Kansas Memo

HOW BAD COULD A SECOND TRUMP PRESIDENCY GET?

The Economist examines the potential implications of a second Trump presidency, highlighting his aggressive campaign promises and the risks they might pose to democracy and U.S. institutions. Despite some Americans dismissing Trump’s intense rhetoric as showmanship, the article notes that Trump’s loyalist base and established agenda could give him greater power to act on his promises than in his first term. His aims include mass deportations, a dramatic increase in tariffs, and a potential clampdown on Democratic-led policies. This shift, the article suggests, could significantly damage American democracy, institutions, and the economy.

Economic impacts loom large. Trump plans drastic tariffs, tax cuts, and mass deportations, moves that economists warn could worsen inflation and reduce GDP growth. For example, JPMorgan Chase estimates Trump’s proposed tariffs could cut GDP by 0.5% in a year and raise inflation by 1.5 to 2%. Furthermore, Trump’s potential interventions with the Federal Reserve could destabilize financial markets, hurting the economy more than his 2017 tax cuts helped. Mass deportations would strain industries reliant on immigrant labor and could lead to inflation in sectors such as agriculture and construction.

Trump’s foreign policy also raises concerns. His unpredictable approach and “America First” doctrine may destabilize alliances and incite global uncertainty. Prominent figures like Kori Schake at the American Enterprise Institute warn that allies could face a “chaos premium” under Trump’s leadership, fearing an American pivot away from NATO and possible abandonment of Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Concerns over democracy are central to the article. Trump has previously tried to overturn the 2020 election results, and he remains unapologetic about his actions. His comments labeling January 6th rioters as “political prisoners” and his potential plans to pardon them raise concerns over his respect for rule of law. Experts like Benjamin Wittes of *Lawfare* argue that without the moderating “grown-ups” of his first term, Trump would likely act more autocratically, bending federal powers and potentially pushing the Justice Department to target political opponents. His use of Schedule F, allowing for easier dismissal of civil servants, could also politicize traditionally neutral federal agencies.

While some analysts believe that American institutions might contain Trump’s impulses, the risks are substantial. Political scientists note that populist leaders often fail to establish authoritarian regimes, especially in democracies with strong institutions. However, Trump’s past rhetoric and actions suggest that another term could further erode democratic norms, possibly normalizing selective enforcement of laws.

The article concludes that although some Americans dismiss Democrats’ concerns as partisan exaggeration, voting for Trump carries substantial risks for U.S. democracy, the economy, and global stability.

"How bad could a second Trump presidency get?" *The Economist*, 31 Oct. 2024.

How bad could a second Trump presidency get? The damage to America’s economy, institutions and the world would be huge

HATE ONSTAGE AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN

David A. Graham reports on Donald Trump’s recent campaign rally in New York's Madison Square Garden, highlighting the event's inflammatory rhetoric and racially charged content. The rally began with comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who made racist jokes about Latino and Black people. Other speakers followed with similar statements: a Trump childhood friend referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as “the anti-Christ,” while radio host Sid Rosenberg used a derogatory term to describe Harris’s Jewish husband. Stephen Miller added a nationalist tone, echoing a sentiment similar to N**i rhetoric from a 1939 rally at the same location.

When Trump took the stage, he joined in, calling Harris “very low-IQ” and pledging to implement the largest deportation program in U.S. history. This tone concerned some Republican leaders, who fear such extreme statements could alienate Latino voters. However, Graham argues that these sentiments define Trump’s campaign message, which centers on nativism and racial stereotypes.

The rally drew a large, enthusiastic crowd, with limited counter-protests, reflecting Trump’s enduring appeal in New York, though not enough to sway the city's overall vote. As Graham notes, Trump’s strategy relies on creating controversy, aiming to steer the national conversation to divisive topics like immigration and race. While some Democrats worry about Harris’s focus on Trump, Trump himself appears confident that his provocative approach will galvanize his base and gain him attention in the final stretch of the campaign.

Graham, David A. "Hate Onstage at Madison Square Garden." *The Atlantic*, 28 Oct. 2024.

This Is Trump’s Message At his Madison Square Garden rally, Trump’s argument was hate and fear.

WHAT ORWELL DIDN’T ANTICIPATE

In "What Orwell Didn’t Anticipate," Megan Garber explores George Orwell's insights on language as a tool of control and warns that today’s political rhetoric manipulates reality in ways Orwell couldn’t foresee. Orwell’s novel *1984* and essay “Politics and the English Language” argue for clear, direct language, highlighting how propagandistic “Newspeak” can suppress thought. Garber asserts, however, that Orwell’s guidance on clarity is strained in modern politics, where language doesn’t just simplify but distorts and disorients.

Garber focuses on Donald Trump’s ambiguous, conditional language, which she argues functions like Orwellian doublespeak by clouding his real intentions while enabling plausible deniability. She cites recent criticisms from former Trump administration officials who, calling Trump “fascist,” warned against his divisive, often violent rhetoric, which characterizes opposition as “the enemy” and distorts language to reframe opponents as existential threats. In this atmosphere, Garber notes, familiar words lose power, as with “fascism”—a term now too exhausted to provoke the necessary alarm.

Garber traces this problem of language manipulation back to political tactics in the 1990s, such as Newt Gingrich's “Newtspeak,” which transformed political opponents into moral enemies, creating an unbridgeable division. She suggests that Orwell, despite his understanding of propaganda, could not foresee how deeply ironic language, paired with digital media, would undermine communication, fostering a pervasive cynicism that disorients and divides society. Garber urges that, rather than look to Orwell for answers, we create new ways to reclaim language as a means of genuine connection and clear truth.

Megan Garber. “What Orwell Didn’t Anticipate.” *The Atlantic*, October 31, 2024.

What Orwell Didn’t Anticipate George Orwell famously argued that clear language in politics can be a bulwark against oppression. But in the Trump era, his solution no longer holds.

DONALD AND MELANIA TRUMP WERE MADE FOR EACH OTHER

A recent New York Times op-ed criticizes Melania Trump's memoir, *Melania*, portraying her as disconnected and indifferent. At a rally in New York, her brief remarks about “strength, courage, and unity” felt hollow when contrasted with the derogatory comments from other speakers. Her memoir, intended to clear misunderstandings and offer insight, is instead described as superficial, avoiding self-reflection and portraying an overly perfect image of herself and her close circle. Melania’s avoidance of genuine introspection raises questions about her values and experiences, leaving important challenges and choices unexplored.

When recounting her time as First Lady, she fails to explain her non-traditional approach, including her delayed move to the White House and her focus on home renovations. Melania sidesteps substantial issues, such as her lack of public response on January 6, blaming her staff for not keeping her informed of the violence. Her description of her relationship with Donald also lacks depth, portraying it in overly simplistic, surface-level terms.

The book includes merchandise plugs for her personal business ventures, leading some to speculate that her motivations may be more commercial than personal. Published just before Election Day, the book’s timing and approach appear to align with an attempt to capitalize on her brand.

*“Donald and Melania Trump Were Made for Each Other.”* The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/opinion/melania-trump-donald-campaign.html.