Politics

Column: Davos, where the rich and powerful go to show off their ignorance

Published

1 year ago

January 17, 2024

Column: Davos, where the rich and powerful go to show off their ignorance

Those of us who diligently follow financial forecasts know that the go-to place for mapping out the course of the economy over the coming 12 months is Davos, Switzerland, the host city of the annual World Economic Forum every January.

Rule of thumb: Listen closely to what the gathered business and political leaders predict, then take the other side. Or as the American economist Kenneth Rogoff said in 2020:

“No matter how improbable, the event most likely to happen is the opposite of whatever the Davos consensus is.”

“I think this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden’s electoral campaign.”

— Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO

It’s hard to find a single explanation for the long history of Davos attendees missing the signs of impending world recessions or confidently forecasting recessions that never arrive (among other errors).

But an interview of Jamie Dimon, the chair and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., aired Wednesday morning on CNBC offers a clue: The potentates and plutocrats come to Davos without the slightest clue of what they’re talking about.

As he basked in the limelight of a CNBC kiosk with snow-flecked Davos evergreens behind him and earnest, parka-garbed CNBC anchors in front of him, Dimon unburdened himself of some remarkably delusional judgments of current affairs and recent politics.

Dimon’s general take on politics was that Donald Trump wasn’t that bad as a president, and therefore Democrats should be more careful about attacking him and his supporters. “I think this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden’s electoral campaign,” he said.

Dimon attempted to get into the minds of MAGA supporters. “I don’t think they’re voting for Trump ’cause it’s family values,” he said.

“Be honest,” he said. Trump is “kinda right about NATO. Kinda right about immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. … I don’t like how he said things about Mexico, but he wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues, and that’s why they’re voting for him.”

We’ll have to unpack some of this ourselves, because Dimon’s CNBC interlocutors sat by silently as he spouted off. If they bestirred themselves to ask “how is he right?” those questions and his answers didn’t make it into the broadcast. So let’s begin.

Is Trump “kinda right about NATO”? While he was president, he told European Commission members (at Davos!), that “if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” according to Thierry Breton, a French commissioner. He said Trump added: “By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO.”

Trump’s repeated promise to withdraw from NATO prompted Congress to insert a provision in the annual Defense Appropriations Act barring any president from quitting NATO without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. The act, including that provision, was signed into law by President Biden in December.

If Dimon was referring to Trump’s withdrawal promise or his denigration of the mutual defense provision of the NATO treaty, which commits all NATO members to defending against an attack on any of them, then Dimon’s assertion contradicts his own opinion of the necessity of supporting Ukraine against Russia in the CNBC interview.

That battle “is about freedom and democracy for the free world,” Dimon said, urging American political leaders to explain to voters why supporting Ukraine is necessary. Ukraine “may be about whether the world is free and safe for democracy for a hundred years.” Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO, but supporting a European country under attack is obviously incompatible with quitting NATO.

Immigration? Trump’s most recent notable comment on this topic is that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” uttered at a Dec. 17 rally in New Hampshire. Was he “kinda right” about that?

The Trump administration’s immigration policy encompassed the outstandingly inhumane practice of family separation, under which thousands of children were forcibly removed from their families on this side of the southern border; as many as 1,000 children are still missing. Was that “kinda right”?

In October, the Biden administration settled a lawsuit over the policy by allowing families to remain in the U.S. while they search for their children and committed to ceasing family separations for eight years.

Dimon stated during the interview that securing the border is imperative. He wasn’t asked about, and didn’t mention, who’s responsible for blocking a sensible immigration policy. It’s Trump’s party: The House GOP caucus is refusing to accept a deal on immigration unless it includes draconian provisions that would ban almost all asylum and mandate the construction of a border wall — something that Trump was unable to accomplish himself during his four years in office.

Did tax reform work? No doubt the 2017 tax reform worked for taxpayers in Dimon’s class and corporations like his. But there’s is no discernible evidence that it achieved what its GOP sponsors claimed were its goals, growing the economy and raising so much government revenue that it would “pay for itself.”

As a share of gross domestic product, federal tax receipts plummeted after the 2017 tax cuts to 16% in 2020 from 17.4% in 2016. Nor did the tax cuts have any noticeable effect on wages, despite promises from Trump officials that average wages would be pumped up by $3,000 to $7,000 per worker.

