Mario Cuomo’s quote, “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose,” highlights the contrast between political rhetoric and the reality of governance. Donald Trump’s political approach follows a similar pattern but with a twist: He campaigns as a populist, presenting himself as a champion of the working class, but governs in a manner that benefits the wealthy.
In his first term, Trump surrounded himself with billionaires and millionaires, and his major domestic achievement was the tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the ultra-rich. This populist-to-plutocrat shift was an obvious strategy, but it worked, as it presented voters with a binary choice in a two-party system, where the Democratic Party is similarly tied to corporate money.
Trump’s approach is expected to continue in his second term, with a more blatant embrace of corruption. His acceptance of dark-money donations, which lack transparency, will likely increase, further solidifying his connection with wealthy elites.
Despite this, Trump’s political hustle remains effective because voters are presented with an option between him and a Democratic Party that is similarly constrained by corporate interests, making any critique of his plutocratic policies difficult. Democrats, despite their frequent opposition to Trump on various issues, are hesitant to confront him on his financial ties, leaving the public largely unaware of the full scope of his financial dealings.
Two recent reports by The New York Times shed light on Trump’s ongoing plutocratic governance. One report highlights Trump’s economic team for his second term, which is made up of figures deeply embedded in Wall Street.
In 2016, Trump campaigned on combating the influence of Wall Street, but his cabinet picks, such as Scott Bessent, a former Soros fund manager, and Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, reveal a stark contrast. Critics argue that the economic agenda is less about benefiting the working class and more about enriching the rich, reinforcing the narrative of Trump as a president for the elites.
Donald Trump
The second report reveals how Trump’s transition efforts are funded by wealthy donors whose identities are kept secret. By refusing to agree to the transparency guidelines set by the Biden administration, Trump ensures that his transition is financed without public scrutiny.
This secrecy further deepens the ties between Trump and powerful interest groups, highlighting the extent to which his administration operates with little regard for ethical oversight or accountability, a stark contrast to past presidential transitions that followed stricter disclosure rules.
Despite these signs of corruption, there has been a notable lack of outcry from Democrats. Although watchdog groups like Accountable.US have criticized Trump’s Wall Street-heavy cabinet, there is little visible political opposition from the left, which tends to focus on less substantive issues.
For example, Democrats have often directed their energies toward scandalous personal issues involving Trump allies, such as accusations of sexual misconduct against figures like Matt Gaetz. This tendency to avoid confronting Trump on his plutocratic policies has allowed him to continue without facing significant political repercussions from the Democratic side.
The Democratic Party’s inability to challenge Trump on his corruption is a result of its own entanglement with corporate money. In the recent election, Vice President Kamala Harris relied on Wall Street donors to fund her economic agenda, refusing to target price-gouging corporations.
This shows that the party is too closely aligned with the financial interests that shape its policies to make an effective critique of Trump’s plutocratic governance. Figures like Bernie Sanders have attempted to criticize the party’s abandonment of economic populism, but the Democratic establishment remains firmly tied to big-money donors.
The solution, according to Sanders, lies in small-donor-funded campaigns that reject corporate money and embrace true economic populism. Sanders himself may be too old to run again, but he has laid out a path that others could follow—candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Shawn Fain, the head of the United Auto Workers, could potentially lead the charge.
Such a campaign would be free from the distractions of scandals like Russiagate and could focus on holding Trump accountable for his plutocratic policies, offering a more genuine alternative to Trumpism than the current Democratic Party leadership.
