"It wasn’t long ago that voters turned hard against Democrats as inflation flared out of control on Joe Biden’s watch."
I don't expect to see statements like this in The Bulwark and finding one is a disappointment. Inflation did NOT flare OUT OF CONTROL during the Biden Administration. Biden brought America to a very, very soft landing from the Global Inflation following the pandemic. Only egg prices might truly have been said to be out of control and the cause was supply because of bird flu. Ignorance is expected among American voters, but I have higher standards for those who report on issues, especially here. If it had been written as something people believed, that would be one thing, but it looked like the author was making a statement of fact - which it is not.
Inflation doesn't have to have been the highest ever recorded to be accurately described as "out of control." Runaway inflation around the world was *the* key political characteristic of the post-pandemic recovery, and voters tossed incumbents in country after country over it. America did do better than most, but inflation was still perhaps the key issue that flipped the election to Trump last year.
This is an article about Democratic strategy. Voter perceptions don't have to be right for politicians to need to worry about changing them. It would be malpractice for Democrats to spend this moment relitigating whether/to what extent Biden could have handled inflation better--they need to fight actively against what Trump is doing *now* to make it worse.
This is accurate but more accurate would have been to include the word "perception" in the piece. Because it was coming down in the US. "Best economy in the world" at end of Biden's term according to some economists. We need to fight Republican lies much better than anyone is doing, including all Democrats. (But I don't think it was the price of eggs as much as the lies and disinformation screeched at us plus prices plus Biden not seeming to realize we were all still in pain plus racism and misogyny. )
Maybe we need to take our examples from those who have soundly defeated GOP candidates in 2025? Taking into account all local cultural differences?
I still think it should not have been presented as fact; it only takes a word or two in order to show perception as opposed to reality. And I think ignorance was a far larger cause of Trump's election - both times.
It could be argued that ALL inflation is out of control - because if it were something we could control, why would we ever see it? Very high is subjective and to those of us who remember the 70's, it's laughable. Also, I don't agree with when it started. I was seeing price hikes in my groceries in the summer of 2020 - significant ones, but everybody seems to think it didn't start until Biden took over. Maybe we should blame the pandemic and not Biden, because that's a factual cause. At any rate, the statement made me barely read the rest of your article, and think less of The Bulwark because of it.
In 1982 I got hit by a car while riding my motorcycle.
I took the insurance settlement money and put it in a Certificate of Deposit.
That one-year CD paid me 17% interest.
If you wanted to borrow money to buy a car, you were paying 21-22% interest on that loan.
Mortgage rates were equally high.
I don't recall people back then clutching their pearls complaining about how high interest rates were.
People dealt with it, the economy didn't crash, the world didn't end.
Biden was dealt a real shitty hand, a hand dealt by Trump and his mishandling of the pandemic.
Trump's the one who fucked things up back in 2020.
Biden and his administration did a damned excellent job of getting our economy back on its feet, the same economy that Trump's doing his damned best to crash.
Inflation was over 6%. My first mortgage was 12%, and that was under Reagan. The good news was that interest on savings accounts were also 12%, and banks were giving away things like toasters to get customers. And yeah, I don't remember people screaming about inflation the way they have been this year.
Give them a break. They're still better than most. And some of them are very young and haven't had the experience of successive GOP Admins taking credit for Dem work or denigrating it. The Clinton years were my most prosperous. The Reagan years were my least prosperous. I've watched cycle after cycle of GOP taking credit for what they voted against and the electorate buying into it. It has just become both existentially worse and more blatant.
We had 18 of 20 years of economic growth under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. One of greatest stretches of GDP growth in American history. But that doesn't mean everyone personally prospered during a particular President's time in office. It's kind of silly that, with regard to our financial lives, we blame everything that happens or credits everything that happens with whomever is in the White House.
The article doesn't blame Biden for the inflation, it states that in general the voters blamed Biden, which is accurate - they did.
This is like one of those "read the passage" sections on the SAT. You're reading statements into the piece that are not there and not getting what the author is saying.
Further, as someone with a degree in this subject, your declaration that "It could be argued that ALL inflation is out of control" is uhhhhh very wrong. The entire goal of national banks here and elsewhere is to control inflation to about 2% per year. Inflation isn't some wild natural force like global weather patterns or the sun that just does what it does on its own. I mean I guess you can argue anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's valid just because you thought of it.
Your arbitrary and anecdotal memories of prices are not equivalent evidence to empirical reality. This is like when some friend of mine attempted to argue we had 100% inflation since 2015. No dude, no we didn't. That is like Argentina.
Inflation was inevitable following the world bailing its economies out of a shutdown with stimulus/money printing in conjunction with a sudden surge in demand as everything reopened while supply chains were still limited, yes. That isn't Biden's fault. But because the average voter has ZERO understanding of how anything works in the world, they just blamed him as he happened to be the guy in charge at the time. They will do the same to Trump now since he is now the one telling them that the economy is actually good when they know their receipts and bank accounts tell them otherwise. That's the point of the piece here in suggesting Dems harness that anger and attack Trump the same way he did them the last 4 years.
The problem with what you wrote, as Susan A. says, is that saying that "inflation flared out of control on Joe Biden's watch" implies very strongly that it was Biden's fault. You didn't mention that it was a world-wide problem due to the Pandemic, and you certainly didn't mention that what Biden's administration did resulted in the US economy being better off than the rest of the world post-pandemic. Your responses sound like the explanations Trump's people give when called on something they say that is at the very least misleading. Just admit what you did, Andrew, and we can all move on.
Inflation happened because we pumped huge sums of money into the economy to keep from going into a recession during the pandemic. That extra money was paid for by expanding the money supply - which causes inflation. We're still engaged in deficit spending paid for by expanding the money supply even though the pandemic is over. That's why inflation is not going to go away anytime soon.
I support your description Andrew, but then again I am originally from St. Louis like you so there was probably something in the water. : ) All joking aside my comment from above: The American Rescue Plan took what was expected to be 5% or maybe 5% inflation to 9%. "Out of control" is subjective one way or the other, but there is no doubt that the Biden spending polices made inflation worse and I could argue significantly worse.
and chocolate. These three are tariff related. Eggs have gone down here. Even gas is down here. (central Colorado) But overall groc prices are up maybe 30%. I need to learn how Economics works!
Gas prices are a fascinating data point in relation to the overall economy and despite being one of the primary price points Americans track are a counterintuitive indicator.
Oil is currently at a 6 year price low, the result of OPEC ramping up their production while at the same time encountering a lull in demand due to general economic woes. People who lose their jobs don't travel as much.
OPEC has their own calculus for determining their oil output, so I won't go too much into that. But falling demand in the US has historically meant a weakening economy (gas prices during the pandemic absolutley cratered) since Americans demand for fuel is highly correlated to our travel and consumption patterns. So Trump touting low gas prices is a great soundbite but does not in any way mean that the economy is doing well. To be fair, high gas prices can also mean bad things for the economy, but high gas prices are generally brought about by under supply that the US, and especially the US president has very little control over.
No, supply chains might cause higher prices in some parts of the economy, but the term "inflation" is higher prices across the entire economy. We had inflation because of all the money poured into the economy during the pandemic to avoid a recession. That extra money is paid for by an abnormally large expansion of the money supply. You can't have inflation without expanding the money supply.
Google AI: “ The combined effects of increased demand for durables and shortages caused by supply-chain disruptions were the main source of inflation in the second quarter of 2021. Both the direct and indirect effects of those supply-chain problems remained substantial through the end of 2022.”
America did better than any other country in the developed West. We heard this daily in print and voice during most of the Biden administration. It’s important to distinguish between actual inflation, which was not runaway in this country, and voter perception of inflation, which we have seen is a different animal. I keep up with Mayor Pete and Governor Newsom right now as Dems out in front of the messaging war. I think both have concluded that tariffs ARE too wonky to focus on. They may be right.
I agree with Susan. I don't think people even thought in terms of "inflation". They thought in terms of how hard they had to work to make ends meet. It took them more work and longer hours to make ends meet in 2024 than in 2019, and they voted accordingly. Thinking about inflation is what economists and politicians do. It's not what people do.
To address the cost of living, the Democratic Party should have run on ways to lower consumer costs and increase worker pay. That would have allowed us to run on how we would address the public's concern--better than the Republicans would.
Inflation didn't flare out of control under Biden. The Republicans caused an inflation spike (7%), and the Biden Administration successfully addressed it, lowering it to less than 3%. Some inflation can be blamed on Covid, but most of the inflation from the last Trump Administration came from Republicans borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republicans claimed falsely that inflation was out of control and that Biden was responsible. The media was largely complicit in promoting that lie.
The problem with Democrats attacking tariffs is that American workers will see that as a hostile act. Instead, Democrats need to talk about how Republicans have failed to use tariffs correctly to bring jobs back to the U.S. Tariff policy needs to go back to Congress, and Congress needs to base trade policy on expert economic opinion that helps to target areas where we can reasonably reshore manufacturing. Then use tariffs to help do that. Along with subsidies for companies that expand here. Like the Biden Administration did.
Criminal Trump is just exploiting faulty trade policy that for over 20 years resulted in yearly trade deficits of a half-trillion-dollars or more. Those deficits put steady downward pressure on American jobs and wages, while draining trillions of dollars out of our assets.
The problem isn't the tariffs. It's the incredibly stupid way the Trump people have implemented them, suddenly, indiscriminately, and brutally for the American people. They should be used smartly, and Democrats should run on being smart about tariffs. Unlike the stupid folk.
Not sure which is harder to believe - the fact that so many people seem to accept Trump's claim he inherited the 'highest inflation ever' which is factually ridiculous - or - that I'm old enough to have lived thru the very high inflation of the 1970's which includes our first mortgage rate of 14%.
Yes, 70s inflation was worse. The 70s were also 50 years ago. Comparing the current economy with the 70s is like my dad saying "in my day I had to walk to school uphills both ways." It does not help to tell people oh it was so much worse 50 years ago when it was so much BETTER only 6 years ago.
There were high interest rates on homes but then again, much lower prices on them. I could pay for college with a summer job. In 1984 I rented a 3 bedroom apartment with two roommates and paid $135/month rent and split the phone and power bill. My used car cost $300.
Historical perspective is important, and more than that one day we’ll all be sorry we don’t have our elders around for their stories. From a relatively young elder who misses her elders.
It'll get me pointed out as a Boomer, but yeah, the Seventies and into the Eighties were some tough times. I looked at the whining over interest rates last year with a blank "ZIRP has fried your brain" stare.
Finding a job? Thank God for the minimum wage and a crazy but hiring military-industrial complex to fall back on after high school. Still, nearly all the jobs I could get back then offered Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and I think I paid about $160/month for it when I stopped working full time to go to college, an education which was also affordable.
Yes, but what was your salary? I also bought my first house in the 70's in Phoenix with 12-14% interest. And yes, the price I paid for it was a lot lower than what it would be now. However.......in 1982, also in Phoenix while living in that house, I signed a teaching contract with a masters degree and 3 years of experience for $10,000. Good thing my mortgage payment was low.
I was a blue collar worker pulling in mid-$30K at the time. So yes, we were doing well enough despite the insane interest rates. This was 1985. Not sure what that would be in 2025 dollars, probably about double?
I remember it well, along with the gutting of US smokestack industries as Reagan and his free trade brethren saw financial enginnering as better for themselves than actual engineering of products. Yet the Reagan hagiography continues, even for some Bulwark columnists (I'm talking about you, Bill and Sarah).