The study that predicted such an outcome, observed Republican economist Bruce R. Bartlett in Senate testimony last May, was “more of a public relations document than a serious analysis; once its purpose was served and the legislation enacted, it was forgotten.”

The tax cuts did have a noticeable effect in the world Dimon occupies, however. The average tax rate paid by his corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., fell to 24.5% of net income in the five years since the cuts from 38.6% in the five years before their enactment.

It may be true or at least arguable, as Dimon said, that Trump “grew the economy quite well.” But there’s no question that in many respects his record pales in comparison to his successor’s.

In the first three years of his term — leaving aside the pandemic year of 2020, when employment cratered — Trump achieved average annual job growth of about 289,000. In the latest two years of Biden’s term — leaving aside the post-pandemic year of 2021, when jobs recovered strongly from the prior year’s losses — jobs grew by an average 481,000 a year.

One can only speculate about the source of Dimon’s view about MAGA politics. He’s a highly intelligent and accomplished executive; no one without his ability and perspicacity could have remained CEO of the nation’s largest bank company for 18 years and its chairman for 17. Much of what he has had to say over that period has been well worth hearing, especially when it concerns business, economics and finance.

Yet in issuing political proclamations, he sounds like someone out of his lane. It’s hardly unusual for someone so accomplished in one field and so rich to feel the impulse to stray into topics well beyond his field of expertise, especially when his opinions are sought by sycophantic interviewers in public. Who could resist?

That’s also why the cocksure predictions issuing from Davos year after year are so risibly unreliable, the vision of the future so clouded.

In 2022, for instance, the then-president of FTX.US, the cryptocurrency firm’s American unit, told attendees that the firm was in a “very good spot” and had so much capital it would soon be looking for acquisitions. The following year, its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, was charged with fraud and the firm collapsed. That same year, Davos was certain that a recession in Europe was inevitable; it still hasn’t happened.

In 2008, no one at Davos noticed that the subprime crisis was erupting and therefore that it would produce a major recession. In 2016, no one at Davos expected Trump to win the election or the U.K. to stage Brexit, its departure from the European Union. The following year, the Davos organizers were so mortified that they actually scheduled a session on why the assembled pundits got so much so wrong.

The fact is that bringing together a host of successful but self-important luminaries to forecast the future is a mug’s game. They’re wrapped up in their own worlds and insulated from what’s happening on the ground.

Nor are they accustomed to being challenged in public. One such uncommon moment occurred during a panel at the 2019 meeting, discussing a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for a 70% tax rate on income over $10 million.

Panelist Michael Dell, the computer entrepreneur, scoffed. “Name a country where that’s worked, ever,” he said.

Dell’s fellow panelist, economist Erik Brynjolfsson (then of MIT, now of Stanford), jumped right in. “The United States,” he said. “From about the 1930s through about the 1960s. … And those were actually pretty good years for growth. … There’s actually a lot of economics that suggests that it’s not necessarily going to hurt growth.”

Dell had nothing to say. The panel moderator, Heather Long of the Washington Post, did, however. The top tax rate exceeded 70% only “briefly, in the 1980s,” she said.

Not so. The top tax rate in the U.S., as Brynjolfsson said, exceeded 70% from 1936 until 1982, peaking at 94% in 1944-1945. And those decades encompassed some of America’s most prosperous periods.

But getting something so fundamental so wrong? Over the World Economic Forum’s 53-year history, that’s become a tradition.

Politics

The Trump Resistance Won’t Be Putting on ‘Pussy Hats’ This Time

Published

4 hours ago

January 19, 2025

Press Room

The Trump Resistance Won’t Be Putting on ‘Pussy Hats’ This Time

The week after Election Day in 2016, Shirley Morganelli, a women’s health nurse and lifelong Democrat, invited a dozen friends over to the living room of her rowhouse in Bethlehem, Pa., for a glass of wine. Actually, many glasses.

“Misery loves company,” she said.

Ms. Morganelli’s friends, mostly women then in their 50s and 60s, were teachers, nurses, artists and ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton. Some of them had dressed in suffragist white to cast their votes that day, expecting to celebrate the election of America’s first female president. Instead, they had ended the night consoling their college-aged daughters.

