PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A pair of conservative groups on Friday challenged a Maine law that limits donations to political action committees that spend independently in candidate elections, arguing that money spent to support political expression is "a vital feature of our democracy.” Supporters of the fully expected a legal showdown over caps on individual contributions to so-called super PACs. They hoped the referendum would trigger a case and ultimately prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the matter of donor limits after the court in its 2010 Citizens United decision. The lawsuit brought by Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, and supported by the Institute for Free Speech, contends the state law limiting individual super PAC donations to $5,000 and requiring disclosure of donor names runs afoul of that Citizens United legal precedent. “All Americans, not just those running for office, have a fundamental First Amendment right to talk about political campaigns,” lawyers wrote in the lawsuit in federal court. “Their ‘independent expenditures,’ payments that fund political expression by those who are not running for office but nonetheless have something to say about a campaign, are a vital feature of our democracy.” Cara McCormick, leader of the Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which pressed for the referendum, said the lawsuit attempts to undermine the will of the people after an overwhelming majority — 74% of voters — approved the referendum last month. “Super PACs are killing the country and in Maine we decided to do something about it. We want to restore public trust in the political process,” she said. “We want to say that in Maine we are not resigned to the tide of big money. We are the tide.” But Alex Titcomb, executive director of Dinner Table Action, argued Friday that the government “cannot restrict independent political speech simply because some voters wish to limit the voices of their fellow citizens.” Named in the lawsuit are Maine’s attorney general and the state’s campaign spending watchdog, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. The ethics commission is reviewing the complaint, said Jonathan Wayne, executive director. The Maine referendum didn’t attempt to limit spending on behalf of candidates. Instead, it focused on limits on individual donations to super PACS, an area the Supreme Court has not ruled on, observers say. Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, a longtime advocate for campaign finance reform, contends the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of individual contributions to PACs, and long-established case law supports the notion that states can limit individual contributions to PACs despite a decision to the contrary by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Lessig, whose Equal Citizens nonprofit backed the Maine referendum, previously said the cap on donations imposed by the referendum "is not asking the Supreme Court to change its jurisprudence, not asking them to overturn Citizens United.”Bisk Amplified Partners with St. Catherine University to Advance Healthcare and Leadership
While it’s easy to get lost in the latest headlines, now is a good time to take action so that your retirement savings are working as hard as possible for you. By following this checklist, you can improve your investment options, lower your fees, reduce future taxes, and better organize your finances for long-term security. Have a retirement plan ‘reunion’ When financial planners start working with clients, one of the first things we request are the latest statements from all their investment accounts. Some clients easily provide updated reports, while others struggle to track them down. Even after working with us for years, some clients still remember an old account they forgot about. A former colleague called this the “weed garden” — small, forgotten accounts acquired over a series of career moves. With average job tenure perhaps shorter than ever, you don’t need to be that old to have a weed garden. These accounts are rarely monitored and may be invested in archaic, high-cost funds. Years from now those accounts may be completely forgotten. If you have multiple accounts scattered across various employers or financial institutions, now is the time to gather up those statements. This may require a little digging into your work history, but once you have those statements, you’re ready to take the next step. Consider consolidating your accounts While everyone’s financial situation is unique, in general there is little reason have more than a few retirement accounts. If you’re working for an employer with a retirement plan, you’ll want to keep that account open as you’re contributing to them and hopefully receiving an employer match. What about your older accounts? Taking a step back, know that while there are many varieties of retirement accounts, most of them fall into one of two camps — pre-tax and tax-free. In most cases your pre-tax retirement account balances can be moved directly without paying any tax into a traditional IRA or your current retirement plan. The same is true for your tax-free retirement accounts (also called Roth accounts) that may be rolled into a Roth IRA or retirement plan. With both pre-tax and tax-free accounts, you need to contact the investment company of the old plan that you want to move. Your current retirement plan could be a good target for those funds if it has several low-cost diversified investment choices. If you want more investment choices or work with a financial adviser that manages your accounts, you may favor a traditional IRA (pre-tax) or Roth IRA (tax-free). Inherited