I hear you, although I'd argue Reagan significantly expanded U.S.-China economic engagement, laying groundwork for China's later rise as a global economic power. But in those days the theory was that helping China was in the strategic interest of the US in view of the Soviet Union.
I have to say that the inflation now seems worse than it was in the 1970s even though the numbers say different. I think it is because they changed the way they measured inflation since then.
I think it's because it isn't just inflation; it's overall inequality and lack of useful regulation of the rich and powerful. And the fact that Republicans lie constantly and scream constantly about it. Like living near a jackhammer.
It's a mental thing for me. Since I lived through the costs back then - even with inflation that high - I compare it mentally to costs today and am like good gravy things cost a lot nowadays.
I get the desire to defend Biden's record given the realities he had to deal with. I've done the same myself. But I read this differently than you. The subject was the politics of the situation so I took it as much more about "something people believed." "Out of control" is an imprecise phrase, but there was a definite spike. How many voters understood that inflation was a worldwide phenomenon?
I've made this point repeatedly in this very newsletter. From election day last year:
"The economic pain and escalations of conflict that have rattled the globe in the wake of the pandemic have been unkind to whichever party happens to be in power to hold the bag, left or right. Harris is trying to break that mold tonight.
If Trump wins tonight, it’ll be in large part due to the inexorable weight of that structural pressure. They’re kicking the bums out around the world; maybe they’ll do it here too."
And I will never totally believe it wasn't just better rigged than 2016 and 2020. There may be some conspiracy theorist in each of us. Or I just can't bear the thought of 77 million Americans being this ugly.
There is a sizeable minority of extremists that do celebrate Trump's transgressions knowingly, like those openly fascist Young Republicans, but I would argue many voters are not like that.
The problem is a large portion of the population has totally disengaged from news and politics altogether, going out of their way to avoid them. Many of these are swing voters who base their decision solely on their economic vibes at election time, and however this group swings is what decides most general elections in America these days. These people aren't tuned in to all the terrible things Trump did or didn't take him seriously, and were mostly voting based on anti-incumbency bias and the fuzzy memory of "Trump's economy" pre-COVID. These people are ignorant, not evil. The good thing about ignorance is that it can be rectified with effort. The challenge is how to break through to them.
Another large group is the Trump supporters that are not actually authoritarians or fascists, but are stuck in right wing news and algorithmic social media bubbles. Their information ecosystem is flooded with misinformation and disinformation, and they are only fed positive or spun coverage of Trump. His long-standing attacks on the media have also made many distrust any negative reporting about him, so it's very difficult to persuade them of what he's actually doing even if you show them evidence (fake news!). I'm not sure these people can be reached at scale until after Dems take power and use that power to start regulating social media algorithms and changing the incentives for Fox and the right wing media ecosystem somehow.
I agree with all this. And I have no idea how to reach people these days. And Dems have always been bad messengers! Always! But a factor being too overlooked is that trumpism is just heritage foundation unleashEd and on steroids! This doesn't slide back to center until that is also addressed. Project 2025 is much older than DJT!
I don't know how to even begin. But I recommend a study funded by ABA led by judge luttig and jeh johnsonon how to do it.
40% of voters don't think arabic numbers should be taught in schools, and about 20% think the earth is less than 6000 years old.
Ask me if I care what the unwashed and stinking masses of Republican voters think. I dare you. But keep in mind in january 6th I was firmly on the side of "surround the capital with the national guard, set the building on fire, and shoot everyone who comes out. While you're at it have someone go fetch ya boy Trump from the white house and bring him down here so we can make street art out of him".
Couldn't even imagine giving less of a fuck what "the people" believe when we live in a world filled with access to actual facts.
Wow... tell us how you really feel.... So what to do with an old man who let all the felons loose on us, completed his coup, and is in the process of pounding America into sand? How to forge ahead, if you're not rich enough or skilled enough to leave the country? (BTW, I think the destruction is more Heritage Foundation GOP than Trump who seems truly demented and deranged and not at all in control.)
You can build a guillotine for less than $100, and whether we blame Trump or we blame the heritage foundation or the billionaires or the capitalists or the Republican I can only point out that if we do a good job getting rid of the problems we won't have to do it again for at least 50 years, and if we frankly just got into the habit of doing it every 50 years or so our society would work a lot better for a lot longer for a lot more people.
To put that in perspective we're talking about fewer people than who die every year due to being uninsured, or from gun violence, but instead of being useless, senseless deaths we are literally making the world a better place, one drop of the blade at a time.
Thanks! I think I agree with you. Certainly I agree there is more than enough wealth to go around. But it has been stolen/concentrated in few hands globally over past 75 years. Maybe that is changing too but human nature is a hard thing to change or lift up it seems.
We’re a nation of vibes, not facts. Reagan’s America felt great! Nobody suffered, everything we did was wonderful, and by no means did it pave the way for our current government.
Inflation rose at a higher rate than any time in the last 40 years. Did Biden see a masterful recovery better than the rest of the world? Yes! But he also messaged horribly taking far to long that people were hurting.
I agree with you, Susan. I've been really frustrated with a lot of small but weak, cheap, RNC-style talking points in a number of Bulwark articles lately. What cop outs they are.
Biden ensured that we were the only Western nation not to fall into a recession as a result of the pandemic. The conservative Economist called our American economy at the end of the Biden term, "the envy of the world," and these intellectually lazy and demonstrably false comments are the reason why I am not renewing my Bulwark subscription when it expires, and in fact I'm only sorry to have given them $100 of my money.
But aside from personal economics, do better, Bulwark team: your readership is broad, and if you want to help save the republic as much as you claim, you bear a profound responsibility to us all in your reporting.
You could make a strong argument that Biden's economy was "the envy of the world" by the end of his term. We made it many times ourselves! Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make that sale to voters--either because of the inherent political toxicity of inflation overwhelming other indicators of economic health, or because of the effectiveness of the right-wing political messaging machine, or because of Biden's own deficiencies as a communicator, or because of some combination of the three. It couldn't be more factual that spiking inflation during Biden's term soured voters on his presidency, whether justly nor not.
As Democrats try to take back power next year, their task of political persuasion must begin with a clear understanding of where the electorate is on these questions, not where Democratic base voters think it ought to be.
I get your frustration. But I'd plead with you to stay here and keep them honest rather than going into a left wing bubble as the right wingers live in a right wing bubble. You are needed in the center and they are trying to be there; they are allies in saving democracy.
Yes to the comment about the Dispatch. This is why I unsubscribed to them a couple of years ago. I stayed for a while because I loved David French, then he left. I got really tired of Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson, Never Trumpers both, just not seeming to freaking be able to avoid putting in something snarky about Democrats in whatever they wrote, even though their topic was what Trump and his lickspittle Republicans were doing. I have been interested to note that Andrew Egger came to the Bulwark from the Dispatch and my nosy self wonders what that was about. In my opinion, Andrew is NOT like Goldberg and Williamson. I would like to give him a break here ; he consistently does a great, thorough and balanced job on his analysis of the news. Although I think what he said here was misleading, it was one sentence for Pete's sake.
>"Only egg prices might truly have been said to be out of control and the cause was supply because of bird flu."
You know what's the most outrageous thing about egg prices? The highest price for eggs was Feb/March 2025, last spring when they spiked to $6.23 - $8.11 two to three months after Trump took over.
The previous high under Biden was $4.82 in Jan 2023, and then the prices fell to $2.07 in the fall of 2023.
Yeah, I used the national average because a few places have cheap eggs and lots of other places, like where you and I live, have really expensive eggs.
It's unbelievable that people are so clueless that they'll cast their vote depending on the price of eggs which the president has little to no control over.
Public education has been dumbed down over decades. Civics was removed from schools. This was deliberate as GOP moved into school board elections. Here, we've had to rid the school.board of several evangelical MAGA members but not till they ran off both teachers and students .
There was inflation during Biden's tenure. It was coming down. But he insisted things were fine and Americans were not feeling fine, they were (and are) still struggling and suffering. And they blamed him (and his age). Moreso when he claimed things were good again. So there was a perception of high inflation. But, yes, stating it as a universal fact is misleading and disappointing.
Thank you! Some of us still have our copies of The Economist from October of 2024, whose banner headline read: " The Envy of the World". Meaning the US economy!
Uh ok but do you want to win or score well in the quiz in politics today class. Cause as it stands now Dems have no game except the negative game Trump himself is playing. Without it they'd be nowhere.
my comment in fact, self rating was "too personal" -- truth is though i get frustrated at the go to "let's correct that history" vs "yeah let's take it to 'em on 'inflation'/'tariffs'/'state directed capitalism'/'etc'.... " technically biden had nothing to do with inflation save possibly for a little too much juice on cash payouts to americans. yet americans blamed him for it and he had no message on it that resonated with them. other presidents have been given the "inflation gift" and parlayed that into further political power. but i think it's a totally fair pt about dems -- if the enemy shows a weakness, why cant you exploit it? and where are all the amplifiers the gop seems to now have in droves?
Every Dem should be running an ad of the Reagan radio address about tariffs. His message about tariffs is so clear and easy to understand…then any Maggat who complains - ask them on camera “when did Republicans stop agreeing with Ronald Reagan?” Let them explain that.
Yeah but then people will want to vote for Republicans becauae Reagan was a Republican. Its too subtle a message to assume that they would side with the Democrats. Trust me the average Trump voter can easily confused.
They could use President Reagan's 1988 radio address on free trade, delivered soon after the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed. They could use this passage:
“When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country—the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.”
Also:
“We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.”
They stopped agreeing with Reagan in 2015 when they 1st voted for his antithesis, and followed that by voting for him 4 more times, 3 elections and another primary....
"She called his lunatic post about murdered director Rob Reiner “absolutely, completely below the office of the president of the United States,” “classless,” and “just wrong.”"
There are much bigger fish to fry, so to speak, than MTG. There are thousands of actual criminals. Her crimes against decency and sanity were relatively mild. Look at the bribery! Look at the murderers! Forget about bashing MTG.
For the record, inflation did not "flare out of control" during the biden admin: to see that, you need to look back at the '70s. Inflation spiked under biden and then fell considerably. Calling that out of control is a gop narrative, not an accurate description.
I went to gas stations. I saw "thanks brandon" stickers pasted to the pumps. I saw these in the rear windows of numerous pickup trucks. Egg prices soured. People made it into the news complaining about it on social media. Other things went up. It made the news. This stuck. Sure inflation started to come down. Left to nature wed have had a so called soft landing. But Americans couldn't be bothered. Because or in part because the negative reporting worked. It stuck.
Today steak is $32 lb in my grocery store. Eggs were as high as $12 say a dozen. People have shifted their consumer habits. Chipotle is feeling it. But where's the social media outrage? It has to apparently be created.
Forget "tariffs" - I mean the word. Here is what the political class misses. People don't make the direct connection between tariffs and prices. They see tariffs as a punishment to other countries. You say the word tariff and they don't care. You talk about prices and affordability. You tie his policies to the high prices. Screw the word tariffs - it means nothing to most people, just like the debt or trade deficit mean nothing. Simple terms - you can't afford groceries? Trump is doing things that makes them expensive. And they won't go down, you know greedy companies will keep the prices high no matter what.
