Organizer: Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland
Location: Virtual
On September 9th from 2-3pm, join the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland for an analysis of public opinion on 23 of the major proposals in the current draft of the reconciliation budget related to child care and nutrition, Pre-K, family and medical leave, college affordability, immigration, energy and the environment, health care, and many more.
This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.
The tariffs Donald Trump imposed on Chinese goods in 2018 had a net negative effect on manufacturing jobs as well as overall U.S. employment.
The Federal Reserve Board found that the tariffs caused a reduction in manufacturing employment of 1.4%. Modest gains (0.3%) achieved by shielding domestic producers from foreign competition were “more than offset” by rising production costs for manufacturers who used steel as an input (-1.1%) and retaliatory tariffs (-0.7%).
Federal Reserve data recorded approximately 12.4 million manufacturing jobs when Trump became president in January 2017 and 12.2 million when he left in January 2021. There were 12.9 million manufacturing jobs in September 2024, although job creation in the manufacturing sector and manufacturing's share of total employment are lower than pre-tariff rates.
Economy-wide, Oxford Economics estimated in 2021 that the tariffs and resulting trade war cost 245,000 jobs and 0.5% of GDP while reducing real incomes by $675 per household.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Federal Reserve Board Disentangling the Effects of the 2018-2019 Tariffs on a Globally Connected U.S. Manufacturing Sector
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
FRED (Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis) All Employees, Manufacturing (MANEMP)
Progressive Policy Institute Trade Fact of the Week: Trump-era tariffs raised prices but did not ‘bring manufacturing back’
Oxford Economics The US-China Economic Relationship
A panel from "Stop Project 2025: A Comics Guide to the Republican Plan to End Democracy"
Toliver is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
Recently, a group of comic book writers and authors published “Stop Project 2025: A Comics Guide to the Republican Plan to End Democracy.” Free to the public, the guide aims to succinctly explain the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page blueprint for Donald Trump to overhaul the executive branch of government when he is sworn into office for the second time.
The future of democracy may seem an unlikely topic for comic book treatment, but the genre has long transcended the likes of Marvel superheroes. And in an era when civic literacy is in peril, we need them more than ever.
Indeed, comics can serve as a vital bridge between intricate policy discussions and everyday understanding. By tackling critical issues like education, health care, libraries, teachers and voting, the comic initiative transforms complex, jargon-laden policy into accessible comic narratives that bring all readers into the conversation. After all, if people can’t understand the rules of the game, how can they participate meaningfully in it?
Historically, comic books have been dismissed as children’s media, but their capacity to convey complex ideas and engage in social and political commentary has been widely underestimated. Comic books have a long history of addressing social issues. For instance, the X-Men series is an allegory for racial discrimination in the United States, illustrating the struggles of marginalized groups in a white patriarchal capitalist society. Superman, since his introduction, has fought for social justice, and his story serves as a “metaphor for refugees and immigrants” in the United States. Similarly, Luke Cage, as a Black superhero from Harlem, confronts systemic injustices and the challenges of urban life, highlighting the complexities of race and class disparities in America. These stories and others demonstrate that comics can be a powerful platform for social commentary.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In an era dominated by dense legal texts and political rhetoric that can alienate even the most engaged citizens, comics stand out as a powerful tool for demystifying intricate ideas and providing people the basic information they need to make informed decisions that will help them to participate meaningfully in civic life. By simplifying content and sparking interest in issues that directly affect people’s lives, comics make political discourse more relatable and engaging.
Of course, there is undeniable value in reading original documents, no matter the length. But the United States faces a reading epidemic marked by dwindling literacy rates and a society increasingly disengaged from longer narratives. We find ourselves inundated with quick, bite-sized content — memes, reels, shorts and curated social media posts — that demand little of our attention and often prioritize entertainment over education. In this context, comics offer a refreshing alternative, allowing for a deeper exploration of important topics in a format that captures attention and encourages reflection.
The visual storytelling inherent in comics can also attract diverse audiences, including young people, busy parents and those who might feel intimidated by traditional political discourse. By presenting multifaceted issues through relatable characters and narratives, comics invite readers to engage in conversations about the world around them. They break down barriers, making it easier for people to grasp the implications of policies that impact their lives.