accounts are not as easy to consolidate, make sure you consult a professional before moving them. Make the right tax election — for most, that’s a Roth When we look at tax rates over the last few decades, you can see they are currently historically low. Unless you’re earning a high income now (above the 24% federal tax bracket), think about directing your retirement savings into tax-free accounts (Roth) rather than pre-tax. In doing so, you’re electing to pay taxes at low rates now to get tax-free investment growth and distributions later when you need the money. Are your investments still the right fit? Retirement accounts change over time with investment options being added and dropped. Look at your retirement accounts. Are they invested in low-cost investment funds? If you have holdings in high-cost investments, know why you’re making this choice as there’s a correlation with low costs and investment performance. It’s also a good time to reassess the risk level in your portfolio. Given the stock market’s strong performance recently, your asset allocation might have shifted, becoming more aggressive than intended. Consider rebalancing your portfolio to bring it back in line with your original investment strategy. If you’re not sure how to invest your retirement funds, a good starting point can be a target retirement fund with the year closest to your projected retirement date. Older workers can boost their contributions In 2025, a new benefit for workers aged 60 to 63 will go into effect under the Secure 2.0 Act. These workers will be able to contribute an additional $3,750 to their 401(k) for a total contribution limit of $34,750 (compared to $23,500 for those under 50, and $31,000 for those 50 and over). If you’re nearing retirement age, this “Super Catch-Up” provision can be a valuable opportunity to boost your retirement savings in the final years before retirement. David Gardner is a certified financial planner and is admitted to practice before the IRS. He recently retired from an independent investment advisory firm and continues to write about financial topics. As financial planning is only possible after knowing the client, the column is not intended to be personal financial or tax advice. Data presented is believed to be accurate at the time of writing.Some tech industry leaders are pushing the incoming Trump administration to increase visas for highly skilled workers from other nations. Related Articles National Politics | In states that ban abortion, social safety net programs often fail families National Politics | Court rules Georgia lawmakers can subpoena Fani Willis for information related to her Trump case National Politics | New 2025 laws hit hot topics from AI in movies to rapid-fire guns National Politics | Trump has pressed for voting changes. GOP majorities in Congress will try to make that happen National Politics | Exhausted by political news? TV ratings and new poll say you’re not alone The heart of the argument is, for America to remain competitive, the country needs to expand the number of skilled visas it gives out. The previous Trump administration did not increase the skilled visa program, instead clamping down on visas for students and educated workers, increasing denial rates. Not everyone in corporate America thinks the skilled worker program is great. Former workers at IT company Cognizant recently won a federal class-action lawsuit that said the company favored Indian employees over Americans from 2013 to 2022. A Bloomberg investigation found Cognizant, and other similar outsourcing companies, mainly used its skilled work visas for lower-level positions. Workers alleged Cognizant preferred Indian workers because they could be paid less and were more willing to accept inconvenient or less-favorable assignments. Question: Should the U.S. increase immigration levels for highly skilled workers? Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Innovation is our superpower and it relies on people. Sourcing talent from 8 billion people in the world instead of 330 million here makes sense. Nearly half our Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Growing them also relies on expanding our skilled workforce. The cap on skilled-worker visas has hardly changed since the computer age started. With AI on the horizon, attracting and building talent is more important than ever. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research YES: After years of openly allowing millions of undocumented entrants into the country, why is there controversy over legally increasing somewhat the number having desirable skills? Undocumented immigration significantly impacts lower skill level jobs and wages competing with domestic workers at every skill level. Why should special cases be made against those having higher skills? Could they just not walk across the border anyway, why make it more inconvenient to those with desirable skills? James Hamilton, UC San Diego YES: Knowledge and technology are key drivers of the U.S. economy. Students come from all over the world to learn at U.S. universities, and their spending contributed $50 billion to U.S. exports last year. Technological advantage is what keeps us ahead of the rest of the world. Highly skilled immigrants contribute much more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. The skills immigrants bring to America can make us all better off. Norm Miller, University of San Diego YES: According to Forbes, the majority of billion-dollar startups were founded by foreigners. I’ve interviewed dozens of data analysts and programmers from Berkeley, UCSD, USD and a few other schools and 75% of them are foreign. There simply are not enough American graduates to fill the