How come the women at WaPo are the only ones with balls?
"Democracy dies in darkness"
Ann Telnaes - WaPo
Opinion
It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president
Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?
By Alexandra Petri - October 26, 2024
The Washington Post is not bothering to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and the founder and executive chairman of Amazon and Amazon Web Services, also owns The Post.)
We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president. It is time we got back to those “roots,” I’m told!
Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.
But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.
Let me tell you something. I am having a baby (It’s a boy!), and he is expected on Jan. 6, 2025 (It’s a … Proud Boy?). This is either slightly funny or not at all funny. This whole election, I have been lurching around, increasingly heavily pregnant, nauseated, unwieldy, full of the commingled hopes and terrors that come every time you are on the verge of introducing a new person to the world.
Well, that world will look very different, depending on the outcome of November’s election, and I care which world my kid gets born into. I also live here myself. And I happen to care about the people who are already here, in this world. Come to think of it, I have a lot of reasons for caring how the election goes. I think it should be obvious that this is not an election for sitting out.
The case for Donald Trump is “I erroneously think the economy used to be better? I know that he has made many ominous-sounding threats about mass deportations, going after his political enemies, shutting down the speech of those who disagree with him (especially media outlets), and that he wants to make things worse for almost every category of person — people with wombs, immigrants, transgender people, journalists, protesters, people of color — but … maybe he’ll forget.”
“But maybe he’ll forget” is not enough to hang a country on!
Embarrassingly enough, I like this country. But everything good about it has been the product of centuries of people who had no reason to hope for better but chose to believe that better things were possible, clawing their way uphill — protesting, marching, voting, and, yes, doing the work of journalism — to build this fragile thing called democracy. But to be fragile is not the same as to be perishable, as G.K. Chesterton wrote. Simply do not break a glass, and it will last a thousand years. Smash it, and it will not last an instant. Democracy is like that: fragile, but only if you shatter it.
Trust is like that, too, as newspapers know.
I’m just a humor columnist. I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we’re going to be able to say so.
That’s why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself!
Trump's talking about punishing his critics and opponents.
It's not plain old everyday political blather, and it's not an empty threat.
He fucking means it - and we'd better fucking take it seriously.
Jailed reporters, silenced networks: What Trump says he'd do to the media if elected
5-Minute Listen:
Former President Donald Trump often basks in the glow of press attention. Just as often, he trashes the press and threatens journalists.
On the campaign trail and in interviews, Trump has suggested that if he regains the White House, he will exact vengeance on news outlets that anger him.
More specifically, Trump has pledged to toss reporters in jail and strip major television networks of their broadcast licenses as retribution for coverage he didn't like.
"It speaks directly to the First Amendment — and the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy," Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, tells NPR.
Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies To be clear, the government does not license national networks like those targeted by Trump, but the FCC does license local TV and radio stations to use the public airwaves.
"While the FCC has authority to provide licenses for television and radio, it is pretty fundamental that we do not take them away because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes any kind of content or coverage," Rosenworcel says.
Trump's declarations arrive at a time of increasing concern about his more autocratic impulses. And press advocates say he is intentionally fueling a climate hostile to independent reporting.
One in three journalists says they've faced violence — or the threat of it
"President Trump was a champion for free speech. Everyone was safer under President Trump, including journalists," a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee wrote to NPR in response to questions about these concerns.
Even so, a new survey of hundreds of journalists who received safety training from the International Women's Media Foundation finds 36% say they have faced or been threatened with physical violence on the job — and they have felt especially threatened at Trump campaign rallies.
"Journalists reported feeling at high risk while covering Trump rallies and 'Stop the Steal' protests, especially when some Trump supporters and protestors openly carry weapons," the report states.
While campaigning for Republican congressional candidates in 2022, Trump repeatedly pledged to jail reporters who don't identify confidential sources on stories he considered to have national security implications.
He joked that the prospect of prison rape would loosen reporters' lips about their sources.
"When this person realizes that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, 'I'd very much like to tell you exactly who that was,'" Trump told an appreciative crowd at a Texas rally. And Trump said he wouldn't limit it to the reporters: "The publisher too — or the top editors." He made the same claim two weeks later at an Ohio rally.