As an example, Project 2025, if fully realized, could reshape American society, impacting everything from personal freedoms to public education. The potential consequences of such policies warrant serious attention and discussion. Yet, many citizens, even avid readers, may not have the time or inclination to wade through nearly a thousand pages of dense legalese.
By utilizing a medium that resonates with multiple audiences, the creators of the comics guide are not just educating; they are empowering. They provide readers with the tools to question, discuss and advocate for their rights by presenting information in an accessible manner.
In a media landscape dominated by rapid-fire media and soundbites, initiatives like Stop Project 2025 remind us that effective democracy relies on an informed public. Knowledge is power, and in a democratic society, an informed citizenry is the bedrock of effective governance. By encouraging critical thinking and open dialogue, we can cultivate a society where citizens actively shape their future.
Ultimately, as we face significant challenges to our democratic institutions, we must recognize that understanding the rules of the game is essential for meaningful participation. By embracing innovative approaches to communication, we can inspire a new generation of informed citizens who feel empowered to engage with the democratic process. As we navigate the complexities of modern governance, we must leverage tools like comics to ensure that essential information is accessible and engaging. In doing so, we can reignite a passion for reading and foster a more critically engaged citizenry, one comic at a time.
President-elect Donald Trump speaks to at an election night gathering in West Palm Beach, Fla.
Schmidt is a columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
This election was not about our national identity or a reflection of who we are as a collection of people. Rather, it centered on whether our most essential requirements as citizens were being served by our government.
A resounding number of voters told Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party that the answer to that question was “No.”
In 1943 Abraham Maslow published his pyramidal "Hierarchy of Needs" model. He laid out a psychological motivational theory, which states there are five levels of human needs that dictate behavior: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem and self-actualization. Maslow also postulated that the lower-level needs like food, water and safety must be met first before higher needs can be fulfilled.
The 2024 election proved to be a hierarchy of needs election in which voters punished the current administration and its party for their shortcomings in this regard.
Right before the election, The Fulcrum’s David Nevins and I laid out our case for why we thought there was no moral equivalence between former President (and now President-elect) Donald Trump and Harris. Trump’s moral repugnancy was a disqualifying red line for us.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many, including me, have spent years proclaiming that when it came to character and values, Trump did not represent who we are as a country. Since the election, many of Harris’ supporters have been making wide and sweeping accusations of their fellow Americans who voted for Trump and wondering, “What does this say about us that we would re-elect him?”
My assessment is quite different. When the election is viewed through the lens of this hierarchy of needs, it becomes clear why so many in the electorate would vote for Trump and other Republicans down ballot.
The lowest level on Maslow’s pyramid is physiological. These physiological needs are the biological requirements for human survival, e.g., air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth and sleep.
Thus, looking at the election through the lens of human survival needs, it becomes clear how the dramatic increase in the cost of food, drink, shelter, clothing and warmth since 2021 impacted the election. Add to this fact that interest rates also went up so that affordable mortgages were out of reach for many, especially new home buyers. Plus, higher energy costs and one can clearly see how Maslow’s pyramid impacted the election.
The second lowest level in Maslow’s model is safety and security. At this level, humans desire order, predictability and control in their lives. The Biden-Harris track record in this arena has been abysmal.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee, in conjunction with the House Homeland Security Committee, reported: “Under President Biden’s watch, there have been over 8 million migrant encounters nationwide, 6.7 million of which have been at the Southwest border. Worse yet, over 1.7 million known ‘gotaways’ — illegal immigrants who have evaded Border Patrol — are now living in the interior of the United States without documentation and without having undergone any vetting by immigration officials.”
While overall crime has decreased since the 1990s, current crime data and statistics paint an incomplete picture of where we are today. In April 2024, the Pew Research Center published a survey showing that a growing share of Americans said reducing crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress. Almost six in 10 U.S. adults (58 percent) held that view in April, which was up from 47 percent at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in 2021.
