The rich get richer, and the poor voted for them

I can see a lot of similarities between what Donald Trump is doing and the way the Joseph Muscat administration acted the minute it came into office.

Both played upon the emotions of the working class to get elected. Trump by appealing to their fervent patriotism and resentment of immigrants, and Muscat by promising Labour voters a bright new future because their party would finally be in government after so many years in the wilderness. They both succeeded in getting elected and promptly turned their backs on the very people who put them there.

Any illusions that such a hard-core right-wing president could possibly have a social conscience was dispelled the minute we saw Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk smirking behind him. Since taking office he has done nothing for those who are disadvantaged, and instead has done everything to make things worse by fighting with former allies and entering into a tariff war which will only increase the cost of living for ordinary Americans.

By slashing jobs in the federal government (on the pretext that it was bloated), it has meant that thousands are now out of work – and people who are unemployed cannot pay their mortgage and will end up homeless. Meanwhile, he is busy introducing tax cuts for billionaires – people who are already so impossibly wealthy they could probably wipe out the deficit of small countries with one cheque.

On the other side of the world, here in little Malta, Muscat at first did not seem so shady. But his first move was to introduce the Citizenship by Investment scheme – or in other words, selling Maltese passports to the wealthy. This was not only a foreshadowing of things to come (everything and anything is for sale) but it was also incredibly and shockingly mercenary, devoid of any sense of pride in our own country.

What Muscat and some of his top men did after that only came to light later, and what we learned is that some of them were only in politics to make themselves as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. There is not one single capital project from those years which was not somehow tainted by underhanded deals.

However, unlike what is happening in the US, here the “little people” were kept happy through a number of new social welfare initiatives, and as long as they were getting things for free, and the occasional cheque in the mail, it was enough for them to turn a blind eye to all the corruption. Still, it cannot be denied that a political party riding on the votes of the lower income demographic has made it possible for the rich to get richer, while those who lived from paycheque to paycheque are still doing so.

How do we explain this contradiction in terms where the poor keep voting for parties which are not really enacting policies that are advocating for social justice and in their best interests? It is the same paradox which strikes me every time I read comments by working class Maltese people cheering for Trump (even more so when they are Labour voters). Do they even know what he stands for and that his whole ideology is based on making sure that millionaires are in charge?

Unlike here, where the Cabinet is made up of elected politicians, in the US, the president can appoint any one he likes to fill key roles. In fact, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is overseeing a new Department of Government Efficiency. Other billionaires or mega-millionaires were appointed to run the treasury, commerce, interior and education departments, NASA and the Small Business Administration, and to fill key foreign posts.

“It’s hard to conceive how the wealthiest set of Cabinet nominees and White House appointments in history will understand what average working people are going through,” former labour secretary Robert Reich said.

That quote just about sums it up.

Of course, it is possible to be wealthy and still have a heart for those who are less privileged. However when wealth and power are combined with a narcissistic, bullying personality then it becomes virtually impossible to look at those ‘below’ you with anything less than contempt. They are there simply to be used as a means to an end.

Another similarity I have noticed is that they are both adept at picking on relatively minor, but populist issues so that they can steer the narrative and deviate away from more important matters.

From his first day, Trump latched on the gender issue, proclaiming that the only two genders are men and women and banning trans women from participating in women’s sports. Really? Out of all the problems facing the US, is that what he felt was the most important? But it got him a loud euphoric cheer from his core base who were absolutely livid over anything LGBTQ-related.   

In a similar way, Muscat would occasionally come up with a new idea to appease a certain faction while ensuring that the public would get distracted arguing over it. Such as when he brought up abortion just as he stepped down from prime minister, after he was forced to resign.

The overwhelming public support shown towards both these leaders has another worrying side-effect – it goes to their heads very quickly and they feel infallible. All that adulation, all those crowds telling them that they can do no wrong, coupled with the sycophants they surround themselves with, are a formula which does not augur well for democracy. Trump has lost no time demonstrating that, at heart, he is a dictator.

“All federal funding will STOP for any College, School or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump wrote on social media. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!”

That last bit might be referring to his aversion to the mask mandate during COVID or maybe he thinks students will protest wearing Halloween masks, who knows?  What goes on in that head is anyone’s guess.

He seems to have forgotten a little thing known as the US Constitution's First Amendment which protects the freedom of speech and assembly.

Muscat’s autocratic style was more subtle and insidious but no less troubling. He knew how to play the victim and would let his supporters do the talking, and they would take the flak. To this day, people who criticise him and question where his wealth came from are accused of being “jealous”. If you raise legitimate concerns about his modus operandi during his term in office, it is described as “hate speech”.  Meanwhile, he still seems to be enjoying the good life despite the fact that his assets have been frozen – which is another mystery.

The peril of making ordinary men into such untouchable idols cannot be overstated. We have had plenty of examples of such leaders in the past, who were adored by a brainwashed, blinkered flock and it never ends well. No matter how much one might have believed in them in the past, when everything seems to be pointing towards a very slippery slope of corrupt and dangerous all-encompassing power, it is time to stop clinging to one’s allegiance and make them accountable for their actions.

As Muscat ultimately saw, to his own dismay, anyone can be toppled from their throne.