Trump’s COVID-Relief Gambit a Missed Opportunity for Populism

O ne of the super-Trumper conspiracy theorists I follow had worked the pending COVID-relief bill into his theory of a super-Trump surprise second term. Basically, his view was that, as the checks went out and Donald Trump saved Christmas, Trump would be able to pressure legislators — in the states, perhaps in Congress — to decertify the rigged election and reinstall himself as president. I haven’t checked to see how my conspiracy theorist has incorporated the latest developments; namely, Donald Trump delaying the relief, demanding the addition of $2,000 stimulus checks sent to every American, but then folding in front of John Thune and other granite-faced GOP senators.

But this conspiracy theorist had one thing right: The popularity of populists is often tied to a fatter budget during the milestone moments of life. Populist governments in central Europe, struggling with emigration and suicidal fertility rates, have tried to make the birth of a boy or girl a time of windfall rather than of stress. Many analysts believe that Donald Trump’s signature on relief and stimulus checks in the spring made an appreciable positive difference for him at the polls. And even Nancy Pelosi seemed to believe that a second round of CARES Act money before the presidential election would have helped Trump.

The bill, which includes $900 billion in COVID relief, proceeded through Congress with the blessing of Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s own Treasury secretary, arguably and surprisingly the most accomplished populist policy-maker in Trump’s administration.

Twitter and other social-media sites erupted in anger over the bill. Many of the complaints were aimed at the other government-spending bills attached to it, which included foreign aid and other annual budgetary items. The complaints portrayed the $600 checks as the only relief for Americans, compared with the hundreds of millions going to foreign countries. People said that the fundraising done by media company Barstool Sports was doing more to help small businesses than the federal government. In fact, the $600 stimulus checks are the smallest and least vital part of the relief. Hundreds of billions are going to expanded unemployment benefits, and into more funding for businesses trying to retain their employees and assets during the pandemic downturn and shutdowns.

Donald Trump, seeing the temperature rising online in the form of misleading memes, decided to follow that Internet energy and undercut his own Treasury secretary. Then, a few days later, Trump relented and signed the bill — likely after being informed that his veto could crash the disbursement of hundreds of billions in relief, delay it into the business of the next Congress, and cause a market panic.

But a case could have been made for additional stimulus, one that wasn’t dishonest. Millions of Americans are likely falling through the cracks of the major relief efforts in the CARES Act and its follow-up. If you lost your job in California in the spring, couldn’t afford to wait for the state to process your unemployment benefits, then moved to a low-cost state, you may not even be eligible for unemployment benefits at all. One of the giant sluices of relief will simply miss you.

Here an effective populist-nationalist president could use the bully pulpit to cajole and inspire good deeds with stimulus money. A wide stimulus would be inefficient, in that many people who are not in distress would simply pocket the money, if they even noticed it. But a dose of direct and widely distributed stimulus would allow individual Americans to decide to direct relief themselves, often to their own family members or neighbors who slipped through the cracks before.

You could see other arguments advanced under such a framework. One might be that the economic uncertainty due to odd and unpredictable shutdowns, upset supply chains, and the uncertain progress of the pandemic itself have delayed investments, led to pay and hiring freezes, and otherwise chilled the economy. Another could be that stimulus is needed both to prevent the economy from going into deep freeze over January and to allow complete relaxation of lockdown measures.

Finally, it could also be argued — sotto voce — that widely distributed stimulus checks are simply necessary for national morale and for the esteem of the government in the eyes of the people. The demand for checks larger than $600 is coming from people who are angry — often justifiably angry — at the tribulations forced on them by the pandemic and the measures taken in response to it. A $600 check was taken as an insult precisely because, for so many people, it was unequal to the anger they felt. A more widely distributed and larger stimulus could be argued as necessary mollification of surging populist fury that almost anyone can taste in the air.

A canny populist would notice, as Trump has, that there is growing anger and resentment. But unlike Trump, he would energetically lead and shape it, making it more intelligible and expressible within the political class.