AI and data mining related jobs now exploding in the U.S. If we wish to remain a competitive economy, we need highly skilled and bright immigrants to come here and stay. David Ely, San Diego State University YES: Being able to employ highly skilled workers from a larger pool of candidates would strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. companies by increasing their capacity to perform research and innovate. This would boost the country’s economic output. Skilled workers from other nations that cannot remain in the U.S. will find jobs working for foreign rivals. The demand for H-1B visas far exceeds the current cap of 85,000, demonstrating a need to modify this program. Phil Blair, Manpower YES: Every country needs skilled workers, at all levels, to grow its economy. We should take advantage of the opportunity these workers provide our employers who need these skills. It should be blended into our immigration policies allowing for both short and long term visas. Gary London, London Moeder Advisors YES: San Diego is a premiere example of how highly skilled workers from around the globe enrich a community and its regional economy. Of course Visa levels need to be increased. But let’s go further. Tie visas and immigration with a provision that those who are admitted and educated at a U.S. university be incentivized, or even required, to be employed in the U.S. in exchange for their admittance. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates NO: While attracting high-skilled immigrants can fill critical gaps in sectors like technology, health care and advanced manufacturing, increasing high-skilled immigration could displace American workers and drive down wages in certain industries. There are already many qualified American workers available for some of these jobs. We should balance the need for specialized skills with the impact on the domestic workforce. I believe we can begin to increase the number of visas after a careful review of abuse. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: We should expand skilled visas to drive innovation and economic growth. Individuals who perform high-skilled work in labor-restricted industries or graduate from respected colleges with relevant degrees should be prioritized for naturalization. We depend on immigration for GDP growth, tax revenue, research, and so much more. Despite the abhorrent rhetoric and curtailing of visas in the first term, I hope the incoming administration can be persuaded to enact positive changes to a clearly flawed system. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: But it should be based upon need, not politics. There are several industries that have or could have skilled workforce shortages, especially if the next administration tightens immigration as promised and expected. Over the years, there have been nursing shortages that have been met partially by trained and skilled nurses from other countries. The physician shortage is expected to get worse in the years to come. So, this visa program may very well be needed. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While skilled immigration could boost our economy and competitiveness, the U.S. should prioritize developing our domestic workforce. Hiring foreign nationals in sensitive industries or government-related work, especially in advanced technology or defense, raises security concerns. A balanced approach could involve targeted increases in non-sensitive high-demand fields coupled with investment in domestic STEM education and training programs. This could address immediate needs while strengthening the long-term STEM capabilities of the American workforce. Not participating this week: Alan Gin, University of San DiegoHaney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers AssociationRay Major, economist Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com . Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
Reporting to chief executive officer Andrew Anagnost , Moorjani will lead and oversee Autodesk's global finance organization. Moorjani will succeed interim chief financial officer Elizabeth "Betsy" Rafael, who will serve as an advisor to the company through the end of fiscal 2025 and will continue to serve on Autodesk's Board of Directors, resuming her status as an independent director following the transition period and end of her employment by the company. "We are excited to welcome such a high-caliber and seasoned CFO in Janesh," said Andrew Anagnost , president and CEO of Autodesk. "His deep finance and software experience will be instrumental in supporting Autodesk's continued momentum with sustained growth and enhanced profitability. I look forward to partnering with Janesh to drive Autodesk's successful path forward and continue creating additional value for our stockholders. I also thank Betsy for stepping into the interim CFO role at an important time for Autodesk, and for her continued contributions both through the transition and as a qualified and experienced board member moving forward." Moorjani brings strong experience leading dynamic public software companies. He recently was CFO of Elastic since 2017 and assumed the additional responsibilities of COO in 2022. Prior to Elastic, he served in executive and leadership roles at Infoblox, VMware, Cisco, PTC, and Goldman Sachs. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Cohesity, a leading AI-powered data security and data management company. "I am thrilled to join Autodesk and work with Andrew, the company's strong management team and the Board to capitalize on the compelling growth opportunities we have ahead," said Moorjani. "Autodesk has established a clear leadership position as a technology innovator by providing differentiated and connected solutions that allow customers across industries to design and make anything. I look forward to working with the team to build on Autodesk's strong financial foundation to drive continued growth, profitability and free cash flow to ultimately deliver sustainable stockholder value." ABOUT AUTODESK The world's designers, engineers, builders, and creators trust Autodesk to help them design and make anything. From the buildings we live and work in, to the cars we drive and the bridges we drive over. From the products we use and rely on, to the movies and games that inspire us. Autodesk's Design and Make Platform unlocks the power of data to accelerate insights and automate processes, empowering our customers with the technology to create the world around us and deliver better outcomes for their business and the planet. For more information, visit autodesk.com or follow @autodesk. #MakeAnything Autodesk is a registered trademark of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA and/or other countries. All other brand names, product names or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product and services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including quotations from management, statements regarding our strategies, performance, results, growth, profitability and free cash flow, and all statements that are not historical facts. There are a significant number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from statements made in this press release, including: our strategy to develop and introduce new products and services and to move to platforms and capabilities, exposing us to risks such as limited customer acceptance (both new and existing customers), costs related to product defects, and large expenditures; global economic and political conditions, including changes in monetary and fiscal policy, foreign exchange headwinds, recessionary fears, supply chain disruptions, resulting inflationary pressures and hiring conditions; geopolitical tension and armed conflicts, and extreme weather events; costs and challenges associated with strategic acquisitions and investments; our ability to successfully implement and expand our transaction model; dependency on international revenue and operations, exposing us to significant international regulatory, economic, intellectual property, collections, currency exchange rate, taxation, political, and other risks, including risks related to the war against Ukraine launched by Russia and our exit from Russia and the current conflict between Israel and Hamas; inability to predict subscription renewal rates and their impact on our future revenue and operating results; existing and increased competition and rapidly evolving technological changes; fluctuation of our financial results, key metrics and other operating metrics; our transition from up front to annual billings for multi-year contracts; deriving a substantial portion of our net revenue from a small number of solutions, including our AutoCAD-based software products and collections; any failure to successfully execute and manage initiatives to realign or introduce new business and sales initiatives, including our new transaction model for Flex; net revenue, billings, earnings, cash flow, or new or existing subscriptions shortfalls; social and ethical issues relating to the use of artificial intelligence in our offerings; our ability to maintain security levels and service performance meeting the expectations of our customers, and the resources and costs required to avoid unanticipated downtime and prevent, detect and remediate performance degradation and security breaches; security incidents or other incidents compromising the integrity of our or our customers' offerings, services, data, or intellectual property; reliance on third parties to provide us with a number of operational and technical services as well as software; our highly complex software, which may contain undetected errors, defects, or vulnerabilities; increasing regulatory focus on privacy issues and expanding laws; governmental export and import controls that could impair our ability to compete in international markets or subject us to liability if we violate the controls; protection of our intellectual property rights and intellectual property infringement claims from others; the government procurement process; fluctuations in currency exchange rates; our debt service obligations; and our investment portfolio consisting of a variety of investment vehicles that are subject to interest rate trends, market volatility, and other economic factors. Further information on potential factors that could affect the financial results of Autodesk are included in Autodesk's Form 10-K and subsequent Forms 10-Q, which are on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Autodesk disclaims any obligation to update the forward-looking statements provided to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/autodesk-appoints-janesh-moorjani-as-chief-financial-officer-302316577.html SOURCE Autodesk, Inc.COLLEGE PARK — Kaylene Smikle scored 10 of Maryland women’s basketball’s first 16 points and ended with 25 in the Terps’ 107-35 drubbing over Saint Francis on Sunday, four points shy of their largest margin of victory in program history. The result was unsurprising — No. 11 Maryland is unbeaten through six games for the first time in three years and the Red Flash were winless until this week. Smikle’s early season contributions have also been expected. Coach Brenda Frese was intentional about the transfers she brought to College Park. She needed specific roles to be filled, a perimeter scorer who could knock down 3-pointers chief among