The disastrous and chaotic withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2021 began Biden's political slide. A separate Pew poll found that while 54 percent of Americans say it was the right decision to pull troops from Afghanistan, only 27 percent rated Biden's handling of the situation as "excellent" or "good," while 29 percent rated it "only fair" and 42 percent rated it "poor."
Whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel — killing 1,200 and taking 254 people hostage, including 12 Americans — can be blamed on the Biden administration is certainly debatable, but the perception of chaos on the world stage likely impacted voters to cast their ballot for Trump.
In our writing two weeks ago, Nevins and I appealed to the higher level of self-esteem in our moral equivalency column. Maslow describes the elevation of self-esteem as confidence, achievement, respect for others and the need to be a unique individual.
But a majority of Americans placed a higher priority in those first two levels of needs, and so it is no wonder they voted to reinstate Trump, with the hope that maybe he and downballot Republicans could deliver those more basic necessities at a lower cost.
It is clear that Americans expect their government to help them achieve or sustain those lower-level needs. If an administration is unable to do that, they will likely find electoral defeat.
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Former President Donald Trump has won a convincing Electoral College victory, although the swing states were decided by narrow margins. But when you take the 30,000-foot perspective of the election, it is very illuminating.
Forty percent of registered voters, according to Gallup, do not identify as either the Democrats or Republicans. Moreover, one-third of the 240 million people eligible to vote are not even registered.
Thus, we hear that our society is being ripped apart by, on one side, gun-loving, God-fearing, gay- and trans-hating redcoats and, on the other side, abortion-loving, gay- and trans-loving, gun-hating bluecoats. Yet the reality is that of every 100,000 voters, about 40,000 of them were independents who were basically anti-establishment and not ideologically aligned. Many of them were centrists, rather than progressives or conservatives.
The upshot is that of the 240 million potential voters about 120 million of them were either not registered or registered as independents. In short, half of voting age adults do not fit into the brutal polarization narrative that we hear about regularly. This lens is used to explain the election and the victory of one side over the other.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The polarization narrative — a titanic struggle between two sides that hate each other — is not an accurate picture of political America. A realistic picture reveals that a third of potential voters have checked out of voting itself, because they are disillusioned or disgusted with the system and 40 percent of registered voters are fed up with the two-party system that does not permit more than half of them to vote in primaries and does not give candidates who are independent a realistic chance of winning.
So, yes, the Fox News/MSNBC picture of a red vs. blue battle speaks for tens of millions of Americans, but up to half of voting age people don't fit into this picture. If Harris had won, the same analysis would hold.
Independents in the years to come must revolutionize American politics by establishing representation for the tens of millions of Americans who do not identify with either party. Although Congress in the last 16 years has certainly produced important legislation, some of which is the fruit of bipartisan cooperation (e.g., concerning Covid, infrastructure and semiconductor chips), there is plainly not enough important legislation to list. We are still waiting for lawmakers to address immigration, climate change, energy, child care and parental leave, and guns.
What is needed is a shift away from the duopoly that dominates our politics and makes bipartisanship the goal of politics. In its place, we must promote the goal of tripartisanship. A tripartisan revolution, however, does not seek to overhaul the system. It is more modest in its ambitions.
As Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan wrote in his 2013 book “The Centrist Manifesto,” we need a "Fulcrum strategy" in which five or six senators help one of the parties get to 60 votes by negotiating elements of major bills that represent a third force in American politics. These senators can be elected as independents or switch to independent once in office. What precisely the group would call for would vary with different bills and cannot be pinpointed on the ideological spectrum, although a centrist perspective is probably where they will be in many cases.
Still, unlike Wheelan, I do not advocate uniting a group of self-identified centrists; instead, I advocate uniting a group of independents across the ideological spectrum who will help forge major compromises because it is the right thing to do and because it serves their self-interest, including securing their ability to retain their seats in the Senate.
What will not change in the Trump presidency, and what would not have changed in a Harris presidency, is the disillusionment and frustration felt by 40 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of the voting-eligible people. The time for a tripartisan revolution has arrived, one that makes room for independents to have a seat at the table.
