Trump dump by big business rings hollow
I has always been a Faustian bargain with Trump, one donor admitted Backers got tax cuts and deregulation from Trump’s presidency
Hate speech will keep finding new platforms unless they are made accountable
American corporations were tripping over each other as they headed for the exit doors of the Trump political edifice.
Following the incursion into the Capitol building last week, big business backers of President Donald Trump and Republican Party representatives who opposed ratification of Joe Biden’s election victory, were singing a different tune.
It might be tempting to draw analogies of the rats abandoning the sinking ship, but there isn’t anything radically new about a section of corporate America building up a politician only to drop him when it is prudent to do so.
The decision to run a mile from President Trump amounted to the biggest social distancing exercise among his supporters since Covid arrived.
Stephen Schwarzman, the Blackstone founder, who was Trump’s most senior backer on Wall St, had in November defended the president’s right to challenge the election results in court. A legitimate legal right of the president on paper, but not one based on any real evidence.
Last week the private equity executive condemned the “appalling” insurrection that “followed the president’s remarks”.
Billionaire investor Nelson Peltz said last week he was “sorry” he had voted for Mr Trump in November. Back in November, Mr Peltz said an election win by Donald Trump would be good for America.
“He’s been my man through the last four years, because he’s done amazing things for the economy. Amazing things,” he said.
My favourite U-turn came from Dan Eberhart, chief executive of a Denver-based drilling company, who not only gave $100,000 to Trump-supporting political committees but also helped to raise $600,000 from other donors.
He told the Financial Times last week “it has always been this Faustian bargain with Trump” and he had put up with the “ridiculousness” associated with the former property magnate because he was good for the economy. “I’m done. I don’t want my mom to think I’m involved with this”, he said. Having the ability to raise nearly three quarters of a million dollars for a politician surely carries more responsibility than just what his mother might think.
As businesses turn away from the president this week, we have to remember many of them have made fortunes from his policies.
They got the extraordinary stock market bull run, multi-billion dollar cuts to Corporation Tax, changes to environmental regulations etc. Trump has delivered a massive return on those political dollars.
The cost of abandoning him is zero as he is about to leave office. The cost of sticking with him could be enormous.
Some big firms said they would postpone all political donations until they see what happens.
Others said they would pause donations for a couple of months.
Social media companies have found themselves in the front line of the implosion.
When Twitter decided to permanently suspend the President from its platform, many people felt this was probably too little too late.
After all, he had propagated incitement and told dangerous untruths for four years on the platform.
But there are two bigger questions here beyond the “too little too late” analysis.
Firstly, he was President of the United States who won 70 million votes in the November election. Secondly, who should decide what is acceptable material or not?
Should the social media companies be forced by law to remove and prevent certain types of content, like hate speech or incitement, rather than deciding to simply censor individuals when it feels right?
German chancellor Angela Merkel criticised Twitter’s decision by suggesting it should be for legislators and courts to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable content and force social media companies to comply with that framework.
In other words, it should not be left to Silicon Valley executives to decide themselves who to censor based on policies of their own making or judgement calls they make on a case by case basis.
The German chancellor believes strong legislation forcing these companies to take down material should be used instead of letting the firms decide for themselves.
She is right about that. Leaving it to Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg isn’t good enough.
If a traditional media company decided to censor someone because of what they said, it would be framed by that media company’s responsibility, enshrined in defamation or other laws, to be accountable for what is published.
Social media companies in the US have no legal responsibility for what they carry.
Hate speech will keep finding new platforms unless those platforms are legally accountable for what they put up.
Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. The volume of online content is growing all the time.
The strong laws approach could be abused by politicians in some countries. Vladimir Put is a fan of this approach.
Human Rights Watch has opposed how Germany’s laws were framed suggesting they are a recipe for excessive state censorship.
If Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter, should he also be banned from television?
Social media companies are not the only ones to blame for the fact so many million Americans believed the November election was a fraud.
A study by the Harvard University Berkman Klein Center, examined 55,000 online media stories and five million Tweets.
They concluded the controversy was part of a systematic disinformation campaign drummed up by Donald Trump and Republican party leaders, and magnified by many traditional media outlets.
It was an elite-driven, mass media process.
Fox News may have been more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls were.
Getting to grips with these issues through legislation is like picking up mercury with a fork. Biden’s one-term presidency won’t manage it.