights the lesser discussed the roles of people like Elizabeth Bentley, an ex-Communist, whose revelations helped open the door for the showdown between Chambers and Hiss.

Most disturbing, Red Scare is filled with the stories of ordinary Americans drawn into the communist orbit as a result of the economic devastation of the Great Depression and the U.S.-Soviet alliance of WW-II. They include teachers, factory workers and government employees who were not only socially shamed but often lost their jobs.

Risen reminds readers that in the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, suspicion of possible being involved in communist espionage led the FBI to conducted 4.76 million background checks and investigated 26,236 individuals who held or applied for government jobs. He also notes that 6,828 people resigned or withdrew their applications, and 560 were fired.

Risen acknowledges that there were “two strands of the Red Scare – the culture war and the politics of Cold War security ….” He stresses, “Anti-communist fervor was both a catalyst and a symptom of the return to rigid gender roles, and with it a hard turn against homosexuality as a threat to the older ways.” While most of his book explores the politics of “security,” he notes that thousands of homosexual employees were fired or forced to resign from the federal workforce because of their sexuality. Dubbed the Lavender Scare, it was the second front in the anti-Communism crusade, promoted by Christian conservatives, Republican politicians and congressional investigation.

While Risen mentions the growing Civil Rights movement as an emerging social force challenging the inherent racism of the anti-Communist campaign, he seems unaware of a deeper critical force taking shape during the ‘50s – what one could broadly call the incipient counterculture. This emerging force is most evident in the era’s radical literature, represented by works like Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451(1953) and Allen Ginsberg’s Howl & Other Poems (1956); in 1957, City Lights’ publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti and bookstore manager Shig Murao were arrested for publishing the book.

The era also saw the release of other works that would refashion the era, including Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization (1955), the most utopian, visionary work of the era; he sites Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), but doesn’t acknowledge that by ’53, when Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was published, it had sold over 265,000 copies.  Truly, the post-WW-II era witnessed Red Scare 2.0 – and a lot more.

+++

Today’s Red Scare 3.0 is driven by the growing opposition to Trump’s foreign and domestic policies.  Trump needs a new front to contest the opposition and give him – and his Republican Party backers, especially in Congress — a wedge they can use to fight the challenges they face.  Nothing is better than an ill-defined yet omni-threatening enemy.

Upon taking office in January 2025 for his second term as president, Trump singled out his first enemy – immigrants.  He issued a series of executive orders that restricted immigrants’ rights and set loose ICE — the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency – to aggressively arrest, detain and deport allegedly illegal “criminal” immigrants.

Trump targeted his second “enemy” in his campaign against “communists,” socialist, Antifa and other radicals.  He set in motion Red Scare 3.0 when he issued the National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7) in September 2025.  It set out a comprehensive strategy to investigate, disrupt and prosecute “left-wing” individuals and groups allegedly associated with “domestic terrorism” and organized political violence.

In September 2025 Trump also designated “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization. In an Executive Order, he noted:

“Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.  It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals.”

Going further, he insisted:

“Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity, then employs elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members.”

Over the last 10 months: the Justice Department has built task forces staffed by counterterrorism prosecutors; that FBI has created and NSPM mission center; the IRS is investigating nonprofit organizations; and the Justice Department has begun to charge – and convict! – leftist activists.

In the wake of ICE killings of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, 15 Minneapolis-area residents were indicted for “conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers.” In Texas, eight protesters were accused of having connections to antifa and were sentenced to decades in federal prison over a shooting outside the Prairieland immigration detention center.

In a Fourth of July speech at the National Mall, Trump railed against an allegedly growing threat of “communism.”  “America will never be a communist country. Won’t happen,” he said.  Adding, “It’s like a cancer. You’ve got to cut it out. … Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen.”

In June 2025, while Zohran Mamdani was the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) New York mayorial candidate, Trump ranted:

“Let’s say this, if he does get in, I’m going to be president and he is going to have to do the right thing, but they’re not getting any money. He’s got to do right thing. It’s shocking that I would have assumed that. I used to say we will never have a socialist in this country. No, but we’ll have a communist. I mean, he’s a communist, he gonna be mayor of New York.”

Nevertheless, Mamdani secured an overwhelming electoral victory, reflecting the DSA’s growing appeal, especially among younger voters.  Led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D/WFP-NYC), DSA-identified candidates recently secured primary victories in New York State, Colorado and other elections.

The 2026 midterm elections are but three-plus months away and it looks like the Republicans will lose their strangle-hold on the Congress.  As Heather Cox Richardson reports on her Substack column, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found “Only 37% of those polled approve of his job performance, while 61% disapprove. The percentage who “strongly” approve of Trump has dropped to a new low of 15%. Only 26% of Independents approve of his job performance, while 71% disapprove.”  She also notes, “Sixty-six percent of Americans say groceries are unaffordable.”

David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion:  The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).  He can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com