them. That became Smikle, a junior guard who averaged 17 points per game over two seasons at Rutgers and leads the Terps in scoring with 19.7 per contest through the first month of the season. She’s energized an offense that’s vastly different from last season and has Maryland clicking at near-historic rates. Maryland raced out to a 33-3 lead after the first quarter Sunday led by Smikle’s 15 points. Frese dipped into her reserves and emptied her bench early as Smikle played sparingly thereafter. The Terps led 66-9 at halftime, 89-20 after three quarters and won by 72. The margin of victory record that came close to being toppled was set in a 76-point win over University of Maryland Eastern Shore in 2015. Maryland’s 107 points are its most since last November and marks the fifth time the program has topped the century mark in the past four seasons. Sunday’s records came against an opponent that was outmatched and overwhelmed in all facets, but Smikle still shined brightest. The guard set a season-high in points in just 19 minutes on the court. Related Articles Smikle was named to the Big Ten All-Freshman team two years ago in her debut season with the Scarlet Knights to first put the conference on notice. An ankle injury stunted her second season in Piscataway, but she has remained one of the conference’s best scorers and settled in faster than any of the Terps’ seven new transfers. She’s topped 20 points in all but one of Maryland’s first six games. Her 54% field goal and 68% 3-point shooting rates are career highs, and she entered Sunday leading the nation in the latter category. Saint Francis shot 12-for-54 from the field. The Red Flash went more than 10 minutes of game time without a field goal in the first half and turned the ball over 23 times. Maryland’s Allie Kubek added 20 points. Christine Dalce posted 11 rebounds, her fourth game in double digits. Eleven Terps took the court. Maryland took its first lead seconds after the opening tip Sunday in what became its most dominant win ever. Again — and like she has all season — Smikle powered a lineup that no one has yet to slow down. She’s been everything Frese coveted and more.Before adding former All-Stars Garrett Crochet and Walker Buehler to their rotation earlier this month, the Red Sox considered a trade that would have sent two notable position players out west for an veteran right-hander. In an effort to pry Luis Castillo away from the Mariners, the Red Sox considered the idea of moving first baseman Triston Casas to Seattle while attaching designated hitter Masataka Yoshida and the $55.8 million remaining on his contract for some salary relief, according to MLB.com ’s Mark Feinsand. Feinsand reported late Thursday that the Red Sox were not willing to move Casas straight-up for Castillo unless Yoshida was involved. “Boston remained in the market for another starter, with Seattle’s Luis Castillo among its targets, but according to sources, the Mariners wanted Triston Casas back in a trade, something the Red Sox were unwilling to do unless Seattle took back Masataka Yoshida, who has three years and $55.8 million remaining on his contract,” Feinsand wrote. During the Winter Meetings in Dallas, the Red Sox were running simultaneous pursuits of both Crochet and Castillo, as The Boston Globe reported, though the Castillo talks fizzled out right around the same time the discussions to send a four-player package headlined by catching prospect Kyle Teel and outfield prospect Braden Montgomery began to heat up with Chicago. The Red Sox then agreed to terms with Buehler on a one-year, $21.05 million deal at the beginning of this week, all but ruling out the potential addition of a third starter like Castillo. Still, it’s interesting to learn the club was willing to get creative in talks with the Mariners. Casas, who has shown big flashes in parts of three big league seasons but was limited to just 63 games due to a rib cage injury in 2024, has clearly been floated as a trade piece in multiple discussions this winter. Moving the 24-year-old is less likely than before now that the Sox have seemingly filled their rotation holes but was definitely in play, in large part due to an organizational desire to move Rafael Devers from third base to first base sooner rather than later. An addition of a veteran infielder like Alex Bregman (a free agent) or Nolan Arenado (a top trade candidate) could lead the Red Sox to further look into ways to shuffle their infield mix. For now, though, Casas projects as the starting first baseman in 2025. It remains to be seen if Yoshida has any type of future in Boston. The 31-year-old has hit .285 with 25 homers and a .775 OPS in 248 games over his first two years in the big leagues but has little value when it comes to defense, baserunning or slug. He is also rehabbing from a right shoulder labral repair surgery he had in early October, complicating potential trade talks. The Red Sox would have a more functional roster without Yoshida — a left-handed hitter — on it; the club might look to part ways with Yoshida in some fashion in an effort to ramp up its pursuit of a bat like Teoscar Hernández, Anthony Santander or Randal Grichuk. Boston still hasn’t replaced the production of Tyler O’Neill, a right-handed hitter who led the team with 31 homers last year but has since signed with the Orioles.
