The Prophecies Fulfilled: How Harris and Obama Foresaw the Trumpian Whirlwind
Rex Huppke’s column, dripping with a thinly veiled disdain, isn’t exactly subtle. It’s a pointed “I told you so” directed at Trump supporters, delivered with the smug satisfaction of someone who feels vindicated by unfolding events. The core argument is simple: Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama accurately predicted the chaos and potential dangers of a second Trump presidency, and now, those predictions are materializing.
The piece opens with a deliberately provocative challenge, seemingly designed to elicit outrage from its target audience. It then proceeds to dissect several key warnings issued by Harris and Obama during the 2020 campaign, meticulously comparing those pronouncements with Trump’s actions and pronouncements in the present day.
Huppke first tackles Harris’s assertion that Trump harbored an "enemies list" and intended to pardon January 6th rioters. He points to the already-issued pardons of some involved in the Capitol riot, coupled with Trump’s increasingly erratic statements about prosecuting members of the January 6th committee, as evidence validating Harris’s claim. The lack of clear justification for such prosecutions, the "something" Huppke ironically notes, underscores the perceived vindictiveness driving these potential actions.
Then, the author moves to Michelle Obama’s warning about Trump’s swift and devastating impact on various sectors. Obama predicted a "wrecking ball" targeting everything from the Department of Education to women’s health. Huppke connects this to Elon Musk’s purported efforts to dismantle aspects of the federal government, framed as a means to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. He further bolsters his argument by referencing Trump’s administration’s ongoing legal battles concerning access to mifepristone and the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s abortion ban. These actions are presented as direct fulfillments of Obama’s warnings regarding women’s health.
The article then shifts to the economic realm, focusing on Harris’s warnings about Trump’s proposed tariffs. While the predicted "20% sales tax" hasn’t materialized verbatim, Huppke cites estimates from The Budget Lab at Yale University, projecting significant price increases for consumers due to Trump’s tariff policies. This, he argues, validates Harris’s broader point about rising costs under a Trump administration. The "scattershot and confusing" nature of these tariffs, and their unsettling effect on the markets, are presented as further evidence of the instability Harris predicted.
Perhaps the most damning point, according to Huppke, is Harris’s assessment of Trump as "increasingly unstable and unhinged." Here, the evidence presented is a string of Trump’s own pronouncements, ranging from musings about annexing Canada and Greenland to his bellicose social media attacks on a federal judge. Huppke highlights the unprecedented nature of Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuking the President’s comments, further emphasizing the sense of political norms being shattered. The author then quotes Michelle Obama’s blunt assessment of Trump’s lack of understanding of policy, coherent argumentation, honesty, decency and morals as yet another prediction that came to pass.
The article then pivots to Harris’s warnings about Trump cutting Social Security and Medicare. The author connects this to Elon Musk’s reported interest in cutting Social Security and benefit programs while alleging widespread fraud.
He then brings up the charges of Harris about Trump siding with Russia and Vladimir Putin against Ukraine. In addition, he refers to Harris’s prediction that Trump would "weaponize the Department of Justice" against his political enemies, which is supported by references to Trump’s calls for jailing perceived opponents and his pledge to "expose" his enemies. The detention and green card revocation of a pro-Palestinian protester are cited as evidence of potential abuses of power against dissenters.
Huppke concludes by arguing that these unfolding events offer no tangible benefits to Trump’s voters. They are not lowering grocery prices, stabilizing the stock market, or ushering in the promised "Golden Age." Instead, he posits that this is precisely what Trump’s supporters wanted: chaos, vengeance, the dismantling of the federal government, and a defiance of the law. The implicit accusation is that Trump’s voters were not misled; they actively embraced the potential consequences, even if they are now realizing the detrimental effects. The closing statement serves as a final, conclusive declaration: Harris and Obama provided clear warnings, and those warnings have been demonstrably realized.
While Huppke’s piece might resonate with those already critical of Trump, it’s likely to further entrench the divide he aims to highlight. His tone is inherently adversarial and assumes the worst possible interpretation of Trump’s supporters’ motivations. The article leans heavily on the confirmation bias, selectively choosing instances that support its central thesis.
While it effectively compiles a series of Trump’s contentious policies and statements, presenting them alongside the previously issued warnings, the author makes no attempt to understand, or even acknowledge, the perspectives of those who support the president. He dismisses them as simply wanting “chaos” and “vengeance,” a simplistic and ultimately unproductive characterization.
The article’s value lies primarily in its distillation of specific warnings issued by Harris and Obama, juxtaposed with subsequent events. However, its overt bias and lack of nuanced analysis limit its ability to persuade or engage with those holding opposing viewpoints. It functions more as a self-affirming echo for those who already share Huppke’s perspective, rather than a genuine attempt at dialogue or understanding.