The ad to run - find a clip of Trump campaigning saying how Biden made things so expensive (bonus if you can find him saying the word "afford") then split screen to him talking about the affordability hoax. Then talk about prices. Simple. Every Dem talking point and every ad should be the same message
Democrats should start calling tariffs "Trump's national sales tax." Everywhere, every time. Nobody knows what a "tariff" is so there is an opportunity to explain to voters that it's just an old-timey word for a tax that works like sales taxes--a percentage markup on an imported item that is passed along to buyers.
They are taxes to you and me. Who is getting all that Tax Money? Donald Trump! Who can throw large parties with expensive food? Donald Trump.
Congress has the Authority to set taxes, not the President. Trump took their Power for himself. This is an expensive way to run the Country. He takes billions for himself; then teases you by offering to “give” you $2,000 MAYBE of the money you have already paid.
My idea is to educate people. They will learn when Pols use words they understand.
power bills are crazy high now too. NYT today has a headline -- on increased heating prices--see free link Also... Trump punches down on the poor (SNAP recipients) after giving major tax cuts to billionaires and MAGA are screwing us with removing ACA health insurance subsidies- This should be messaged as well.
Harris repeatedly referred to the tariffs as "Trump tax" on the campaign trail. It may hit differently now than it did then, but voters are idiots who cannot wrap their heads around potential outcomes.
NO NO NO. Here is what the average person hears. Tariffs are a tax. He is taxing the other country, why do I care. In fact, I think that is good we make them pay. People don't/can't think of the second level consequences. Focus on the first level - things are more expensive. Who cares why. Trump said he would fix that, you trusted him, he can't.
Andrew: "Trump’s tariffs are a bust. So why do Democrats seem oddly reluctant to twist the knife?"
Why should they? Trump's had a woody for tariffs for years and he was explicit during the campaign that he would implement them if he was elected. 77 million people voted for him anyway. The way I look at it, the electorate should not be saved from the consequences of their votes. It's not like the voters will give credit to the Democrats for saving them from themselves. So screw 'em.
Democrats do not have the power to stop Trump's tariffs. The question is whether they should do what IS in their power to prosecute the public case against them, as they have done to great effect with expiring ACA subsidies.
Andrew, the voters have the collective memory of a goldfish. There is a difference between whether the Democrats *could* do something and *should* do something. And my personal view is they shouldn't because in the long term, the voters will never give the Democrats credit for preventing harm to the electorate. The only possible way this will ever change is if the voters feel pain. To quote Nick Catoggio, "Saving Americans from their own terrible choices again, after they doubled down on the president last year, feels a bit like restarting a dying patient’s heart only to have him immediately light up a cigarette. At some point, you’re under no further obligation to restrain someone who’s bent on destroying himself from doing so."
Any "The Office" viewers out there? Remember how they treated the IT guy? The guy that kept their computers humming smoothly along, yet was unappreciated and disrespected (and abused) the whole time. They couldn't even remember his name when he told them he was leaving. So he outs some embarrassing stuff he found out about them, and shoots them the finger on the way out.
That's how I feel, just myself, about the advice given by all pundits to the Democrats. Harris told people the tariffs are a tax, prices will go up. Now prices are up and the red-hatters can't seem to figure out why. So Democrats are trying to save their healthcare. When they wake up blinking in disbelief at the cost of their insurance will they connect the dots?
Democrats have tried and tried to save their hands from hot stove, yet still, they don't believe bad will happen until it does. You gotta burn to learn...
I could tell you stories about patients sending family out for Big Macs and other fast food right after getting a stents put in their coronaries. So Many...
Yes, Democrats should once or twice make the rational argument against tariffs that targets rational voters that pay attention to such stuff. However, for the voters that don't have the time or interest to pay attention any rational arguments, Democrats need to make an emotional argument about affordability in general and keep pounding on that day in and day out. Otherwise, if the Dems focus on tariffs, there is a danger that once SCOTUS strikes down Trump's tariffs, the low attention voters will just shrug and say "problem solved I guess." Low attention voters are the swing voters, so the focus should be on winning them. They only have time or interest for one or two arguments, so don't waste them on something that is probably going to go away.
I think if the voters can't distinguish between where we were 12 months ago w.r.t. the economy and where we are now and what the root cause of the difference is, then no amount of messaging from the Democrats will help. The median American voter is an amoral halfwit.
News from the front: my Trump-supporting circle, most of them dislike Trump now but also will hate anyone that the Dems put up and say that if the R's don't put up someone good, they won't vote at all. I have no idea who they think would be good. I have a feeling they don't either.
The MAGA locally now admit Trump is a putz, but blame Democrats for him. Anyone who Dems put up will be Communist at very least. Look at what they said about Joe Biden.
Also 90% of the people I know who voted for Trump had no concept of how tariffs work. When he said he would apply tariffs, they all thought that the other countries would pay for the tariffs and therefore the prices would lower. To that end they voted for lower costs, not tariffs since they equated tariffs to lower cost. It's really simple.
The Supreme Court isn't going to save anyone or anything, in my opinion, which I realize amounts to nothing. However, I am not putting an iota of faith in a Court that claims to be Catholic instead of American and then rushes to kill and disenfranchise poor people as fast as they can. They own Kavanaugh stops and they own the Trump-Roberts economy. Roberts has a hell of a bigger influence on the economy than Congress, whether it's tariffs, firing Powell, or any of Trump's insane ideas from 1980s TV shows. Roberts decides, not Congress. And Roberts is very enamored of Trumpian ideas. And the reason Roberts decides instead of Congress is almost entirely due to decisions by himself in conjunction with Leonard Leo, who I am sure is also in deep conversations with other Nazi memorabilia lovers in Congress. Republicans in Congress gave up their power voluntarily - people usually only do that for money or sex.
BUT change is inevitable, good things do happen, and Christmas is coming.
Also, I'm getting real, real tired of the assumption that everyone told the truth to pollsters and voted on the economy. Any third grader could have looked up tariff in the dictionary. I certainly spent a lot of time saying "Tariffs are taxes on consumers." Guess what people voted for? Higher taxes on consumers. So don't tell me they voted on inflation because that's a logical tautology. Sometimes you have to look at what people do, not what they say. People voted for White supremacy because they forgot how expensive it is. Now they have buyers' remorse.
How many farmers who got buggered by Trump's first term trade wars voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024? We're supposed to believe they voted on the economy? They voted because of some trans swimmer or some brown person crossing a border, both occurring a thousand miles away from them. And even worse, they rely for their operations on those brown border crossers. Economy my ass.
But, based on experience they probably knew that if soybean prices hit the skids because of tarrifs( like they did in Trump's first term) he would bail them out again. And voila! It would be a better lesson for them if there was no such thing as bailouts for farmers.
The whole discussion here shares a flawed presumption: all voters vote on the basis of issues: the cost of eggs, white supremacy, etc. There's considerable evidence that to the contrary many people vote for a person, or rather the media image of a person, based on _personal_ qualities perceived. Like, say, "strength", or "optimism".
A certain measure of this is 'normal' politics. Plenty of people who still vote don't follow political debates closely, and apprehend discussions of 'issues' as noise. 'I know stuff costs too much, but I'm not sure how you fix it!' But they do fancy they know people, and can judge character. Which is hubris I'm afraid.
One hypothesis I heard Joy Reid mention on election night '24 (she didn't identify where it came from): people vote for the persona they most favor as a projection of themselves, how they want to be seen. Obama was smart, but above all he was COOL! Shrub was a regular guy you could have a beer with, while Gore and Kerry were stiff suits. Trump was the pop culture hero who had the moxie to call bullshit on the bullshit, and scorch the career politicos in the debates.
I realize, Kate, that you're not saying everyone who cast a ballot for Trump voted for white supremacy as a primary conscious principle, but effectively anyway, because that part of the agenda was out there enough they were at least tacitly approving.
I'm not saying that's totally wrong, but I suspect it's overstated. That is, I think people can just screen the whole agenda question so thoroughly they just don't consider it real.
I only know a handful of people at all MAGA, and I certainly don't imagine they represent some Trumpist mainstream, but they are not at core bad people. One's an eccentric scientist; one's good-hearted but seriously struggling with physical disability and an anxiety disorder; my aunt went down a megachurch rabbit hole wracked with quilt over her failure to prevent family horrors...
There's been a lot of commentary here recently to the effect that MAGAs are just awful hateful people, and have always been so but are just now dropping the mask and showing their real selves. My objection: that makes too much sense. A better thesis methinks is just that we're in crazy shit because too many people have gone crazy. It's evil in effect, driven by evil oligarchs and enabling true villains like Steven Miller and Russ Vought. But a lot of the hoi poloi sucked along behind them are closer to suffering a dislocating nervous breakdown than revealing a true blackness of the heart.
HRC was right, the genuinely deplorable people go overwhelmingly for Trump, but not all Trump supporters are deplorable souls. Many are just lost.
Of course, I must note that the whole 'vote for personal qualities' thing is now WAAAY past normal, into the pathology of 'cult of personality' which amps up the crazy to 11. But it's not like we consider members of religious cults to be mentally healthy, is it? Political cultism is less all-consuming, but a lot of the dynamics are similar.
Lots of old school Republicans are against the very wide tariffs that Trump is using. But as you say, Roberts seems enchanted with the idea of president as a king.
Sometimes an unyielding defense of America, like Podhoretz’s, lets us excuse away unimaginably horrible acts. It lets us overlook the death and destruction that comes with it. A defense of America with no introspective qualities is a thing of which to be wary.
Let’s compare the two symbols that are now only ‘divisive’ and what it means. The noose, of course has a long history associated with the lynching of African Americans and still represents a symbol to demonstrate authority and put African Americans in their place. The swastika which has had a long history of many uses, is forever corrupted by Nazi Germany, and a symbol of white power. The change is once again an affirmation of who this administration cares about: whites only. The symbol of white power is now not hate associated with the atrocities of WW2, but merely divisive, and the noose a symbol of African Americans inferior place in America and their subjugation to extrajudicial killings, is now merely divisive and not about hating them. The power in this equation only accrues one way and that is towards white supremacy.
It's like what's next.... burning crosses? White hooded robes? as "possibly divisive?" There are hooded ICE agents grabbing people off the streets and kidnapping them, tearing children from their mothers. I won't be surprised if they start putting up cages in the public square.
I'm sure Norman Podhoretz was all you say he was. But he got some things really wrong. We of the 1960's were not anti-American, we were anti war. Huge difference. And we were right. The government lied, obfuscated, and sent thousands of young people to fight for their wrongheadedness. We are still suffering for that.
You commented the exact thing I thought when I read the comment about the Vietnam War. To my conservative parents and their friends we did look like anti-American but it was the opposite. We started a new kind of movement where you can call out the government for their corruption! And history proved it to be so.
Here's my question, what if SCOTUS rules against tariffs, the admin actually removes tariffs but big corps don't lower prices? Reportedly they've been "eating" a lot of the tariffs and will feel a need to recoup losses they've taken. It will take awhile to get tariffs paid back from government and filter it back through middle men (whoever actually paid the tariff at the port in the first place and charged the business that bought the goods.) I can see a world in which prices do not come down as consumers are used to high prices and big corps have little to no interest in consumers feelings. They're accountable to stock price and shareholder value.
I'm not a financial guru, so any insight on big corps motivation to lower prices would be helpful.
Companies will lower prices if consumers simply won't buy their goods otherwise. But I don'tthink that happens even without tariffs. As you say,consumers have gotten used to higher prices. I think the big win to Trump is if prices simply stop rising for the next 2 years....which could happen if they eliminate tarrifs. Companies are already seeing record revenues, so eliminating tariffs could juice their bottom lines so much that their annual growth comes from that rather than higher priced goods. As long as they can show a YoY increase the shareholders stay happy.