“When she called me at three o’clock in the morning — I get all choked up now, because it was the first time I couldn’t say, ‘Everything’s going to be all right,’” said Angela Sinkler, a nurse and former school board member in Bethlehem.

The get-together — Ms. Morganelli called it “unhappy hour” — became a regular event. By the end of the month, commiserating had turned into organizing. They started with writing postcards to elected officials calling on them to oppose Donald J. Trump’s agenda, then moved on to raising money for a local Planned Parenthood chapter and joining in community protests.

Local political candidates began showing up to their gatherings, too, and the group, now called Lehigh Valley ROAR, turned to campaigning. In 2018, several members were elected to City Council in Bethlehem, and Susan Wild, the city solicitor in nearby Allentown and old friend of Ms. Morganelli’s, was elected to Congress with the group’s support.

Lehigh Valley ROAR was one of more than 2,000 similar grass-roots groups formed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s first election — a moment of mass organization larger than even the Tea Party movement at its peak during President Barack Obama’s first term, said Theda Skocpol, a Harvard University professor of government and sociology who has studied both movements.

A vast majority of the groups were led by women, and many traced a similar arc to Ms. Morganelli’s, their shock at Mr. Trump’s election sparking political activism and then, often, electoral victories.

But then there was the defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris in November.

As Mr. Trump returns to the White House on Monday with a popular vote majority and a governing trifecta in Washington, there are few signs of the sort of mass public protest that birthed “the resistance” the last time he took office.

Mr. Trump’s inauguration in 2017 was met with the largest single-day public demonstration in American history. Although thousands marched in Washington Saturday and smaller protests were held in other cities, their numbers fell far short of the hundreds of thousands that rallied eight years ago.

Organizers of the 2017 efforts say this shift reflects the lessons learned from the street protests that took place early in the first Trump presidency, tactics that were quickly abandoned in favor of more strategic organizing — and that opposition to a second Trump term is unlikely to take the same forms.

But some concede that the opposition is more uncertain than it once was. Congressional Democrats and governors now openly debate the wisdom of locking arms against Mr. Trump’s agenda, as they eventually did during his first presidency. And Democrats still now bear scars from last year’s conflicts over Israel’s invasions of Gaza and Lebanon, their embrace of identity politics and President Biden’s aborted candidacy.

In 2017, “everything felt bigger, more important,” said Krista Suh, a screenwriter in Los Angeles. When the Women’s March was announced for the day after Mr. Trump’s swearing-in, Ms. Suh, a novice knitter, came up with a pattern for a cat-eared pink cap to wear to the protest and posted it online.

Within days, “pussy hats” became a ubiquitous emblem of anti-Trump dissent.

Ms. Suh has stayed somewhat politically involved; she canvassed for Ms. Harris in Arizona. But she had no plans to protest this weekend.

“I feel like I’m just so much more jaded now,” she said.

‘He Won the Popular Vote’

When members of Lehigh Valley ROAR assembled once again in Ms. Morganelli’s living room this month, days before Mr. Trump would return to the White House, few were certain about what they should do next. They had canvassed and phone-banked for Ms. Harris. “You name it, we did it,” Ms. Morganelli said.

Ms. Wild had lost her seat, too.

In the corner of Ms. Morganelli’s living room, a cardboard cutout of Mr. Obama still wore a pink hat from the 2017 Women’s March, which most of the group members had attended. But none of them were going to Washington to protest Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

Some members had come to question the effectiveness of the Women’s March. Others were now more concerned about the safety of demonstrating. Last fall, one member’s car was broken into by someone who also tore up the Harris yard signs she had in the back seat.

Four years after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Ms. Morganelli was ambivalent about the optics of protesting the outcome of a fair election.

“This time, he won the popular vote,” she said, referring to the president-elect. “As good Americans and good Democrats, you have to accept that, right?”

Instead of protest, the group planned to get together to drink wine and write thank-you notes to Mr. Biden. “Moving forward, all we can do is try to be our best selves as good citizens,” Ms. Morganelli wrote on the group’s Facebook page.

A Resistance With Some Regrets

In its early days, the opposition to Mr. Trump seemed to practically organize itself. Grieving liberals poured their energy into any vessel available. People who had never organized a protest in their lives were transformed into leaders of demonstrations of historic scale, sometimes overnight, as was the case for Naomi Lindquester.