Among elites across the ideological spectrum, there's one point of unifying agreement: Americans are bitterly divided. What if that's wrong? What if elites are the ones who are bitterly divided while most Americans are fairly unified? History rarely lines up perfectly with the calendar (the "sixties" didn't really start until the decade was almost over). But politically, the 21st century neatly began in 2000, when the election ended in a tie and the color coding of electoral maps became enshrined as a kind of permanent tribal color war of "red vs. blue." Elite understanding of politics has been stuck in this framework ever since. Politicians and voters have leaned into this alleged political reality, making it seem all the more real in the process. I loathe the phrase "perception is reality," but in politics it has the reifying power of self-fulfilling prophecy. People are also reading... Bill Haisten: ‘Why would you even say that?’ OSU fund-raising was damaged by Gundy comments Former senior administrator at Tulsa Public Schools sentenced to prison What's the latest with Michael Fasusi? An update on OU's top 2025 recruiting target Vote for the Bill Knight Automotive high school football player of the week for Week 12 State Department of Education bought 532 Trump Bibles, purchase order shows Pagan prayer before Tulsa City Council meeting riles up Gov. Stitt, Ryan Walters Berry Tramel: $100k in fines is worth the cost to restore optimism in Oklahoma football Where to eat on Thanksgiving Day Union sixth-graders could be relocated amid planned renovations, declining district enrollment Roster cuts are coming to Oklahoma State and Mike Gundy is dreading it Is GJ Kinne out of reach? What about Brennan Marion? A look at possible TU coaching candidates Bill Haisten: ‘Hungrier than ever’ Mike Gundy says, ‘I ain’t going out this way’ McAlester football coach Forrest Mazey faces criminal misdemeanor charges Video: Stephen Colbert counts Ryan Walters among 'far-right weirdos' Trump could hire Police, sheriff talk about what Trump's mass deportation plan could mean for Tulsa Like rival noble families in medieval Europe, elites have been vying for power and dominance on the arrogant assumption that their subjects share their concern for who rules rather than what the rulers can deliver. In 2018, the group More in Common published a massive report on the "hidden tribes" of American politics. The wealthiest and whitest groups were "devoted conservatives" (6%) and "progressive activists" (8%). These tribes dominate the media, the parties and higher education, and they dictate the competing narratives of red vs. blue, particularly on cable news and social media. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Americans resided in, or were adjacent to, the "exhausted majority." These people, however, "have no narrative," as David Brooks wrote at the time. "They have no coherent philosophic worldview to organize their thinking and compel action." Lacking a narrative might seem like a very postmodern problem, but in a postmodern elite culture, postmodern problems are real problems. It's worth noting that red vs. blue America didn't emerge ex nihilo. The 1990s were a time when the economy and government seemed to be working, at home and abroad. As a result, elites leaned into the narcissism of small differences to gain political and cultural advantage. They remain obsessed with competing, often apocalyptic, narratives. That leaves out most Americans. The gladiatorial combatants of cable news, editorial pages and academia, and their superfan spectators, can afford these fights. Members of the exhausted majority are more interested in mere competence. I think that's the hidden unity elites are missing. This is why we keep throwing incumbent parties out of power: They get elected promising competence but get derailed -- or seduced -- by fan service to, or trolling of, the elites who dominate the national conversation. There's a difference between competence and expertise. One of the most profound political changes in recent years has been the separation of notions of credentialed expertise from real-world competence. This isn't a new theme in American life, but the pandemic and the lurch toward identity politics amplified distrust of experts in unprecedented ways. This is a particular problem for the left because it is far more invested in credentialism than the right. Indeed, some progressives are suddenly realizing they invested too much in the authority of experts and too little in the ability of experts to provide what people want from government, such as affordable housing, decent education and low crime. The New York Times' Ezra Klein says he's tired of defending the authority of government institutions. Rather, "I want them to work." One of the reasons progressives find Trump so offensive is his absolute inability to speak the language of expertise -- which is full of coded elite shibboleths. But Trump veritably shouts the language of competence. I don't mean he is actually competent at governing. But he is effectively blunt about calling leaders, experts and elites -- of both parties -- stupid, ineffective, weak and incompetent. He lost in 2020 because voters didn't believe he was actually good at governing. He won in 2024 because the exhausted majority concluded the Biden administration was bad at it. Nostalgia for the low-inflation pre-pandemic economy was enough to convince voters that Trumpian drama is the tolerable price to pay for a good economy. About 3 out of 4 Americans who experienced "severe hardship" because of inflation voted for Trump. The genius of Trump's most effective ad -- "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" -- was that it was simultaneously culture-war red meat and an argument that Harris was more concerned about boutique elite concerns than everyday ones. If Trump can actually deliver competent government, he could make the Republican Party the majority party for a generation. For myriad reasons, that's an if so big it's visible from space. But the opportunity is there -- and has been there all along.
