Thomas Frank's 2004 book, What’s the Matter With Kansas?, put forth a compelling narrative on how the working class abandoned its economic interests to engage in cultural battles. Frank's analysis indicated how these voters internalized their oppression—a concept related to what scholars call "false consciousness." This trend became more pronounced with the political rise of billionaire Donald Trump, who received considerable non-college educated voter support across three elections, scoring 49 percent, 51 percent, and even 56 percent, respectively.
Despite Trump's policies rolling back labor rights, safety protections, and overtime coverage—moves which directly undermined their interests—these voters maintained their allegiance to him. His first presidency marked the significant loosening of regulations, coupled with tax cuts directed at the wealthy, favoring oligarchs. The political dissonance displayed by these voters exemplifies the complex relationship between socio-economic status and political allegiance.
Fast forward to March 10, 2025, when sharp declines hit the S&P 500, which fell by 2.7 percent, reflecting the broader trepidation about Trump's economic stewardship. The previous week alone, the index experienced more than a 3 percent drop, effectively erasing all gains achieved during the year. The alarming financial developments were exacerbated by what is now referred to as the "Mar-a-Lago accord," which proposed swapping existing Treasury bonds for 100-year bonds. This strategy poses significant risks, potentially destabilizing the broader economy.
Despite the economic indicators pointing toward instability, confidence levels among CEOs reached their highest point in three years as of February 2025. Interestingly, this corporate optimism counters the decline seen in consumer confidence, which fell sharply—decreasing at the fastest pace observed within three and half years. It raises eyebrows why corporate leaders display such confidence when their consumer base exhibits significant concern about economic realities.
Elon Musk embodies another facet of this contradiction; he reportedly lost $156 billion this year due to plummeting Tesla stock prices—losses greatly stemming from his confrontational stance toward the government. His heavy-handed tactics destabilized both his firm and public faith in the economic system, exacerbated by Trump's own tumultuous policies.
Political analyst Adam Bonica recently highlighted how billionaire wealth has surged more significantly under Democratic administrations compared to Republican ones; over 40 years, billionaires saw their wealth increase by 57.1 percent under Democrats and merely 16.5 percent under Republicans. This trend has emerged not from preferential treatment but indicates Democratic administrations tend to facilitate conditions supporting economic growth.
Yet, this historical observation adds another layer to the false consciousness phenomenon: billionaires oafishly continue supporting candidates who prioritize tax cuts and the status quo over policies beneficial to national prosperity. Bonica points out, "The billionaires who bankrolled [Trump’s] campaign knew—or should have known—precisely what they were buying," reflecting back to earlier taxpayer sentiments where tax avoidance trumps overall economic health and market stability.
So, what drives individuals who wield financial power toward decisions impulsively damaging for not just their interests but for national welfare? This relationship speaks volumes about the declining competencies within America’s elite circles. The union of billionaires with the Republican Party positions America on the brink of oligarchy—no longer just wealth-driven but heavily intertwined with mismanagement squandering opportunities for growth.
The ramifications are troubling for the future of the U.S. economy. If Trump's current approval ratings diminish alongside the economic downturn, it signals not only voter discontent but potential caution among the banking and investment sectors they typically support. The codependence between wealth and political power appears, ironically, to be sowing the seeds of economic instability.
Under Trump, the American economy is experiencing not merely oligarchy but incompetent oligarchy, wherein decision-makers neglect their interests. This offers cautionary insights: If billionaires truly are unaware of their economic interests, perhaps their wealth isn’t the only casualty; they may very well lead their nation to disaster, privileging tax avoidance and political influence over coherent economic strategy.
America must grapple with whether its financial elites can pivot strategically away from political ideologies toward sustainable economic growth and national welfare. If the patterns of the past repeat, the next chapter may usher significant challenges as the lines blur between wealth and rational economic behavior.