Part One:
TRUMP’S MARCH TOWARD AUTOCRACY.
We discuss the Trump administration’s march toward autocracy. Former Justice Department lawyers (including our producer, Ken) have signed a letter spelling out just how unusual are AG Barr’s actions interfering in individual criminal prosecutions — to help Trump’s personal interests and not the US national interest. DOJ in the Trump era is undermining America’s rule of law, one of the fundamental underpinnings of our constitutional government.
Similarly, immigration officials in ICE just sent subpoenas to the San Diego Police Department — for the first time in California — demanding that the state-funded law enforcement agencies do ICE’s job for it, to help ICE round up and deport immigrants and asylum-seekers living in the US. Trump has announced that these and other ICE actions are to retaliate against sanctuary cities and states for daring to point out how his harsh immigration policies are harming real-live human beings in the United States.
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT OUR ECONOMY?
We speak with Wolf Richter, business writer and founder of Wolfstreet.com. The coronavirus is wreaking havoc not only on China, its economy and people, but also on the U.S. and the world. People are afraid to travel or buy property. Any company that produces goods must worry that their supply chain could be offline until the coronavirus scare ends.
We also discuss the stock market’s irrational bubble. The stock of almost every industry is soaring to new heights, but we aren’t hearing much talk about people pulling out of the market in advance of the inevitable downturn. Is this based on some kind of psychological problem (wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance)? Or does it have anything to do with political factors (Trump and his cronies want the *appearances* of economic prosperity to last until the election is over)?
Part Two:
SHOULD THIS BILLIONAIRE BE PRESIDENT?
We talk to Bob Hennelly, writer for the Chief Leader in NYC, Salon.com and Stucknation.com. Hennelly continues our conversation about insights he gleaned during his many years under the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg in NY. Should a lifetime fixation on amassing billions of dollars disqualify Bloomberg for the highest office in the land? According to some — in the media and in influential positions in the Democratic party — Bloomberg’s billions are precisely what makes him the ideal candidate to run against Donald Trump.
It is mind-boggling how much of his own money he spent to buy influence and “friends” all across the country (long before he threw his hat in the ring to run for president) — and, of course, that money was only a drop in the bucket compared to his unimaginable personal fortune. Yet the Democratic Party has, for some reason, made a special exception to its rules governing who gets to stand on the stage at the next presidential debate thereby reaping gobs of *free* media exposure. For every other candidate for president, the rules had required the candidate to attain a specified level of support in a given number of accredited polls, *and* to amass a rising level of financial donations from “small” donors — in order to give the appearance of a democracy where actual voters have shown support for the candidate and no candidate is “bought and paid for” by the donor elite. But it now seems that a one-person donor elite can buy and pay for the presidency, as long as he’s not beholden to the policy ideas of any mega-wealthy donor except himself.
Bloomberg has been willing (understatement) to buy the loyalty of mayors and businesses across the country, whom he sends to school and provides with expensive resources. He has astutely chosen where he will invest his political capital. He has invested a great deal in the ginormous state of Texas, and now all of a sudden, the mayor of Houston has endorsed Bloomberg for president. Last week, the billionaire recruited a few centrist voters (including Republicans) in the far north of New Hampshire, and Dixville Notch reported its election results — in favor of Bloomberg — shortly after midnight on election day. So the media reported that Bloomberg was the first big “winner” in the NH primary. Why are 5 voters in a remote village a valid sample from which to report who “is winning” a statewide election?
WHY AREN’T THE MEDIA DOING THEIR JOB?
Moreover, the media have a lot of self-reflection to do in its coverage of elections. In theory, all media are prohibited from reporting any early results precisely in order that no voter is discouraged from casting her vote because she “knows” that the outcome is already predetermined in other locations. Why does this prohibition apply to the media, in general (in a nod to democratic voting), but it’s OK for many headlines to shout about Bloomberg’s early “victory” in Dixville Notch? He may not be as brilliant a salesman as Trump; but Bloomberg has shown himself to be a lot more effective in advertising to voters than his qualifications for president may warrant.
Once again, the media and the Party elites have diverted voters’ attention from the real problems and instead tried to sell stories about red herrings. (In addition to the Dixville Notch non-story, last week, we kept hearing “news” stories like “Iowa has now counted 77% of the votes, not merely 56%, and Buttigieg and Sanders are still only 2,000 votes apart.”) At the same time, the media are ignoring serious problems that any new president (and other elected officials) will have to address. For example, the financial insecurity of the middle and working classes — and the concomitant feelings of worry and terror that regular Americans are feeling — are rarely reported on, at least not in any depth. Yet income and wealth disparities, class discrimination, consumer ripoffs, home foreclosure and dispossession are economic crises that transcend race. Please do your jobs, media!!