Threats to investigate TV networks — and take them off the air
Last year, Trump called for NBC News to be investigated for treason over its coverage of criminal charges he faces. After his lone debate with Vice President Harris this summer, it was ABC's turn to face Trump's wrath. Trump expressed anger over moderators' decision to fact-check him. He popped up on Fox & Friends the next day with a warning.
"I think ABC took a big hit last night," Trump said. "I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They oughta take away their license for the way they do that."
This month, Trump has been back at it, slamming CBS repeatedly over its handling of the vice presidential debate and of the network's interview with Harris on 60 Minutes. He pointed to two versions of an answer Harris had given — one that aired on 60 Minutes and the other on the show Face the Nation — to argue CBS was deceiving viewers to aid the Democrat.
"Think of this," Trump told attendees at a rally in Aurora, Colo., this month. "CBS gets a license. And a license is based on honesty. I think they have to take their license away. I do."
And on Sunday, Trump repeated his complaint to Fox News' Howard Kurtz. "It's the biggest scandal I have ever seen for a broadcaster," Trump said. "60 Minutes, I think it should be taken off the air, frankly."
CBS and 60 Minutes rejected the claim that the network had deceitfully manipulated Harris' interview because it had shown a shorter excerpt of her answer to the same question on 60 Minutes. "The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment," it said in a statement Sunday evening.
Again, news organizations do not need licenses to operate — unless they are local TV or radio stations. The parent companies of CBS, ABC and NBC own more than 80 local stations among them. All three declined comment for this story.
A vow to bring an independent agency under the president's control
The Federal Communications Commission was set up 90 years ago as an independent agency. While Rosenworcel was appointed chairwoman by President Biden, she is not subject to his directive or that of any president. The FCC receives funding and oversight from Congress.
Last year, however, Trump posted a video on social media promising to bring the agency under full White House control.
"I will bring the independent regulatory agencies such as the FCC and the FTC back under presidential authority as the Constitution demands," Trump said, though such an effort would assuredly face a legal challenge. "These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government issuing rules and edicts all by themselves — and that's what they've been doing."
Several former television network executives, asking for anonymity to avoid getting pulled into the campaign, said that they feared the consequences of Trump's stance on pursuing reporters' secret sources more than the threats to pull the broadcast licenses.
In recent decades, digital fingerprints have made it easier for investigators to track down contacts between government employees and journalists.
Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, prosecutors pursuing charges against leakers have sought such records from reporters. (Previously, presidential candidates have not raised the question on the campaign trail — except now for Trump.)
After taking office, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland shifted policy, effectively barring the Justice Department's practice of subpoenaing journalists' records, except in rare cases.
At The New York Times, leaders are girding for what could happen under a president more hostile to the media.
"[Publisher A.G. Sulzberger] devoted a team of people and a significant effort to looking at the ways in which the rule of law — protections for the press — could be worn away by either authoritarian leaders or by populist leaders who rally their supporters against independent media," Times Executive Editor Joseph Kahn recently told NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We shouldn't pretend that they're only vulnerable in a place like Hungary or Turkey. ... They are also vulnerable here."
As president, Trump aided allies such as Rupert Murdoch, the founder of Fox News. (Trump recently said on Fox & Friends that he would ask Murdoch to stop Fox News from airing the Harris campaigns' negative ads about him.)
Trump also tried to punish media outlets that were critical of him. His administration sought to block the takeover of CNN's parent company. It also tried to deny a cloud computing contract for Amazon, which was founded by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.
"It's the frequency of these attacks on the First Amendment that strike me most," Rosenworcel, the FCC's chairwoman, says.
As a federal employee, Rosenworcel says, she almost invariably refrains from public comment on political matters during election season. But she says she could not let this pass unacknowledged.
Similarly, Rosenworcel criticized the threats of prosecution made by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration against local television stations that run ads advocating greater abortion rights in the state. The Florida Department of Health attorney who sent the letters to the Florida TV stations has resigned, saying he was ordered by DeSantis aides to send the letters .
