Seems Cory Booker's speech got Obama off the couch

Barack Obama just made some remarks that are starting to get attention for their stirring indictment of Trump’s lawless abuses of power. That a former president is expressing deep alarm about the precariousness of the rule of law under one of his successors is certainly big news.

Obama’s comments also offer Democrats a way out of the either-prices-or-democracy cul-de-sac that has flummoxed the party. What they underscore is this: Trump’s destruction of the rule of law and his imminent wreckage of the economy are actually the same story.

[...]He declared himself “deeply concerned” that the government is threatening universities, and “troubled” by the White House’s bullying of law firms.

[...]

Imagine if I had pulled Fox News’ credentials from the White House press corps.… Imagine if I had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with policies my administration had initiated, that you will not be allowed into government buildings. We will punish you economically for dissenting from the Affordable Care Act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest against my policies. It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me, or a whole bunch of my predecessors.

That’s all good stuff. But the key line that’s directly relevant to center-left debates right now was easy to overlook.

“People tend to think, eh, democracy, rule of law, an independent judiciary, freedom of the press—that’s all abstract stuff because it’s not affecting the price of eggs,” Obama said. “Well, you know what? It’s about to affect the price of eggs.”



[...]

Obama is also saying that Democrats should not necessarily let that reading of what “people” think constrain their approach to this precarious moment.

Indeed, a person familiar with Obama’s thinking tells me that he did intend to model an approach for Democrats to follow, that he sees the eggs-versus-democracy debate as a false choice for the party.

[...]

Trump has invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, which he says gives him the authority to unilaterally impose global tariffs in a national emergency.

But to justify that claim, Trump is citing … the trade deficit. His executive order on tariffs actually says our “large and persistent trade deficit” poses a “national emergency,” claiming it has hollowed out U.S. manufacturing while making us dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.

This is a ludicrous assertion of power, and it’s almost certainly illegal. As Ilya Somin details, the IEEPA requires not just a presidential declaration of a national emergency; it also requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the nation.

[...]

In short, Trump’s lawlessness and his economic destruction are the same story: The former doesn’t just enable the latter; the two are inextricably entangled with each other.

[...]

[R]ule of law, stable institutions, and constraints on everything from bureaucratic corruption to dictatorial abuses of power facilitate economic prosperity and flourishing. Dramatically erode those things, and the economy very well may follow in short order.

[...]

There’s a way to make the argument that Trump’s legal and constitutional degradations are terrible for the material conditions of working people—this is what Obama was signaling—and to stand up for the rule of law while simultaneously favoring robust institutional reform.

[...]

Obama has opened the door for [Democrats to push back.]

  New Republic

I'm glad Obama is finally making forceful statements, but I think the door was opened by Cory Booker.