Other than the direct action with Jimmy Kimmel, I have not seen any consumer actions to demonstrate their displeasure with the price they're being charged. Sure, people are buying less as they have less money to spread around, but generally we're all taking it and grumbling.
Last time I checked we still have capitalism. Supply and demand. If one vendor doesn't lower its prices after tariffs are repealed, go to another vendor.
In my mind, Inflation under Biden was the result of massive supply chain disruptions due to COVID. They lingered a long time. I thought that the Biden administration did a masterful job of orchestrating a soft landing. No good deed shall go unpunished. Watch the health care explosion. If you think it's actually stable sailing at this point, There's an explosion about to happen right in front of you. The GOP doesn't just step in it, it stops and shovels some into its shoe claiming success. It's going to get really ugly out there.
This isn't a hard question. I have spent the last two decades hearing Democrats wrongly trash NAFTA and argue we need tariffs. Recently we've been giving a new lesson by a Republican president as to why tariffs are horrible policy.
Democrats will not go after tariffs because many of them like protectionist trade policy. We did this song and dance a bit during 2024 and in the first half of 2025, where Dem's get all mealy-mouthed about saying "Oh Tariffs are a good tool if used right but the way Trump is doing it..."
Should the Democrats attack the tariffs? Yes, 100%. Will they? Different question!
Tariffs are a strategic economic tool, that should be used judicially. It used to be trade policy was set by congress in cooperation with the executive branch. trump thinks they are a foreign policy tool, they are not. Unless and until congress starts doing their job,nothing is going to happen on tariffs. The true problem here is trump declaring another "national emergency" every time he farts. Congress can end these bogus "emergencies" anytime they want. BTW it is based on the emergency crap that Supreme Court will uphold trump's tariffs.
This is true. This is true of **any** tool. Hammers are good tools sometimes, screw drivers are good tools other times, and so on.
But the Democrats do not need to point this out when they criticize Trump's tariffs. No one responded to the attack on Paul Pelosi by saying, "First of all, we should say that hammers are a strategic tool that should be used judicially." No, we all know there is a time and a place to use a hammer, and we know well enough to unequivocally condemn a violent attack where the assailant used a hammer as bad without thinking we ought to spend time on a mush-mouthed defense of hammers.
Yes they do. Gretchen Witmer is one of the worst offenders, but Bernie Sanders is also a tariff defender. Even when Trump announced the tariffs in April Bernie's statement attacking them had an aside saying they can be good.
they do and they have. had they not been mealy-mouthed, we wouldn't be talking about the inability of the Dem's to unite against Trump's tariffs without sparing a word sideways out of their mouths on the potential benefits of tariffs sometimes
I support tariffs if I think that the product in question is being "Dumped" on our markets. I don't support blanket tariffs that have their percentages changed daily with no rhyme or reason beyond punishment. I don't see any democrats that would disagree with that approach. Right now, it's easier to watch Trump paint himself and his policies into a corner. This won't get better for consumers between now and the midterms. Businesses are simply swallowing costs currently as much as they can, but it is getting passed along to consumers more and more every day. Hiring is absolutely static, or mildly depressed for a number of months now which doesn't bode well for the disruption gnawing at the economy.
We don't even really disagree. My objection is to Democratic messaging is that none of this nuance is important at all to the political task at hand. When I say they are mealy-mouthed and mushy, I mean they stand around, flat-footed and stammering about theoretical or hypothetical tax instruments, instead of staying on their toes and messaging.
Just say, "Trump tariff bad, Trump tariff hurt," over and over. That's all they need to do. If they want to use some tariffs sometimes in a way that is more responsible, blah blah blah, yaddah yaddah yaddah, they ought instead to save that oxygen for a wonkish policy meeting or when they are actually writing bill text. They only get to write bill text if they do the political task and win.
>>“'Tariffs are an important tool in our economic toolbox,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass."
>> "Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Democrats have a consensus around 'a unified concept, which is targeted tariffs can work, across the board tariffs are bad... The right targeting is in the eye of the beholder, but nobody on our side thinks zero tariffs ever,' Kaine said."
>> "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer gave a speech in Washington on Wednesday calling for tariffs to be used like a 'scalpel.'"
>> "Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the tariffs would be 'catastrophic' for urban and rural communities alike in her state. But Moore added that Democrats should still advocate for raising labor and product standards to keep American goods and services competitive in global markets. 'I know that many of our autoworkers were lured into voting for Donald Trump because they thought perhaps he was going to give them some relief,' said Moore. 'But the prices of cars are going to go up because the component parts are everywhere. There’s no strategy for it.'”
>> "For many years, protectionism was on the rise among Democrats. Under pressure from the left in the 2016 election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a key architect of Obama’s diplomatic pivot toward Asia, repudiated his plan for a free-trade alliance in the region. When Biden came to office, he and his aides promised not to roll back Trump’s first-term tariffs, but rather to revise and refine them."
>> "'Democrats should embrace tariffs as one component of a broader industrial strategy to revitalize American manufacturing and make whole communities that have been hollowed out by decades of bad trade policy,' the Pennsylvania representative Chris Deluzio recently wrote in an op-ed... 'President Trump’s tariff approach has been chaotic and inconsistent … But the answer isn’t to condemn all tariffs. That risks putting the Democrats even further out of touch with the hard-working people who used to be the lifeblood of the party. If you oppose all tariffs, you’re signaling that you’re comfortable with exploited foreign workers making your stuff at the expense of American workers. I’m not, and neither are most voters.'"
>> "In a recent Lever Time interview, the United Automobile Workers president, Shawn Fain, summed up the discordant political moment. His union endorsed former vice-president Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and Fain has critiqued both Trump’s across-the-board tariffs and his labor policies. But Fain has also endorsed Trump’s targeted auto industry tariffs and credited the president with centering trade policy as a priority, suggesting that was one reason nearly half of his union’s members voted for Trump in the last election."
"They might not like these tariffs, but they’re not opposed to tariffs in principle."
Seriously? Why you downplaying the fact that Democrats have actively played the tariff game for decades? They played it differently than Trump. They imposed tariffs to gain favor with this industry or that union. But they were small tariffs (at least relative to Trump) that they thought wouldn't be high enough for consumers to notice. You might pay more for a washing machine, but not for absolutely everything you bought. Most recently, before the 2020 election, Biden talked about how Trump's tariffs hurt the economy. But then he left almost all of them in place and added more. When it became clear that inflation was the Democrat's biggest liability, he could have made a big show of eliminating tariffs and talk about how that would reduce prices. But he didn't. That would have been an unnatural act for a traditional Democrat.
Consumers are the biggest special interest group of all. If only the Democrats could become the party of free trade.
As an example, Canadian Lumber tariffs. Biden increased them twice from Trump 1 levels (via Wikipedia) “On 9 November 2021, the US implemented a double tariff on Canadian softwood, which in turn increased lumber prices in the US even further. As a result, the shortage and higher prices for lumber in 2021/2022 have increased inflationary pressures for American consumers.[51]
On August 19, 2024, the US raised tariff rates on imports of Canadian softwood lumber products from 8.05% to 14.54%.”
What’s a major cost component of new housing……lumber. Who is trying to lower the costs by maybe reducing or eliminating these tariffs…..no one.
Tariffs are where Trump took a Dem policy, and put it on steroids.
Tariffs are complicated to understand and wonky as hell to explain to people who don't even know how to balance their own checkbooks. Whereas "prices are higher now" needs no explanation. Dems are taking a page out of Republicans' book during the Biden years. We spent months here talking about WHY prices were high and the Dems tried to explain the the public why prices were high....it didnt matter that there were logical reasons....prices were high so blame the president. I want Dems to stay on that track because the why doesn't matter to Gladys and Cletus. They don't want an economics lesson. They want lower bills.
I agree that the SC could save Trump on the economy but getting rid of tariffs isn't going to fully or quickly undo the damage. You know he'll just find some other way to enact tariffs. Or maybe he'll just start an outright war with Venezuela, which will do WONDERS for the economy. /sarcasm Getting rid of tariffs won't bring back ACA subsidies. It won't stop all forms of insurance rates from continuing to go up. And it won't stop the housing market from being completely unaffordable for a huge swath of people. The world is simply way more expensive than it was 5, or 10 years ago. People expect Trump to bring us back to prepandemic prices. That is why they elected him (that, and the racism). And that isn't going to happen, even without tariffs.
Yes, thanks for saying that. I too question how many of the 77 million who voted for trump have any interest at all learning more about tariffs. I'm pretty sure most of them go with 'vibes', as some Bulwark writers have suggested.
I’m thinking the war with Venezuela will raise oil prices which would be a huge benefit for Putin. Of course, if Ukraine keeps successfully blowing up Russian oil tankers, that won’t matter, but I think someone could be *ahem* observing that out loud, even if they have a different ulterior motive (Marco).
"It wasn’t long ago that voters turned hard against Democrats as inflation flared out of control on Joe Biden’s watch."
I don't expect to see statements like this in The Bulwark and finding one is a disappointment. Inflation did NOT flare OUT OF CONTROL during the Biden Administration. Biden brought America to a very, very soft landing from the Global Inflation following the pandemic. Only egg prices might truly have been said to be out of control and the cause was supply because of bird flu. Ignorance is expected among American voters, but I have higher standards for those who report on issues, especially here. If it had been written as something people believed, that would be one thing, but it looked like the author was making a statement of fact - which it is not.
Inflation doesn't have to have been the highest ever recorded to be accurately described as "out of control." Runaway inflation around the world was *the* key political characteristic of the post-pandemic recovery, and voters tossed incumbents in country after country over it. America did do better than most, but inflation was still perhaps the key issue that flipped the election to Trump last year.
This is an article about Democratic strategy. Voter perceptions don't have to be right for politicians to need to worry about changing them. It would be malpractice for Democrats to spend this moment relitigating whether/to what extent Biden could have handled inflation better--they need to fight actively against what Trump is doing *now* to make it worse.
This is accurate but more accurate would have been to include the word "perception" in the piece. Because it was coming down in the US. "Best economy in the world" at end of Biden's term according to some economists. We need to fight Republican lies much better than anyone is doing, including all Democrats. (But I don't think it was the price of eggs as much as the lies and disinformation screeched at us plus prices plus Biden not seeming to realize we were all still in pain plus racism and misogyny. )
Maybe we need to take our examples from those who have soundly defeated GOP candidates in 2025? Taking into account all local cultural differences?
I still think it should not have been presented as fact; it only takes a word or two in order to show perception as opposed to reality. And I think ignorance was a far larger cause of Trump's election - both times.
It is a fact that inflation got very high! "It's not as bad as that time 50 years ago" is hardly a rejoinder to this point.
It could be argued that ALL inflation is out of control - because if it were something we could control, why would we ever see it? Very high is subjective and to those of us who remember the 70's, it's laughable. Also, I don't agree with when it started. I was seeing price hikes in my groceries in the summer of 2020 - significant ones, but everybody seems to think it didn't start until Biden took over. Maybe we should blame the pandemic and not Biden, because that's a factual cause. At any rate, the statement made me barely read the rest of your article, and think less of The Bulwark because of it.
In 1982 I got hit by a car while riding my motorcycle.
I took the insurance settlement money and put it in a Certificate of Deposit.
That one-year CD paid me 17% interest.