Jolted by Mr. Trump’s election, Ms. Lindquester, then a 42-year-old elementary schoolteacher in Denver, created a Facebook event called Women’s March on Denver. She thought she would have to beg her friends to attend.

Instead, the day after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 people arrived at the State Capitol to denounce the new president. It was likely the largest demonstration in the history of Colorado.

The Women’s March protests drew some 500,000 attendees to Washington and hundreds of thousands more rallied across the country. But the groups that materialized to organize them, often led by media-savvy young urban professionals, soon found themselves struggling to maintain momentum and, at times, infighting.

The national Women’s March organization splintered after one organizer accused others of antisemitism. Other groups disintegrated amid more prosaic conflicts over priorities and egos.

“It got really ugly, really fast,” said Ms. Lindquester, who has not spoken with her fellow organizers of the Denver march since they fell out in late 2018.

Many such groups, she believes, were victims of their sudden celebrity. “I’ll be really honest with you,” she said, “I very much enjoyed my 15 minutes of fame.”

Since November, Ms. Lindquester has found herself questioning the impact of the march she organized. “The fact that we did that ginormous march and he still got re-elected a second time?” she said.

She has mostly stepped back from public politics — a shift that was in part a result of her move from Denver to a small, conservative town elsewhere in the state, and the heightened scrutiny on teachers’ politics in recent years.

While she was proud of her role in the 2017 protest, “I don’t talk to anyone about that, because I will hear about it if I do,” she said.

In a Facebook post this month she suggested a list of actions that she argued would make a bigger difference now than marching: Plant trees. Volunteer in the community. “Engage with people who think differently than you and find your common ground.”

A New Message: ‘This Is Hard.’

Some argue that the energy is still out there, but the goals are different. Ezra Levin, the executive director of Indivisible, an organization he co-founded in 2017 to channel grass-roots opposition to Mr. Trump, said the group had registered more new local chapters since November than it had at any other point since 2017.

In a new blueprint for action released shortly after the election, Indivisible urged its members to focus not just on Mr. Trump and Congress but also on local elected officials — particularly Democrats in blue states that could serve as a bulwark for resisting Mr. Trump’s policies.

It conceded that “too often in Trump 1.0, we embraced the aesthetics of protests instead of using them as part of a strategy.”

“You shouldn’t start with a tactic,” Mr. Levin said. “You should start with a goal.”

In Ms. Morganelli’s living room, the Lehigh Valley ROAR members spoke of leaning on one another even more as some family members drifted away from their politics in recent years: children who had grown enamored with right-wing survivalism or opposition to vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic, or turned on Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris over their support for Israel.

“I lost my liberal, progressive son to Joe Rogan,” one said, as others nodded in sympathy.

They felt alienated from younger Democratic activists who seemed to see fighting Mr. Trump as a lesser priority than matters of ideological purity.

“If you’re not lefty-left enough, they are willing to sacrifice their vote and throw it away,” either by not voting or voting for a third-party candidate, said Lori McFarland, a member of the group who is now the chairwoman of the Lehigh County Democratic Committee. “And they’ve just set us back.”

Ms. Suh, the “pussy hat” creator, has not sought to reprise her role in the protest movement. She thought that a unifying phenomenon like her hat would still be possible — but the message should now be something different than the defiance of early 2017.

“I think,” she said, “it has to be something like: ‘I hear you. This is hard.’”

Politics

How will DeSantis, Youngkin and other 2028 hopefuls stay relevant outside the Trump administration?

Published

5 hours ago

January 19, 2025

Press Room

How will DeSantis, Youngkin and other 2028 hopefuls stay relevant outside the Trump administration?

During a busy week in the nation’s capital, far from the action, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had no trouble keeping his name in the political spotlight.

“This is a time for action. And a time for Washington, D.C., to deliver results to the American people. There are no more excuses for Republicans,” the conservative two-term governor and 2024 Republican presidential candidate said Thursday as he named Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody to succeed Sen. Marco Rubio in the Senate.

Two days earlier, President-elect Trump gave his onetime bitter GOP primary rival a shout-out after the governor called for a special state legislative session to implement Trump’s expected immigration crackdown.