"We can't let this be normal," Rosenworcel says of threats to press independence. "If you want to maintain a democracy, you have to speak up for it."
Tariffs are paid by the end user - the consumer - you - not by the company that made the product and shipped it over here to you. You pay for it because the people who import the stuff aren't stupid enough to just eat the extra cost.
If you support Trump and his tariff policy, you're volunteering for a tax increase by way of higher prices on everything buy that isn't produced here in USAmerica Inc.
What did you get your kids for Christmas? Where was it made? Vote for Trump, and congratulations - your cost next year will be 20 to 60 to god-knows-what % higher.
And we're not the only country that can impose tariffs.
Last time, Trump's tariffs hit American farmers so hard, we had to bail them out to the tune of $16 billion.
Tariffs aren't universally a bad thing. As long as they're targeted properly (ie: intelligently - which, I think we all know isn't how Trump would do it), they can level the playing field when we're dealing with some asshole country that's dumping steel (for example), intending to drive prices down to the point where the domestic product isn't profitable enough to keep a US company in business.
But you don't simply announce you're raising all the existing tariffs, and putting new tariffs on everything at 50 or 100 or 2000% - which Trump has threatened by the way.
And also too - this whole tariff bandwagon thing smacks of Republican fuckery. I can see them using it as an attempt to kill income tax altogether - which sounds pretty damned appealing - but what it does is shift the entire tax burden to people who actually work for their money.
What's the point in boosting your take-home pay by 30%, if it means the price of everything you buy goes up 35 or 40%?
What tariffs do and why economists don't like them
Trump keeps expanding his tariff plans, but most trade analysts across the political spectrum warn they’d inflate consumer prices.
“The most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff,” former President Donald Trump told the Economic Club of Chicago last week. “It’s my favorite word.”
The Republican candidate for president has spent the past few weeks floating ever higher proposals for raising surcharges on foreign goods entering the United States. He has called for a 20% blanket tariff on all imports, tariffs of at least 60% on products from China, 100% tariffs on nations that shift away from trading with the dollar, and a 2,000% tariff on vehicles built in Mexico.
Economists across the political spectrum oppose these ideas, saying the most likely outcome would be higher prices for consumers. Here’s a look at how tariffs work and why they’re so critical in an election in which living costs are front and center.
What tariffs do and who pays them
Tariffs, also known as duties or levies, are deterrents. They penalize domestic firms that import foreign-made goods to encourage companies to source more of those items within the country. When a tariff is placed on a product — be it a watermelon, a washing machine or a high-tech component — any U.S.-based company that imports it must pay a percentage of that item’s price to the government, with federal officials setting the rate.
Trump has said the revenue from these payments would be huge. He proposes using it to fund everything from tax cuts to subsidized child care. In a rambling response to a question about the latter issue last month, he said “those numbers” from tariff revenue “are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care” costs.
But any business facing a tariff has two options: either stop importing the targeted product and buy it domestically instead, or raise its sale price. When firms can’t find the goods they need within U.S. borders at prices they can afford, or at all, they tend to pass some or all of the cost of the tariff to consumers.
For that reason, Vice President Kamala Harris has called Trump’s tariff proposals “a sales tax on the American people” that she says would raise costs for households by $4,000 each year. Adam Hersh, a senior economist at EPI Action, the advocacy arm of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, puts that estimate lower but still in the four-figure range at $2,500 to 3,000 per year.
“Donald Trump will not just impose a $4,000 a year middle class tax hike — his plan will permanently jack up inflation, crush American manufacturing jobs, and hurt manufacturing workers more than any other sector,” Joseph Costello, a Harris campaign spokesperson, said in a statement. “Over and over, independent economists are warning of the economic dangers of Trump’s plan, and Americans should take note.”
The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Whatever the ultimate cost, many economists agree that higher, more widespread tariffs would drive up prices for consumers.
“She’s right that his tariffs are like a sales tax, in the sense that consumers everywhere are going to end up paying,” Alan Deardorff, an economist at the University of Michigan who specializes in international trade, said of Harris’ claim. But he cautioned that only fully imported products would likely increase by the same rate as the tariff itself; the costs of goods assembled in the U.S. from a mix of imported and domestic parts, such as cars and airplanes, would likely rise by less.