If you wanted to borrow money to buy a car, you were paying 21-22% interest on that loan.
Mortgage rates were equally high.
I don't recall people back then clutching their pearls complaining about how high interest rates were.
People dealt with it, the economy didn't crash, the world didn't end.
Biden was dealt a real shitty hand, a hand dealt by Trump and his mishandling of the pandemic.
Trump's the one who fucked things up back in 2020.
Biden and his administration did a damned excellent job of getting our economy back on its feet, the same economy that Trump's doing his damned best to crash.
Again.
Inflation was over 6%. My first mortgage was 12%, and that was under Reagan. The good news was that interest on savings accounts were also 12%, and banks were giving away things like toasters to get customers. And yeah, I don't remember people screaming about inflation the way they have been this year.
And 1982 was a Democratic year despite being in one of the most conservative decades. So, what's your point?
Give them a break. They're still better than most. And some of them are very young and haven't had the experience of successive GOP Admins taking credit for Dem work or denigrating it. The Clinton years were my most prosperous. The Reagan years were my least prosperous. I've watched cycle after cycle of GOP taking credit for what they voted against and the electorate buying into it. It has just become both existentially worse and more blatant.
Amen.
We had 18 of 20 years of economic growth under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. One of greatest stretches of GDP growth in American history. But that doesn't mean everyone personally prospered during a particular President's time in office. It's kind of silly that, with regard to our financial lives, we blame everything that happens or credits everything that happens with whomever is in the White House.
The article doesn't blame Biden for the inflation, it states that in general the voters blamed Biden, which is accurate - they did.
This is like one of those "read the passage" sections on the SAT. You're reading statements into the piece that are not there and not getting what the author is saying.
Further, as someone with a degree in this subject, your declaration that "It could be argued that ALL inflation is out of control" is uhhhhh very wrong. The entire goal of national banks here and elsewhere is to control inflation to about 2% per year. Inflation isn't some wild natural force like global weather patterns or the sun that just does what it does on its own. I mean I guess you can argue anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's valid just because you thought of it.
Your arbitrary and anecdotal memories of prices are not equivalent evidence to empirical reality. This is like when some friend of mine attempted to argue we had 100% inflation since 2015. No dude, no we didn't. That is like Argentina.
Inflation was inevitable following the world bailing its economies out of a shutdown with stimulus/money printing in conjunction with a sudden surge in demand as everything reopened while supply chains were still limited, yes. That isn't Biden's fault. But because the average voter has ZERO understanding of how anything works in the world, they just blamed him as he happened to be the guy in charge at the time. They will do the same to Trump now since he is now the one telling them that the economy is actually good when they know their receipts and bank accounts tell them otherwise. That's the point of the piece here in suggesting Dems harness that anger and attack Trump the same way he did them the last 4 years.
The problem with what you wrote, as Susan A. says, is that saying that "inflation flared out of control on Joe Biden's watch" implies very strongly that it was Biden's fault. You didn't mention that it was a world-wide problem due to the Pandemic, and you certainly didn't mention that what Biden's administration did resulted in the US economy being better off than the rest of the world post-pandemic. Your responses sound like the explanations Trump's people give when called on something they say that is at the very least misleading. Just admit what you did, Andrew, and we can all move on.
Inflation happened because we pumped huge sums of money into the economy to keep from going into a recession during the pandemic. That extra money was paid for by expanding the money supply - which causes inflation. We're still engaged in deficit spending paid for by expanding the money supply even though the pandemic is over. That's why inflation is not going to go away anytime soon.
I support your description Andrew, but then again I am originally from St. Louis like you so there was probably something in the water. : ) All joking aside my comment from above: The American Rescue Plan took what was expected to be 5% or maybe 5% inflation to 9%. "Out of control" is subjective one way or the other, but there is no doubt that the Biden spending polices made inflation worse and I could argue significantly worse.
Prices are even higher now than they were then. This is kitchen table stuff people notice. Coffee and beef prices are off the hook.
and chocolate. These three are tariff related. Eggs have gone down here. Even gas is down here. (central Colorado) But overall groc prices are up maybe 30%. I need to learn how Economics works!
Gas prices are a fascinating data point in relation to the overall economy and despite being one of the primary price points Americans track are a counterintuitive indicator.
Oil is currently at a 6 year price low, the result of OPEC ramping up their production while at the same time encountering a lull in demand due to general economic woes. People who lose their jobs don't travel as much.
OPEC has their own calculus for determining their oil output, so I won't go too much into that. But falling demand in the US has historically meant a weakening economy (gas prices during the pandemic absolutley cratered) since Americans demand for fuel is highly correlated to our travel and consumption patterns. So Trump touting low gas prices is a great soundbite but does not in any way mean that the economy is doing well. To be fair, high gas prices can also mean bad things for the economy, but high gas prices are generally brought about by under supply that the US, and especially the US president has very little control over.
Inflation was high worldwide due to disrupted supply chains.
No, supply chains might cause higher prices in some parts of the economy, but the term "inflation" is higher prices across the entire economy. We had inflation because of all the money poured into the economy during the pandemic to avoid a recession. That extra money is paid for by an abnormally large expansion of the money supply. You can't have inflation without expanding the money supply.
Google AI: “ The combined effects of increased demand for durables and shortages caused by supply-chain disruptions were the main source of inflation in the second quarter of 2021. Both the direct and indirect effects of those supply-chain problems remained substantial through the end of 2022.”
Edit: Google AI was quoting from here,
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2023/beyond-bls/what-caused-the-high-inflation-during-the-covid-19-period.htm
America did better than any other country in the developed West. We heard this daily in print and voice during most of the Biden administration. It’s important to distinguish between actual inflation, which was not runaway in this country, and voter perception of inflation, which we have seen is a different animal. I keep up with Mayor Pete and Governor Newsom right now as Dems out in front of the messaging war. I think both have concluded that tariffs ARE too wonky to focus on. They may be right.
I agree with Susan. I don't think people even thought in terms of "inflation". They thought in terms of how hard they had to work to make ends meet. It took them more work and longer hours to make ends meet in 2024 than in 2019, and they voted accordingly. Thinking about inflation is what economists and politicians do. It's not what people do.
To address the cost of living, the Democratic Party should have run on ways to lower consumer costs and increase worker pay. That would have allowed us to run on how we would address the public's concern--better than the Republicans would.
Inflation didn't flare out of control under Biden. The Republicans caused an inflation spike (7%), and the Biden Administration successfully addressed it, lowering it to less than 3%. Some inflation can be blamed on Covid, but most of the inflation from the last Trump Administration came from Republicans borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republicans claimed falsely that inflation was out of control and that Biden was responsible. The media was largely complicit in promoting that lie.
The problem with Democrats attacking tariffs is that American workers will see that as a hostile act. Instead, Democrats need to talk about how Republicans have failed to use tariffs correctly to bring jobs back to the U.S. Tariff policy needs to go back to Congress, and Congress needs to base trade policy on expert economic opinion that helps to target areas where we can reasonably reshore manufacturing. Then use tariffs to help do that. Along with subsidies for companies that expand here. Like the Biden Administration did.
Criminal Trump is just exploiting faulty trade policy that for over 20 years resulted in yearly trade deficits of a half-trillion-dollars or more. Those deficits put steady downward pressure on American jobs and wages, while draining trillions of dollars out of our assets.
The problem isn't the tariffs. It's the incredibly stupid way the Trump people have implemented them, suddenly, indiscriminately, and brutally for the American people. They should be used smartly, and Democrats should run on being smart about tariffs. Unlike the stupid folk.
I agree, I grew up in the '70s when REAL inflation happened. This inflation was a tiny blip compared to 14-20% then.
Not sure which is harder to believe - the fact that so many people seem to accept Trump's claim he inherited the 'highest inflation ever' which is factually ridiculous - or - that I'm old enough to have lived thru the very high inflation of the 1970's which includes our first mortgage rate of 14%.
Yes, 70s inflation was worse. The 70s were also 50 years ago. Comparing the current economy with the 70s is like my dad saying "in my day I had to walk to school uphills both ways." It does not help to tell people oh it was so much worse 50 years ago when it was so much BETTER only 6 years ago.
Uphill both ways, IN THE SNOW. Get it right!
barefoot
There were high interest rates on homes but then again, much lower prices on them. I could pay for college with a summer job. In 1984 I rented a 3 bedroom apartment with two roommates and paid $135/month rent and split the phone and power bill. My used car cost $300.
Historical perspective is important, and more than that one day we’ll all be sorry we don’t have our elders around for their stories. From a relatively young elder who misses her elders.
I guess after ZIRP we only know pain.
It'll get me pointed out as a Boomer, but yeah, the Seventies and into the Eighties were some tough times. I looked at the whining over interest rates last year with a blank "ZIRP has fried your brain" stare.
Finding a job? Thank God for the minimum wage and a crazy but hiring military-industrial complex to fall back on after high school. Still, nearly all the jobs I could get back then offered Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and I think I paid about $160/month for it when I stopped working full time to go to college, an education which was also affordable.
Worse, but not? Different.
My first home, a small suburban house, was obtained at 12% interest! And yet, before the real estate bubble, it only cost around $600/month.
Yes, but what was your salary? I also bought my first house in the 70's in Phoenix with 12-14% interest. And yes, the price I paid for it was a lot lower than what it would be now. However.......in 1982, also in Phoenix while living in that house, I signed a teaching contract with a masters degree and 3 years of experience for $10,000. Good thing my mortgage payment was low.
I was a blue collar worker pulling in mid-$30K at the time. So yes, we were doing well enough despite the insane interest rates. This was 1985. Not sure what that would be in 2025 dollars, probably about double?
BLS's inflation calculator says about a $110k/year and your $600/mo mortgage in 1985 jumps to about $1800/mo in Sept. 2025.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Plus 18 % interest rate
I remember it well, along with the gutting of US smokestack industries as Reagan and his free trade brethren saw financial enginnering as better for themselves than actual engineering of products. Yet the Reagan hagiography continues, even for some Bulwark columnists (I'm talking about you, Bill and Sarah).
To be fair, industry across the West suffered greatly due to the rise of China. We can’t really blame that on Reagan.
I hear you, although I'd argue Reagan significantly expanded U.S.-China economic engagement, laying groundwork for China's later rise as a global economic power. But in those days the theory was that helping China was in the strategic interest of the US in view of the Soviet Union.
I have to say that the inflation now seems worse than it was in the 1970s even though the numbers say different. I think it is because they changed the way they measured inflation since then.
I think it's because it isn't just inflation; it's overall inequality and lack of useful regulation of the rich and powerful. And the fact that Republicans lie constantly and scream constantly about it. Like living near a jackhammer.
It's a mental thing for me. Since I lived through the costs back then - even with inflation that high - I compare it mentally to costs today and am like good gravy things cost a lot nowadays.
I agree. The last time inflation was this bad was during Trump's adminstration.
That statement really stuck out. Made me wonder, too. Do better bulwark
I get the desire to defend Biden's record given the realities he had to deal with. I've done the same myself. But I read this differently than you. The subject was the politics of the situation so I took it as much more about "something people believed." "Out of control" is an imprecise phrase, but there was a definite spike. How many voters understood that inflation was a worldwide phenomenon?
I've made this point repeatedly in this very newsletter. From election day last year:
"The economic pain and escalations of conflict that have rattled the globe in the wake of the pandemic have been unkind to whichever party happens to be in power to hold the bag, left or right. Harris is trying to break that mold tonight.