“Thank you Ron, hopefully other governors will follow!” the president-elect said in a social media post.

VANCE IS THE EARLY FRONTRUNNER, BUT HERE ARE THE OTHER REPUBLICANS WHO MAY RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2028

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox listens before President-elect Trump talks at a meeting with Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago Jan. 9, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Due to the national profile he’s built over the past four years, the governor of one of the country’s most important states will likely continue to stay in the headlines as he takes a lead on some of the nation’s most consequential issues.

The spotlight should help DeSantis if he ends up launching a second straight GOP presidential nomination run in 2028, a race in which soon-to-be Vice President JD Vance will be considered the clear early frontrunner as the perceived America First and MAGA heir apparent to Trump.

“He needs to do what he did in 2022, which is pick good fights. And he’s shown a lot of capability to pick good fights with the left both in Florida and nationally,” longtime Republican strategist David Kochel said of DeSantis.

RNC CHAIR SAYS GOP HAS ‘DEEP BENCH’ FOR 2028

“I think he’ll be in demand to come do stuff in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Kochel, a veteran of numerous GOP presidential campaigns, predicted, pointing to the three key early voting states in the Republican presidential primaries.

“I wouldn’t change a lot from how he did the run-up to his 2024 campaign. The problem was he basically ran against an incumbent president. He didn’t have the wrong playbook. He had the wrong cycle.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis holds a news conference with emergency officials as a hurricane bears down on his state Oct. 9, 2024 (AP)

While the initial moves in the 2028 White House run will likely start in the coming months, including some early state visits, most Americans won’t be paying a lick of attention until after the 2026 midterms, when the next presidential campaign formally gets under way. And that’s when DeSantis will be wrapping up his second and final four-year term steering Florida, allowing him to concentrate 100% on a White House run if that’s in his cards.

But what about another high-profile Republican governor who likely has national ambitions in 2028?

HERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS WHO MAY RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2028

The Virginia Constitution doesn’t allow for incumbent governors to run for a second consecutive term, so Gov. Glenn Youngkin will be out of office in Richmond in a year.

Compared to DeSantis, who also enjoys large GOP majorities in his state legislature, which will allow him to continue to enact a conservative agenda, Virginia is a purple state where Democrats have a slight upper hand in the legislature.

“It might be a little tougher for Youngkin, a little tougher for him to find ways to stay in the news” after he leaves office in a year, Kochel suggested.

But, Younkin predicted, “You’re going to see me a lot.”

“We’ve got a very aggressive agenda for being governor in the last 14 months,” he said in a Fox News Digital interview in November. “But part of that agenda that I have is to make sure that we have [Lt. Gov.] Winsome Sears as our next governor. [Virginia Attorney General] Jason Miyares is back as our attorney general and a super lieutenant governor who we will pick at our primaries.”

Youngkin, who energized Republicans nationwide in 2021 as a first-time candidate who hailed from the party’s business wing, edged former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe to become the first GOP candidate in a dozen years to win a gubernatorial election in the one-time swing state that had trended toward the Democrats over the previous decade. He could also potentially end up in the Trump administration after his term in Richmond sunsets in a year.

“I told the president when I called him and told him that I wanted to finish my term that I would be available to help him at any time while I’m governor and afterwards,” Youngkin told Fox News Digital, referring to a call he held with Trump right after the November election.

But if he doesn’t enter the Trump administration, another route for Youngkin to stay in the spotlight in 2026 would be criss-crossing the country on behalf of fellow Republicans running in the midterm elections. It’s a role Youngkin previously played in 2022, helping fellow Republican governors and gubernatorial candidates.

“He’s got to do the blocking and tackling, go state by state, help a lot of candidates, raise a lot of money for them. Get a bunch of governors elected,” Kochel suggested. “That’s the playbook for him.”

What about NIkki Haley, the former two-term Republican governor of South Carolina and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Trump’s first administration, who was the last rival standing against Trump in the 2024 GOP presidential primaries?

Nikki Haley speaks at the GOP convention

Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador and former South Carolina governor, speaks at the Republican National Convention July 17, 2024, in Milwaukee. (Fox News/Paul Steinhauser)

Out of office and shut out of the Trump world while still facing social media zingers by the president-elect, Haley’s ability to grab attention should she seek the presidency again may be a more difficult climb within a party once again on bended knee to the former and future president.

