These are unique and troubling times for the US. A twice-impeached former president who now faces four separate indictments for serious crimes is the de facto leader of one of the two main political parties. Having remade the Republican party in his image, Donald Trump will almost certainly be its nominee in next year’s presidential election, despite mounting evidence of his financial misdeeds and role in an attempted coup.
While Democrats fared well in elections this month, polls show Trump leading US President Joe Biden in key battleground states. Clearly, something is rotten in the American Republic.
A second Trump presidency would be a much greater threat to democracy than the first. Trump’s own outlook and rhetoric suggest that he has been radicalized further and his supporters have now learned from their failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Illustration: Mountain People
Friendly think tanks are drawing up plans to dismantle the US government’s checks and balances, allowing Trump to usher in a police state targeting his political opponents.
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 aims to “create a playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new administration to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the left’s devastating policies.”
Central to that effort will be to staff key positions with Trumpian cadres.
While Trump and his enablers in the political establishment obviously bear the blame for this dire state of affairs, so do the American left and the fact-based media, which have failed to develop a well-calibrated response. Reactions vary from implicit normalization (who can deny a major party’s choice of nominee?) to showing zero tolerance toward Trump’s supporters.
However, a practical blueprint for addressing the situation is missing, even though the future of the US’ democracy is at stake.
The most promising response would feature two seemingly contradictory stances:
First, the center and the left must unite in declaring Trump and his inner circle a mortal threat to the American Republic. His top lieutenants should be treated as such, rather than as ratings-boosting talking heads. Trump’s clearly stated plans for destroying democracy must be highlighted constantly.
Second, the center and the left also must recognize that most Trump supporters have legitimate grievances. This is the part of a successful response that has been lacking. While there are undoubtedly strong white nationalist and racist elements in the “Make America great again” movement, they are far from representing most people who will be voting for Republicans in the next election.
A significant share of the US population has suffered economically over the past four decades. Real (inflation-adjusted) earnings among men with only a high-school degree or less have declined since 1980, and median wages had all but stagnated until the late 2010s.
Meanwhile, incomes for Americans with college degrees and specialized skills such as programming have risen rapidly.
There are many reasons for this labor-market transformation, and several of them are rooted in economic trends that establishment politicians and the media long sold as benefits to workers. The wave of globalization that was supposed to lift all boats has stranded many.
The automation that was supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive and help workers is the biggest factor in declining earnings among workers without a college degree.
Meanwhile, labor unions, minimum-wage laws and norms protecting low-pay workers have weakened.
Many workers who have suffered from these trends also sense that they have lost ground socially. Legal, political, and cultural changes that have helped previously disadvantaged groups have flustered others.
In the process, many Americans have grown resentful as they feel their viewpoints and grievances are being ignored by the mainstream media and the educated, technocratic elite.
In a recent paper, economists Ilyana Kuziemko, Nicolas Longuet-Marx and Suresh Naidu documented a divide between the economic preferences of less-educated workers, on one hand, and the well-educated and the Democratic Party, on the other.
Whereas ordinary workers have a strong preference for minimum wages, job guarantees, protections against trade and stronger unions, elites oppose such programs as unwarranted interference with the market.
The Democratic Party’s preferred method for helping the less advantaged has been to push for redistribution via the tax and transfer system.
This disconnect between workers and center-left policymakers is not confined to the US. As economists Amory Gethin, Clara Martinez-Toledano and Thomas Piketty show, a similar political realignment has occurred across 21 Western democracies.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the working class reliably voted for center-left and socialist parties, while wealthier and more highly educated citizens voted for the right, but by 2010, the more educated were voting overwhelmingly for center-left parties and workers had shifted to the right, partly because center-left parties had moved away from policy positions aligned with workers’ material interests and other priorities.
Reversing this trend requires changes not just to the specific policies that center-left parties endorse, but also to the language that they use.
It also might require proactive efforts to promote workers to leadership positions within parties, rather than letting highly educated elites capture most top positions.
In the US, bringing workers back to the Democrats is not just an imperative for defeating Trump and the acolytes who will do his dirty work. It is also essential for the US’ economy. Regulating the tech industry and supporting workers will be key issues in the coming decade and beyond. A center left that is devoid of workers’ voices cannot hope to rise to the occasion.
Americans who still support democracy must expose Trump for what he is and work hard to prevent him from returning to power, but to do that, they also must be more accommodating and responsive to workers — including those who have not benefited as much from globalization and technological changes, and might not share all their positions on social and cultural issues.
Daron Acemoglu is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
RSS