By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the firing of a top Bureau of Labor Statistics official, Donald Trump’s team scrambled to explain the decision, citing concerns about the reliability of jobs data. The former president accused the official of manipulating figures, though no evidence supported these claims. While some administration officials pointed to data revisions as a justification for the firing, critics, including former government officials, condemned the move as undermining the integrity of the agency. The episode has raised concerns about the politicization of economic data and its potential impact on market confidence.
Read the original article here
Trump officials scrambling to justify firing of economic statistician – as critics say ‘scary’ move is a sign of ‘authoritarianism’—a situation that, judging by the responses, has many people deeply worried. The initial reaction, and it’s a common one, is the feeling that we’re well past the warning signs. It’s a sentiment that a lot of people are clearly sharing. The firing of someone simply for reporting accurate information? That’s not just concerning; it’s seen by many as a blatant display of authoritarianism. Some go so far as to say it’s “full on fascism.”
The core of the criticism centers on the idea that there’s no longer an effective system of checks and balances. The feeling is that Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the executive branch are somehow compromised or working in concert with actions deemed questionable. This includes a variety of actions, from enacting tariffs and arresting elected officials to deploying the military on US soil, dismantling government departments, using the government for propaganda, and targeting political opponents. The list continues and the implication is that all of these actions lead to the core conclusion that the United States is fully under the control of a dictator. The specific act of firing a statistician because the numbers weren’t favorable is the immediate trigger, but it’s perceived as one in a long string of actions that point toward a more autocratic style of governance. This isn’t governing, the argument goes; it’s political theater.
The worry extends to the accuracy of future economic data. If a statistician is fired for reporting data that the administration dislikes, how can anyone trust the numbers that are released? The feeling is that this will erode trust in the economy, potentially leading to investors pulling their money out and making an economic depression a serious possibility. This could become a catalyst for further changes.
The focus shifts to what a potential counter-agenda might look like, with a focus on areas like financial reform, improving education, community development, and healthcare. This would include, among other things, raising taxes on the super-rich, term limits, and accountability for those involved in potentially illegal activity. The overall aim is to foster a more just, transparent, and accountable system.
The article suggests that the responses also reflect a widespread frustration with the current state of affairs. The feeling is that our elected officials are not creating a bipartisan agenda that puts people first. So it’s proposed that ‘we will’ create it.
The response to the statistician’s firing underscores the view that the administration’s actions are simply a continuation of a pattern. The idea is that a government doesn’t like a judge’s ruling, they want to fire the judge. When a lawyer tells the truth in a trial, they fire him. When the jobs report is bad, they fire the job statistician. This all adds up to a sense that the administration can’t accept reality.
The narrative reinforces the idea that the administration is not just removing messengers, but also controlling the information landscape to maintain power. It’s an old pattern of removing those who bring bad news. This is contrasted with an expectation of truthfulness.
There’s an overwhelming sense of a loss of faith in the media. It’s a shared exasperation with how complicit the media is. The consensus seems to be that it’s not “a sign of authoritarianism” anymore, but the reality of authoritarianism itself. The perceived passivity of the American public is also called into question.
It’s emphasized that the warnings have been there for a long time now, and the actions are well past a point of concern. The administration’s actions, including tariffs, threats in negotiations, and spreading what many see as lies, point towards a specific agenda and are further contributing to the problem. The sentiment is that the administration will continue to target those who disagree with them.
The response is a frustration with any perceived attempts to justify the administration’s actions. The common viewpoint is that there is nothing that requires justification, because it is authoritarian. The question becomes, if it is authoritarian, what is being done about it.
The underlying sentiment is that these events are not isolated incidents but are connected to a larger pattern, and the response to the firing of the statistician is seen as a key example of this. The conclusion that is reached is that we are in it now.