While tariffs are broadly disliked by economists, they now draw more bipartisan support than they have in decades. There’s agreement in both parties that endlessly lowering barriers to global trade has had detrimental economic and social consequences.
Some farmers and factory owners complained during the Trump administration that its tariffs were hurting their bottom lines, leading the White House to funnel tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to agricultural producers. But the Biden-Harris administration largely hasn’t reversed course. It extended about $300 billion in its predecessor’s duties on Chinese goods, and even added additional tariffs on $18 million worth of Chinese goods in strategic industries, including electric vehicles, semiconductors, steel and aluminum.
The impact on prices and jobs
Trump and his allies who endorse his trade policies argue that tariffs protect and bolster domestic markets, spurring homegrown producers to expand. They also see them as an economic weapon. Trump recently threatened the Illinois-based tractor maker John Deere with a 200% tariff if it moves production to Mexico.
Some economists had long theorized that if the U.S. imposed tariffs on a product, foreign producers would lower their prices to avoid being pushed out of the large, lucrative American market. Tariffs had been falling around the world for decades before the Trump administration rolled out its 2018 levies, which created a natural experiment to test that thesis.
In the years since, Deardorff said, “you can’t find anything in the data indicating that the foreign prices went down.”
Even if tariffs do force some overseas producers to lower prices, U.S. consumers wouldn’t necessarily reap the benefits, said Monica Morlacco, an economics professor at the University of Southern California. At best, the price would simply decrease by less than the amount of the tariff.
“Consumer prices will always go up by any reasonable analysis of tariffs,” she said.
In fact, some of Trump’s earlier tariffs led domestic producers to hike their prices. In 2018, Trump slapped tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% on many residential washing machines from South Korea, leading Seoul-based LG to raise its prices in response. But so did the brand’s American competitors, as the newly pricier foreign models juiced demand for U.S.-made products.
Reviewing the price data, University of Chicago researchers later found “no clear distinction between domestic and foreign brands in these results, all within a range of 5 and 17 percent” — and dryers, which weren’t subject to tariffs but are often purchased alongside washers, saw price hikes as well.
A paper the following year from the New York Federal Reserve found Trump’s tariffs and other protectionist trade policies cost U.S. consumers $1.4 billion each month. “Tariffs were almost completely passed through into U.S. domestic prices, so that the entire incidence of the tariffs fell on domestic consumers,” the authors wrote.
Prices aside, “people believe that the tariffs will protect domestic jobs, and they like this idea that we can help our American workers,” said Robert Lawrence, a professor of international trade and investment and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I think they’re mistaken.”
That’s partly because of how tariffs reverberate through global trade, he said: “We’re going to be buying less from foreigners because their goods are more expensive. We’re going to therefore have this adverse effect on our inputs, and therefore we’re also going to be able to sell less abroad.”
Voters, however, have mixed opinions on tariffs. An NBC News poll this month found little more than a third of voters were in favor of universal tariffs, with most others opposed or indifferent, but a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-September found a narrow majority backing Trump’s tariff plans.
When people think of tariffs, they think of bringing jobs back or opening factories, said Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute.
“Those are laudable social goals,” he said. “But what the public understands less about tariffs is that they raise prices to consumers and also to businesses that use protected inputs. They’re not really effective at bringing jobs back on a large scale.”
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation, which typically advocates for lower taxes and other pro-business policies, has estimated that Trump’s latest tariff plans would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by 0.8% and cost 684,000 jobs. When jobs are created, they often cost more than what the job pays, economists say. In the University of Chicago washing machine study, researchers estimated each job created cost consumers about $815,000 annually.
Still, Obstfeld acknowledged tariffs’ political appeal in many regions that have struggled with the loss of manufacturing jobs. It’s easy for economists to say that noncompetitive industries should go out of business, but “we’re talking about real people with real jobs,” he said.
“This is one of the reasons why protection can be popular,” Obstfeld said. “Because otherwise, a lot of people are hung out to dry.”