If Trump wins tonight, it’ll be in large part due to the inexorable weight of that structural pressure. They’re kicking the bums out around the world; maybe they’ll do it here too."
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/no-matter-what-the-work-is-not-done
And I will never totally believe it wasn't just better rigged than 2016 and 2020. There may be some conspiracy theorist in each of us. Or I just can't bear the thought of 77 million Americans being this ugly.
There is a sizeable minority of extremists that do celebrate Trump's transgressions knowingly, like those openly fascist Young Republicans, but I would argue many voters are not like that.
The problem is a large portion of the population has totally disengaged from news and politics altogether, going out of their way to avoid them. Many of these are swing voters who base their decision solely on their economic vibes at election time, and however this group swings is what decides most general elections in America these days. These people aren't tuned in to all the terrible things Trump did or didn't take him seriously, and were mostly voting based on anti-incumbency bias and the fuzzy memory of "Trump's economy" pre-COVID. These people are ignorant, not evil. The good thing about ignorance is that it can be rectified with effort. The challenge is how to break through to them.
Another large group is the Trump supporters that are not actually authoritarians or fascists, but are stuck in right wing news and algorithmic social media bubbles. Their information ecosystem is flooded with misinformation and disinformation, and they are only fed positive or spun coverage of Trump. His long-standing attacks on the media have also made many distrust any negative reporting about him, so it's very difficult to persuade them of what he's actually doing even if you show them evidence (fake news!). I'm not sure these people can be reached at scale until after Dems take power and use that power to start regulating social media algorithms and changing the incentives for Fox and the right wing media ecosystem somehow.
I agree with all this. And I have no idea how to reach people these days. And Dems have always been bad messengers! Always! But a factor being too overlooked is that trumpism is just heritage foundation unleashEd and on steroids! This doesn't slide back to center until that is also addressed. Project 2025 is much older than DJT!
I don't know how to even begin. But I recommend a study funded by ABA led by judge luttig and jeh johnsonon how to do it.
40% of voters don't think arabic numbers should be taught in schools, and about 20% think the earth is less than 6000 years old.
Ask me if I care what the unwashed and stinking masses of Republican voters think. I dare you. But keep in mind in january 6th I was firmly on the side of "surround the capital with the national guard, set the building on fire, and shoot everyone who comes out. While you're at it have someone go fetch ya boy Trump from the white house and bring him down here so we can make street art out of him".
Couldn't even imagine giving less of a fuck what "the people" believe when we live in a world filled with access to actual facts.
Wow... tell us how you really feel.... So what to do with an old man who let all the felons loose on us, completed his coup, and is in the process of pounding America into sand? How to forge ahead, if you're not rich enough or skilled enough to leave the country? (BTW, I think the destruction is more Heritage Foundation GOP than Trump who seems truly demented and deranged and not at all in control.)
You can build a guillotine for less than $100, and whether we blame Trump or we blame the heritage foundation or the billionaires or the capitalists or the Republican I can only point out that if we do a good job getting rid of the problems we won't have to do it again for at least 50 years, and if we frankly just got into the habit of doing it every 50 years or so our society would work a lot better for a lot longer for a lot more people.
To put that in perspective we're talking about fewer people than who die every year due to being uninsured, or from gun violence, but instead of being useless, senseless deaths we are literally making the world a better place, one drop of the blade at a time.
Thats how I really feel.
Thanks! I think I agree with you. Certainly I agree there is more than enough wealth to go around. But it has been stolen/concentrated in few hands globally over past 75 years. Maybe that is changing too but human nature is a hard thing to change or lift up it seems.
very few
Same with me. That's how I read it
We’re a nation of vibes, not facts. Reagan’s America felt great! Nobody suffered, everything we did was wonderful, and by no means did it pave the way for our current government.
I’m selling a bridge if you’re interested.
Inflation rose at a higher rate than any time in the last 40 years. Did Biden see a masterful recovery better than the rest of the world? Yes! But he also messaged horribly taking far to long that people were hurting.
I agree with you, Susan. I've been really frustrated with a lot of small but weak, cheap, RNC-style talking points in a number of Bulwark articles lately. What cop outs they are.
Biden ensured that we were the only Western nation not to fall into a recession as a result of the pandemic. The conservative Economist called our American economy at the end of the Biden term, "the envy of the world," and these intellectually lazy and demonstrably false comments are the reason why I am not renewing my Bulwark subscription when it expires, and in fact I'm only sorry to have given them $100 of my money.
But aside from personal economics, do better, Bulwark team: your readership is broad, and if you want to help save the republic as much as you claim, you bear a profound responsibility to us all in your reporting.
You could make a strong argument that Biden's economy was "the envy of the world" by the end of his term. We made it many times ourselves! Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make that sale to voters--either because of the inherent political toxicity of inflation overwhelming other indicators of economic health, or because of the effectiveness of the right-wing political messaging machine, or because of Biden's own deficiencies as a communicator, or because of some combination of the three. It couldn't be more factual that spiking inflation during Biden's term soured voters on his presidency, whether justly nor not.
As Democrats try to take back power next year, their task of political persuasion must begin with a clear understanding of where the electorate is on these questions, not where Democratic base voters think it ought to be.
I get your frustration. But I'd plead with you to stay here and keep them honest rather than going into a left wing bubble as the right wingers live in a right wing bubble. You are needed in the center and they are trying to be there; they are allies in saving democracy.
I would like to point out that the Dispatch is a lot worse in that respect.
Yes to the comment about the Dispatch. This is why I unsubscribed to them a couple of years ago. I stayed for a while because I loved David French, then he left. I got really tired of Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson, Never Trumpers both, just not seeming to freaking be able to avoid putting in something snarky about Democrats in whatever they wrote, even though their topic was what Trump and his lickspittle Republicans were doing. I have been interested to note that Andrew Egger came to the Bulwark from the Dispatch and my nosy self wonders what that was about. In my opinion, Andrew is NOT like Goldberg and Williamson. I would like to give him a break here ; he consistently does a great, thorough and balanced job on his analysis of the news. Although I think what he said here was misleading, it was one sentence for Pete's sake.
>"Only egg prices might truly have been said to be out of control and the cause was supply because of bird flu."
You know what's the most outrageous thing about egg prices? The highest price for eggs was Feb/March 2025, last spring when they spiked to $6.23 - $8.11 two to three months after Trump took over.
The previous high under Biden was $4.82 in Jan 2023, and then the prices fell to $2.07 in the fall of 2023.
Egg prices in my county hit $11.00/doz. They are now back down and sometimes on sale (organics are still around $9.00/doz) but still about $4.00/doz.
Yeah, I used the national average because a few places have cheap eggs and lots of other places, like where you and I live, have really expensive eggs.
It's unbelievable that people are so clueless that they'll cast their vote depending on the price of eggs which the president has little to no control over.
Public education has been dumbed down over decades. Civics was removed from schools. This was deliberate as GOP moved into school board elections. Here, we've had to rid the school.board of several evangelical MAGA members but not till they ran off both teachers and students .
It is really crazy that the Texas state government is going to require Hitler Youth/Turning Point clubs in all their high schools.
Not crazy. Suck. Illegal. Unconstitutional. Unamerican. But TX and FL are obvious places to install Hitler Youth Groups.
💯
There was inflation during Biden's tenure. It was coming down. But he insisted things were fine and Americans were not feeling fine, they were (and are) still struggling and suffering. And they blamed him (and his age). Moreso when he claimed things were good again. So there was a perception of high inflation. But, yes, stating it as a universal fact is misleading and disappointing.
I came here to say exactly this. Well said.
Thank you! Some of us still have our copies of The Economist from October of 2024, whose banner headline read: " The Envy of the World". Meaning the US economy!
Uh ok but do you want to win or score well in the quiz in politics today class. Cause as it stands now Dems have no game except the negative game Trump himself is playing. Without it they'd be nowhere.
A reminder that almost the entirety of the Bulwark incorrectly ripped Dems for making the shutdown about healthcare.
I thought the Dems decided to make it about healthcare.
my comment in fact, self rating was "too personal" -- truth is though i get frustrated at the go to "let's correct that history" vs "yeah let's take it to 'em on 'inflation'/'tariffs'/'state directed capitalism'/'etc'.... " technically biden had nothing to do with inflation save possibly for a little too much juice on cash payouts to americans. yet americans blamed him for it and he had no message on it that resonated with them. other presidents have been given the "inflation gift" and parlayed that into further political power. but i think it's a totally fair pt about dems -- if the enemy shows a weakness, why cant you exploit it? and where are all the amplifiers the gop seems to now have in droves?
Well said!
Biden was the president and should get some credit for having the brains to rely on the Fed, led by Powell, whom Orange Tanline appointed.
Every Dem should be running an ad of the Reagan radio address about tariffs. His message about tariffs is so clear and easy to understand…then any Maggat who complains - ask them on camera “when did Republicans stop agreeing with Ronald Reagan?” Let them explain that.
Yeah but then people will want to vote for Republicans becauae Reagan was a Republican. Its too subtle a message to assume that they would side with the Democrats. Trust me the average Trump voter can easily confused.
A definite possibility!
They could use President Reagan's 1988 radio address on free trade, delivered soon after the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed. They could use this passage:
“When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country—the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.”
Also:
“We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.”
I've been thinking they might also use the Four Freedoms speech. And Lincoln.
But also this is probably a local election. Dems are rotten at national messaging.
MAGAs would never elect Reagan these days... they would be calling him a "RINO."
Reagan...the OG RINO.
They stopped agreeing with Reagan in 2015 when they 1st voted for his antithesis, and followed that by voting for him 4 more times, 3 elections and another primary....
"She called his lunatic post about murdered director Rob Reiner “absolutely, completely below the office of the president of the United States,” “classless,” and “just wrong.”"
Now do election denialism.
She thinks the Parkland school shooting was a hoax to make her party look bad. She is a moral monster. I'm so tired of promoting them.
Put it right in the crosshairs of Jewish space lasers.
How about take the little gifts the former MAGAs like MTG are giving us with a tiny bit of gratitude?
They all put small cracks in the MAGA shield and it's the beginning of the whole thing come tumbling down. Be happy about that.
Once it's over, if it's ever over, then we can go back to bashing MTG for past offenses.
There are much bigger fish to fry, so to speak, than MTG. There are thousands of actual criminals. Her crimes against decency and sanity were relatively mild. Look at the bribery! Look at the murderers! Forget about bashing MTG.
Or ask her about Fauci.
For the record, inflation did not "flare out of control" during the biden admin: to see that, you need to look back at the '70s. Inflation spiked under biden and then fell considerably. Calling that out of control is a gop narrative, not an accurate description.
I went to gas stations. I saw "thanks brandon" stickers pasted to the pumps. I saw these in the rear windows of numerous pickup trucks. Egg prices soured. People made it into the news complaining about it on social media. Other things went up. It made the news. This stuck. Sure inflation started to come down. Left to nature wed have had a so called soft landing. But Americans couldn't be bothered. Because or in part because the negative reporting worked. It stuck.
Today steak is $32 lb in my grocery store. Eggs were as high as $12 say a dozen. People have shifted their consumer habits. Chipotle is feeling it. But where's the social media outrage? It has to apparently be created.
