Today All That Matters Is That Kamala Beats Trump— But What Happens When She Becomes President?

Biden Let Something Good Happen— Will Kamala Sell It Out?

I know, I know… everybody’s supposed to say what a great president Biden was and extol how much he accomplished. But no matter how hard I look, all I see is another mediocre president who accomplished almost nothing. Even the most modest crap he campaigned on— lowering the Medicare age from 65 to 60 (his version of Medicare for All)— was never mentioned again after Election Day. Did he do anything to increase the minimum wage (which more than three-quarters of Americans would like to see happen)? Did he do anything to allow Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing (which 92% of voters want)? 70% of Americans want to see the PRO Act become law. What did Biden do to use the power of the presidency to accomplish that? In fact, one of the supremely shitty conservative Democrats who voted with the Republicans against it— Mark Kelly— is likely to be selected to be the next vice president. Aside from passing some spending bills, Biden did a few good things around the edges— but none of this, nothing that would have made people really think he was a great president, this kind of stuff that voters are crying out for, instead of just another DC careerist who’s better than the even worse alternative.

Will Kamala be any better? Maybe; a bit. You never know— especially not with a flip-flopper like her, who has always gone with the wind. Would she embrace the idea behind what Stephanie Kelton wrote yesterday about the U.K.’s version of the Democrats— “Labour’s fiscal rules are a dead end for the party and for society. Being a good steward of public money isn’t about closing ‘fiscal holes’ and ‘paying it back.’ It’s about closing real deficits— health, infrastructure, education, etc— and paying it forward for future generations.” 

Biden actually did do something that was absolutely fantastic for the American people and I’ll never really understand how that happened, but it did— he hired Lina Khan to run the Federal Trade Commission. She’s been the best member of his administration, hands down. You can tell not just by how much she’s accomplished, but by how intensely the enemies of the working class hate her. And how much they’re willing to pay Kamala to commit to dumping her in 2025. One of the most conservative shitheads among billionaire Democrats— who spends millions to elect conservatives and turn the party away from anything that smacks of progressive— is grotesque Silicon Valley venture capitalist Reid Hoffman. (Note: Billionaires should not exist. Another one pushing the same line— here’s some spare change; fire Khan— is entertainment industry executive and closet case Barry Diller.)

On Friday a team of seven NY Times reporters wrote that Khan “the most consequential regulator for business in the Biden administration,” is in the crosshairs of the billionaires and they are already working Kamala hard. Reid has poured millions into her campaign with the Lina Khan string attached. The seven reporters wrote that “The political calculus of replacing Khan is complicated. Khan’s term expires in September, though she could serve until any replacement is confirmed by the Senate. But nomination processes take time and if Republicans retake the Senate in November, that could make it difficult for a Harris administration to get a different nominee confirmed. One wrinkle: Donald Trump’s own running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, has praised Khan as part of his anti-Big Tech stance. Khan has given no indication that she plans to step down. She has shown a desire to permanently reshape U.S. antitrust law, dating to her law school days. When DealBook asked an F.T.C. spokesman if Khan would consider serving as chair in a Harris administration, he said, ‘Yes.’ The debate underscores Democrats’ anxiety over how Harris would govern. Khan’s appointment arose in part out of Biden’s effort to shore up progressive support in 2020 by giving Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts significant sway over economic regulatory agencies. ‘Warren, to an extraordinary degree, was the gatekeeper for the administration about appointments,’ [said] William Kovacic, a former F.T.C. chair.”

Keeping in mind that the NY Times deceptively uses the word “moderate” when they want to put a positive spin or sheen on “reactionary” or “conservative,” the seven reporters wrote that “corporate donors have backed Harris in part because they believe she would be more moderate when it comes to regulating business. It’s unclear what Harris’s own antitrust views are, or whether she would seek to continue the Biden administration’s approach. ‘I don’t know if that commitment that Biden made to Warren is going to bind Harris,’ Kovacic said. ‘The crucial question is what is her relationship going to be with the strong intervention-minded members of the Democratic Party who extracted that promise.’”

Anti-trust champion Matt Stoller wrote Thursday that “there has been a campaign among big business advocates to eliminate the new trade, antitrust, and labor policies put in place over the last five years or so. When Kamala Harris took over the Democratic nomination from Joe Biden, that campaign ramped up. A few days ago, billionaire LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman gave $10 million to the Kamala Harris effort, and promised a lot more. Hoffman is a Silicon Valley titan, part of the ‘PayPal mafia’ that includes Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, though Hoffman sits on the Democratic side of the aisle. This morning, Hoffman went on CNN and issued demands. Harris must end Biden’s tariff and antitrust regimes, he said, and fire Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.

Hoffman wants Harris to get rid of Biden policies which protect workers through trade and antitrust so that big business can do what they want. And he’s going to supply the financing for Harris’ campaign if she does what she’s told.

It seems like the Harris campaign might be listening, despite Harris a few days ago hitting Trump over very similar arguments about taking money from oil titans and doing favors in return. Yesterday, the New York Times wrote a campaign story on the candidate’s links to big business. Here’s the key passage:

As vice president, Harris has voiced support for regulating artificial intelligence. But she has expressed skepticism of Khan’s expansive view of antitrust powers, according to a donor who has spoken privately with the vice president.

…So far, Hoffman’s demand has been met with disinterest from the political press and a muted response from labor and progressive groups, who have mostly endorsed Harris and are enthusiastically celebrating her candidacy. There are a few exceptions. Senator Bernie Sanders chimed in angrily about Hoffman’s demand, and Senator Elizabeth Warren offered an endorsement of Khan. A pharmacist group also weighed in, and there will likely be more statements as the news filters through a very confused media environment, as Khan has a lot of fans (including in tech, she’s speaking at YCombinator today to a packed room).