Haley does have a weekly national radio show on Sirius XM, where she noted a few weeks ago, “I had no interest in being in [Trump’s] Cabinet.”

But a lot can happen in the two years until the next White House race officially gets under way. There could be some buyer’s remorse among voters if the new administration is not successful in enacting some of its goals.

“While JD Vance starts as the presumed frontrunner right now, there’s a million miles to go between now and then,” seasoned Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News.

And Kochel added that for some Republicans mulling a 2028 presidential bid, “I think a little strategic distance is not a bad idea. Because you don’t know what’s going to happen over the next two years.”

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But holding statewide office — either as a governor or senator — doesn’t guarantee favorable coverage.

“Having a day job cuts both ways. It gives you a platform, a megaphone, and an ability to make news whenever you want. But it also carries with it the responsibilities of governing or legislating or being part of government bodies, whether it’s Congress or the state you are running, where things can go wrong and end up on your doorstep and become political baggage,” Reed noted.

Reed warned that “history is littered with those officeholders who ran and won for a second term only to have political baggage at home become political headaches on the campaign trail.”

Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in New Hampshire.

Politics

Opinion: If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive, how would he have approached the Trump era?

Published

6 hours ago

January 19, 2025

Press Room

Opinion: If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive, how would he have approached the Trump era?

Unlike the many people who are upset that Donald Trump is being inaugurated on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I see it as a good thing. First, it calls even more attention to the day and its significance. Second, it is a chance to speculate about what King might say and do if he were alive in the Trump era.

Counterfactual, “what if” history is a trend in the literary world. Trump’s inauguration on the holiday may prompt us to think about what America and the world might have looked like with King alive and well. Conversely, how did America and the world devolve without him?

King was the kind of leader who comes along once in a lifetime, one with unmatched eloquence and passion. His gift for oratory could energize all kinds of people, including workers, presidents and other heads of state. He possessed visionary insight on the complex racial, social and economic ills as well as their solutions and consequences.

He worked tirelessly to build a grassroots civil rights and social justice movement and serve as its guiding force. And his charismatic presence influenced people to act on the issues and problems he was working to solve.

How might that play out in the Trump era? To begin with, King abhorred all violence. He most likely would have been deeply pained by the mass gun killings that have become somewhat commonplace in American cities. He would almost certainly have butted heads with the National Rifle Assn. and its ardent backer Trump while lobbying Congress to pass comprehensive gun control legislation.

When it comes to international politics, King surely would have condemned Russia’s war in Ukraine. One can also envision him speaking out against Hamas’ kidnapping and slaughter of Israelis as well as Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians. He would have called these wars ineffectual, repressive and wasteful, a drain on resources that should go to programs that aid the poor and minorities. On this point, he and Trump, who repeatedly claims he has kept America out of wasteful wars, would likely be in some agreement.

It’s impossible to imagine King not fighting tooth and nail against the rash of voter suppression laws and the GOP’s ploys to dilute Black and minority voting strength, including the assault on the Voting Rights Act. He’d bump heads with Trump on that. But Trump would also have a comeback: He’d cite the sharp increase in Black and Hispanic votes for him in the recent presidential election.

King would almost certainly try to prevent the country’s Republican-led rightward sprint, drawing negative attention from Trump and his MAGA coalition. But even he would not have been able to stop the many powerful forces with vested interest in halting or reversing the country’s momentum toward expanded civil rights, labor protections and economic fairness.

The resurgence of overtly racist sentiments, acts and conflicts under Trump would obviously trouble King, who famously hoped for a day when Americans are judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

King would have had to find new ways to challenge the continuing ills of poverty and wealth inequality, which ballooned in the decades after his death. Even given his superb organizing and planning skills, this growth likely would have been a losing battle.

Had he lived, King’s unshakable commitment to the cause of human rights and economic equality surely would not have diminished. Wherever there was a campaign, march, rally, lobbying effort or event that his presence could boost, it’s a safe bet that he’d have much to say and do. In the Trump era, there would be plenty to keep him busy.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s latest book is “Day 1 The Trump Reign.” His commentaries can be found at thehutchinsonreport.net.