Forget "tariffs" - I mean the word. Here is what the political class misses. People don't make the direct connection between tariffs and prices. They see tariffs as a punishment to other countries. You say the word tariff and they don't care. You talk about prices and affordability. You tie his policies to the high prices. Screw the word tariffs - it means nothing to most people, just like the debt or trade deficit mean nothing. Simple terms - you can't afford groceries? Trump is doing things that makes them expensive. And they won't go down, you know greedy companies will keep the prices high no matter what.
The ad to run - find a clip of Trump campaigning saying how Biden made things so expensive (bonus if you can find him saying the word "afford") then split screen to him talking about the affordability hoax. Then talk about prices. Simple. Every Dem talking point and every ad should be the same message
Democrats should start calling tariffs "Trump's national sales tax." Everywhere, every time. Nobody knows what a "tariff" is so there is an opportunity to explain to voters that it's just an old-timey word for a tax that works like sales taxes--a percentage markup on an imported item that is passed along to buyers.
Easy message: Trump Tariffs are Taxes.
They are taxes to you and me. Who is getting all that Tax Money? Donald Trump! Who can throw large parties with expensive food? Donald Trump.
Congress has the Authority to set taxes, not the President. Trump took their Power for himself. This is an expensive way to run the Country. He takes billions for himself; then teases you by offering to “give” you $2,000 MAYBE of the money you have already paid.
My idea is to educate people. They will learn when Pols use words they understand.
power bills are crazy high now too. NYT today has a headline -- on increased heating prices--see free link Also... Trump punches down on the poor (SNAP recipients) after giving major tax cuts to billionaires and MAGA are screwing us with removing ACA health insurance subsidies- This should be messaged as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/business/energy-environment/winter-heating-costs-increase.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9U8.TXjO.IQAm4QLbr0IM&smid=url-share
Harris repeatedly referred to the tariffs as "Trump tax" on the campaign trail. It may hit differently now than it did then, but voters are idiots who cannot wrap their heads around potential outcomes.
Thank you. I also question whether it makes sense to yell about tariffs when people are absorbing insurance rate spikes.
Or the Dems could say “Tariffs are a tax.”
NO NO NO. Here is what the average person hears. Tariffs are a tax. He is taxing the other country, why do I care. In fact, I think that is good we make them pay. People don't/can't think of the second level consequences. Focus on the first level - things are more expensive. Who cares why. Trump said he would fix that, you trusted him, he can't.
Yes that’s a possibility.
Andrew: "Trump’s tariffs are a bust. So why do Democrats seem oddly reluctant to twist the knife?"
Why should they? Trump's had a woody for tariffs for years and he was explicit during the campaign that he would implement them if he was elected. 77 million people voted for him anyway. The way I look at it, the electorate should not be saved from the consequences of their votes. It's not like the voters will give credit to the Democrats for saving them from themselves. So screw 'em.
Democrats do not have the power to stop Trump's tariffs. The question is whether they should do what IS in their power to prosecute the public case against them, as they have done to great effect with expiring ACA subsidies.
Andrew, the voters have the collective memory of a goldfish. There is a difference between whether the Democrats *could* do something and *should* do something. And my personal view is they shouldn't because in the long term, the voters will never give the Democrats credit for preventing harm to the electorate. The only possible way this will ever change is if the voters feel pain. To quote Nick Catoggio, "Saving Americans from their own terrible choices again, after they doubled down on the president last year, feels a bit like restarting a dying patient’s heart only to have him immediately light up a cigarette. At some point, you’re under no further obligation to restrain someone who’s bent on destroying himself from doing so."
Any "The Office" viewers out there? Remember how they treated the IT guy? The guy that kept their computers humming smoothly along, yet was unappreciated and disrespected (and abused) the whole time. They couldn't even remember his name when he told them he was leaving. So he outs some embarrassing stuff he found out about them, and shoots them the finger on the way out.
That's how I feel, just myself, about the advice given by all pundits to the Democrats. Harris told people the tariffs are a tax, prices will go up. Now prices are up and the red-hatters can't seem to figure out why. So Democrats are trying to save their healthcare. When they wake up blinking in disbelief at the cost of their insurance will they connect the dots?
Democrats have tried and tried to save their hands from hot stove, yet still, they don't believe bad will happen until it does. You gotta burn to learn...
I could tell you stories about patients sending family out for Big Macs and other fast food right after getting a stents put in their coronaries. So Many...
Totally. Just call it the Trump Tariff tax. Trump is committed to raising prices on everyone with his tariffs. Make him own it.
People got "this is your brain-this is your brain on drugs". People will get "this is your wallet-this is your wallet (much lighter) on tariffs".
Yes, Democrats should once or twice make the rational argument against tariffs that targets rational voters that pay attention to such stuff. However, for the voters that don't have the time or interest to pay attention any rational arguments, Democrats need to make an emotional argument about affordability in general and keep pounding on that day in and day out. Otherwise, if the Dems focus on tariffs, there is a danger that once SCOTUS strikes down Trump's tariffs, the low attention voters will just shrug and say "problem solved I guess." Low attention voters are the swing voters, so the focus should be on winning them. They only have time or interest for one or two arguments, so don't waste them on something that is probably going to go away.
But Trump is out there complaining that inflation is *still* Biden's fault. Should Democrats let him get away with that?
I think if the voters can't distinguish between where we were 12 months ago w.r.t. the economy and where we are now and what the root cause of the difference is, then no amount of messaging from the Democrats will help. The median American voter is an amoral halfwit.
Unless they can be constrained from voting at all, we still need to work on how they will vote. Repetition seems to help with said voters.
News from the front: my Trump-supporting circle, most of them dislike Trump now but also will hate anyone that the Dems put up and say that if the R's don't put up someone good, they won't vote at all. I have no idea who they think would be good. I have a feeling they don't either.
The MAGA locally now admit Trump is a putz, but blame Democrats for him. Anyone who Dems put up will be Communist at very least. Look at what they said about Joe Biden.
Is he getting away with it? The only people who believe him know in their hearts that everything is Biden's fault.
There is no lie more preposterous than "The Steal," yet they believe.
Voters generally say it is now DJT s fault by about 65-35 % (inflation)
Also 90% of the people I know who voted for Trump had no concept of how tariffs work. When he said he would apply tariffs, they all thought that the other countries would pay for the tariffs and therefore the prices would lower. To that end they voted for lower costs, not tariffs since they equated tariffs to lower cost. It's really simple.
The Supreme Court isn't going to save anyone or anything, in my opinion, which I realize amounts to nothing. However, I am not putting an iota of faith in a Court that claims to be Catholic instead of American and then rushes to kill and disenfranchise poor people as fast as they can. They own Kavanaugh stops and they own the Trump-Roberts economy. Roberts has a hell of a bigger influence on the economy than Congress, whether it's tariffs, firing Powell, or any of Trump's insane ideas from 1980s TV shows. Roberts decides, not Congress. And Roberts is very enamored of Trumpian ideas. And the reason Roberts decides instead of Congress is almost entirely due to decisions by himself in conjunction with Leonard Leo, who I am sure is also in deep conversations with other Nazi memorabilia lovers in Congress. Republicans in Congress gave up their power voluntarily - people usually only do that for money or sex.
BUT change is inevitable, good things do happen, and Christmas is coming.
Also, I'm getting real, real tired of the assumption that everyone told the truth to pollsters and voted on the economy. Any third grader could have looked up tariff in the dictionary. I certainly spent a lot of time saying "Tariffs are taxes on consumers." Guess what people voted for? Higher taxes on consumers. So don't tell me they voted on inflation because that's a logical tautology. Sometimes you have to look at what people do, not what they say. People voted for White supremacy because they forgot how expensive it is. Now they have buyers' remorse.
How many farmers who got buggered by Trump's first term trade wars voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024? We're supposed to believe they voted on the economy? They voted because of some trans swimmer or some brown person crossing a border, both occurring a thousand miles away from them. And even worse, they rely for their operations on those brown border crossers. Economy my ass.
A lot of farmers are culturally conservative.
But, based on experience they probably knew that if soybean prices hit the skids because of tarrifs( like they did in Trump's first term) he would bail them out again. And voila! It would be a better lesson for them if there was no such thing as bailouts for farmers.
And they could protest the whole time that real Americans like them don't want any handouts from the government, while extending their hands out.
And, *horror,* world leaders will walk all over a woman president.
The whole discussion here shares a flawed presumption: all voters vote on the basis of issues: the cost of eggs, white supremacy, etc. There's considerable evidence that to the contrary many people vote for a person, or rather the media image of a person, based on _personal_ qualities perceived. Like, say, "strength", or "optimism".
A certain measure of this is 'normal' politics. Plenty of people who still vote don't follow political debates closely, and apprehend discussions of 'issues' as noise. 'I know stuff costs too much, but I'm not sure how you fix it!' But they do fancy they know people, and can judge character. Which is hubris I'm afraid.
One hypothesis I heard Joy Reid mention on election night '24 (she didn't identify where it came from): people vote for the persona they most favor as a projection of themselves, how they want to be seen. Obama was smart, but above all he was COOL! Shrub was a regular guy you could have a beer with, while Gore and Kerry were stiff suits. Trump was the pop culture hero who had the moxie to call bullshit on the bullshit, and scorch the career politicos in the debates.
I realize, Kate, that you're not saying everyone who cast a ballot for Trump voted for white supremacy as a primary conscious principle, but effectively anyway, because that part of the agenda was out there enough they were at least tacitly approving.
I'm not saying that's totally wrong, but I suspect it's overstated. That is, I think people can just screen the whole agenda question so thoroughly they just don't consider it real.
I only know a handful of people at all MAGA, and I certainly don't imagine they represent some Trumpist mainstream, but they are not at core bad people. One's an eccentric scientist; one's good-hearted but seriously struggling with physical disability and an anxiety disorder; my aunt went down a megachurch rabbit hole wracked with quilt over her failure to prevent family horrors...
There's been a lot of commentary here recently to the effect that MAGAs are just awful hateful people, and have always been so but are just now dropping the mask and showing their real selves. My objection: that makes too much sense. A better thesis methinks is just that we're in crazy shit because too many people have gone crazy. It's evil in effect, driven by evil oligarchs and enabling true villains like Steven Miller and Russ Vought. But a lot of the hoi poloi sucked along behind them are closer to suffering a dislocating nervous breakdown than revealing a true blackness of the heart.
HRC was right, the genuinely deplorable people go overwhelmingly for Trump, but not all Trump supporters are deplorable souls. Many are just lost.
Of course, I must note that the whole 'vote for personal qualities' thing is now WAAAY past normal, into the pathology of 'cult of personality' which amps up the crazy to 11. But it's not like we consider members of religious cults to be mentally healthy, is it? Political cultism is less all-consuming, but a lot of the dynamics are similar.
I think I may agree with everything you say! Yeah, people think they are voting on the economy. They really do. I get that.
But I am terrified by the fact that everyone has gone crazy. I feel like I have to start every day recounting reality.
Lots of old school Republicans are against the very wide tariffs that Trump is using. But as you say, Roberts seems enchanted with the idea of president as a king.
Perfectly put!
Sometimes an unyielding defense of America, like Podhoretz’s, lets us excuse away unimaginably horrible acts. It lets us overlook the death and destruction that comes with it. A defense of America with no introspective qualities is a thing of which to be wary.
Let’s compare the two symbols that are now only ‘divisive’ and what it means. The noose, of course has a long history associated with the lynching of African Americans and still represents a symbol to demonstrate authority and put African Americans in their place. The swastika which has had a long history of many uses, is forever corrupted by Nazi Germany, and a symbol of white power. The change is once again an affirmation of who this administration cares about: whites only. The symbol of white power is now not hate associated with the atrocities of WW2, but merely divisive, and the noose a symbol of African Americans inferior place in America and their subjugation to extrajudicial killings, is now merely divisive and not about hating them. The power in this equation only accrues one way and that is towards white supremacy.
It's like what's next.... burning crosses? White hooded robes? as "possibly divisive?" There are hooded ICE agents grabbing people off the streets and kidnapping them, tearing children from their mothers. I won't be surprised if they start putting up cages in the public square.
I'm sure Norman Podhoretz was all you say he was. But he got some things really wrong. We of the 1960's were not anti-American, we were anti war. Huge difference. And we were right. The government lied, obfuscated, and sent thousands of young people to fight for their wrongheadedness. We are still suffering for that.
You commented the exact thing I thought when I read the comment about the Vietnam War. To my conservative parents and their friends we did look like anti-American but it was the opposite. We started a new kind of movement where you can call out the government for their corruption! And history proved it to be so.
Here's my question, what if SCOTUS rules against tariffs, the admin actually removes tariffs but big corps don't lower prices? Reportedly they've been "eating" a lot of the tariffs and will feel a need to recoup losses they've taken. It will take awhile to get tariffs paid back from government and filter it back through middle men (whoever actually paid the tariff at the port in the first place and charged the business that bought the goods.) I can see a world in which prices do not come down as consumers are used to high prices and big corps have little to no interest in consumers feelings. They're accountable to stock price and shareholder value.
I'm not a financial guru, so any insight on big corps motivation to lower prices would be helpful.
Companies will lower prices if consumers simply won't buy their goods otherwise. But I don'tthink that happens even without tariffs. As you say,consumers have gotten used to higher prices. I think the big win to Trump is if prices simply stop rising for the next 2 years....which could happen if they eliminate tarrifs. Companies are already seeing record revenues, so eliminating tariffs could juice their bottom lines so much that their annual growth comes from that rather than higher priced goods. As long as they can show a YoY increase the shareholders stay happy.
Other than the direct action with Jimmy Kimmel, I have not seen any consumer actions to demonstrate their displeasure with the price they're being charged. Sure, people are buying less as they have less money to spread around, but generally we're all taking it and grumbling.
Oh, and Tesla, I'd already forgotten about that one.
Last time I checked we still have capitalism. Supply and demand. If one vendor doesn't lower its prices after tariffs are repealed, go to another vendor.
In my mind, Inflation under Biden was the result of massive supply chain disruptions due to COVID. They lingered a long time. I thought that the Biden administration did a masterful job of orchestrating a soft landing. No good deed shall go unpunished. Watch the health care explosion. If you think it's actually stable sailing at this point, There's an explosion about to happen right in front of you. The GOP doesn't just step in it, it stops and shovels some into its shoe claiming success. It's going to get really ugly out there.
This isn't a hard question. I have spent the last two decades hearing Democrats wrongly trash NAFTA and argue we need tariffs. Recently we've been giving a new lesson by a Republican president as to why tariffs are horrible policy.
Democrats will not go after tariffs because many of them like protectionist trade policy. We did this song and dance a bit during 2024 and in the first half of 2025, where Dem's get all mealy-mouthed about saying "Oh Tariffs are a good tool if used right but the way Trump is doing it..."
Should the Democrats attack the tariffs? Yes, 100%. Will they? Different question!
Well that's why we write these little columns!
Tariffs are a strategic economic tool, that should be used judicially. It used to be trade policy was set by congress in cooperation with the executive branch. trump thinks they are a foreign policy tool, they are not. Unless and until congress starts doing their job,nothing is going to happen on tariffs. The true problem here is trump declaring another "national emergency" every time he farts. Congress can end these bogus "emergencies" anytime they want. BTW it is based on the emergency crap that Supreme Court will uphold trump's tariffs.
This is true. This is true of **any** tool. Hammers are good tools sometimes, screw drivers are good tools other times, and so on.
But the Democrats do not need to point this out when they criticize Trump's tariffs. No one responded to the attack on Paul Pelosi by saying, "First of all, we should say that hammers are a strategic tool that should be used judicially." No, we all know there is a time and a place to use a hammer, and we know well enough to unequivocally condemn a violent attack where the assailant used a hammer as bad without thinking we ought to spend time on a mush-mouthed defense of hammers.
Democrats did not get mealy mouthed about tariffs.
Yes they do. Gretchen Witmer is one of the worst offenders, but Bernie Sanders is also a tariff defender. Even when Trump announced the tariffs in April Bernie's statement attacking them had an aside saying they can be good.
they do and they have. had they not been mealy-mouthed, we wouldn't be talking about the inability of the Dem's to unite against Trump's tariffs without sparing a word sideways out of their mouths on the potential benefits of tariffs sometimes
I support tariffs if I think that the product in question is being "Dumped" on our markets. I don't support blanket tariffs that have their percentages changed daily with no rhyme or reason beyond punishment. I don't see any democrats that would disagree with that approach. Right now, it's easier to watch Trump paint himself and his policies into a corner. This won't get better for consumers between now and the midterms. Businesses are simply swallowing costs currently as much as they can, but it is getting passed along to consumers more and more every day. Hiring is absolutely static, or mildly depressed for a number of months now which doesn't bode well for the disruption gnawing at the economy.
We don't even really disagree. My objection is to Democratic messaging is that none of this nuance is important at all to the political task at hand. When I say they are mealy-mouthed and mushy, I mean they stand around, flat-footed and stammering about theoretical or hypothetical tax instruments, instead of staying on their toes and messaging.
Just say, "Trump tariff bad, Trump tariff hurt," over and over. That's all they need to do. If they want to use some tariffs sometimes in a way that is more responsible, blah blah blah, yaddah yaddah yaddah, they ought instead to save that oxygen for a wonkish policy meeting or when they are actually writing bill text. They only get to write bill text if they do the political task and win.
well, jeez, what did you expect, they're democrats? If they take the house in Nov, expect change.
"Democrats will not go after tariffs because many of them like protectionist trade policy."
what?? who said that?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-democrats-chaos-tariffs-trade-2f39f7be95d34008155f4ee29eb67235
>>“'Tariffs are an important tool in our economic toolbox,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass."
>> "Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Democrats have a consensus around 'a unified concept, which is targeted tariffs can work, across the board tariffs are bad... The right targeting is in the eye of the beholder, but nobody on our side thinks zero tariffs ever,' Kaine said."
>> "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer gave a speech in Washington on Wednesday calling for tariffs to be used like a 'scalpel.'"
>> "Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the tariffs would be 'catastrophic' for urban and rural communities alike in her state. But Moore added that Democrats should still advocate for raising labor and product standards to keep American goods and services competitive in global markets. 'I know that many of our autoworkers were lured into voting for Donald Trump because they thought perhaps he was going to give them some relief,' said Moore. 'But the prices of cars are going to go up because the component parts are everywhere. There’s no strategy for it.'”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/05/jared-polis-trump-democrats-campaign-free-trade-inflation-00592744
>> "For many years, protectionism was on the rise among Democrats. Under pressure from the left in the 2016 election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a key architect of Obama’s diplomatic pivot toward Asia, repudiated his plan for a free-trade alliance in the region. When Biden came to office, he and his aides promised not to roll back Trump’s first-term tariffs, but rather to revise and refine them."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/15/trumps-tariffs-lesson-democrats
>> "'Democrats should embrace tariffs as one component of a broader industrial strategy to revitalize American manufacturing and make whole communities that have been hollowed out by decades of bad trade policy,' the Pennsylvania representative Chris Deluzio recently wrote in an op-ed... 'President Trump’s tariff approach has been chaotic and inconsistent … But the answer isn’t to condemn all tariffs. That risks putting the Democrats even further out of touch with the hard-working people who used to be the lifeblood of the party. If you oppose all tariffs, you’re signaling that you’re comfortable with exploited foreign workers making your stuff at the expense of American workers. I’m not, and neither are most voters.'"
>> "In a recent Lever Time interview, the United Automobile Workers president, Shawn Fain, summed up the discordant political moment. His union endorsed former vice-president Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and Fain has critiqued both Trump’s across-the-board tariffs and his labor policies. But Fain has also endorsed Trump’s targeted auto industry tariffs and credited the president with centering trade policy as a priority, suggesting that was one reason nearly half of his union’s members voted for Trump in the last election."
Etc., etc., etc.
"They might not like these tariffs, but they’re not opposed to tariffs in principle."
Seriously? Why you downplaying the fact that Democrats have actively played the tariff game for decades? They played it differently than Trump. They imposed tariffs to gain favor with this industry or that union. But they were small tariffs (at least relative to Trump) that they thought wouldn't be high enough for consumers to notice. You might pay more for a washing machine, but not for absolutely everything you bought. Most recently, before the 2020 election, Biden talked about how Trump's tariffs hurt the economy. But then he left almost all of them in place and added more. When it became clear that inflation was the Democrat's biggest liability, he could have made a big show of eliminating tariffs and talk about how that would reduce prices. But he didn't. That would have been an unnatural act for a traditional Democrat.
Consumers are the biggest special interest group of all. If only the Democrats could become the party of free trade.
Say it louder for the people in the back!
As an example, Canadian Lumber tariffs. Biden increased them twice from Trump 1 levels (via Wikipedia) “On 9 November 2021, the US implemented a double tariff on Canadian softwood, which in turn increased lumber prices in the US even further. As a result, the shortage and higher prices for lumber in 2021/2022 have increased inflationary pressures for American consumers.[51]
On August 19, 2024, the US raised tariff rates on imports of Canadian softwood lumber products from 8.05% to 14.54%.”
What’s a major cost component of new housing……lumber. Who is trying to lower the costs by maybe reducing or eliminating these tariffs…..no one.
Tariffs are where Trump took a Dem policy, and put it on steroids.
Lumber Tariffs were my biggest pet peeve of the Biden era.
Tariffs are complicated to understand and wonky as hell to explain to people who don't even know how to balance their own checkbooks. Whereas "prices are higher now" needs no explanation. Dems are taking a page out of Republicans' book during the Biden years. We spent months here talking about WHY prices were high and the Dems tried to explain the the public why prices were high....it didnt matter that there were logical reasons....prices were high so blame the president. I want Dems to stay on that track because the why doesn't matter to Gladys and Cletus. They don't want an economics lesson. They want lower bills.
I agree that the SC could save Trump on the economy but getting rid of tariffs isn't going to fully or quickly undo the damage. You know he'll just find some other way to enact tariffs. Or maybe he'll just start an outright war with Venezuela, which will do WONDERS for the economy. /sarcasm Getting rid of tariffs won't bring back ACA subsidies. It won't stop all forms of insurance rates from continuing to go up. And it won't stop the housing market from being completely unaffordable for a huge swath of people. The world is simply way more expensive than it was 5, or 10 years ago. People expect Trump to bring us back to prepandemic prices. That is why they elected him (that, and the racism). And that isn't going to happen, even without tariffs.
Yes, thanks for saying that. I too question how many of the 77 million who voted for trump have any interest at all learning more about tariffs. I'm pretty sure most of them go with 'vibes', as some Bulwark writers have suggested.
I’m thinking the war with Venezuela will raise oil prices which would be a huge benefit for Putin. Of course, if Ukraine keeps successfully blowing up Russian oil tankers, that won’t matter, but I think someone could be *ahem* observing that out loud, even if they have a different ulterior motive (Marco).