Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
When the abuse of power is assumed

When the abuse of power is assumed

Last updated on: May 26, 2025 at 5:11 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

When the abuse of power is assumed 2025-05-26T17:11:34-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The tariff madness has directly affected my work life over the past several months.

A lot of what we sell at the Big Box — stuff people need to fix and maintain and improve their homes — comes from overseas. My crew is the final step in a global supply chain that puts all of those products on the shelves for people here in Chester County. So as soon as the tariff-obsessed candidate won the election, the company began stocking up on everything that might soon become harder to get under his imagined (then announced, then imposed, then “paused,” then re-imposed, etc.) tariffs.

For me and my team, this has meant handling an endless stream of higher-than-usual freight flow while also trying to find a way to cram it all into the same size building. Instead of a six-week supply of product on hand, we’re now dealing with a six-month supply of a great deal of our internationally sourced inventory. This is and has been exhausting — a Christmas rush that lasts all year.

And so, for personal reasons, I’m paying attention to every news report about tariffs and the retail biz. Like this one, from NPR’s Morning Edition last week, “Can retailers eat tariffs without price hikes? Walmart, Target, Lowe’s face pressure.”

Betteridge’s Law of Headlines applies here — whenever a headline asks a question, the answer is “No.” But that piece included a very strange comment from NPR’s Alina Selyukh, discussing the story with host Brian Cornell:

CORNELL: We mentioned the political pressure on retailers. What are they afraid of?

SELYUKH: Well, they don’t want to find themselves in Walmart’s shoes. Last week, Walmart got called out by Trump by name, after executives said higher tariffs will lead to higher prices as soon as this month. This was a pretty direct comment from the world’s largest retailer. You know, this is a chain that has lots of muscle to pressure suppliers. It puts laser focus on keeping prices low for its shoppers. Many of its shoppers are often on a budget. And executives said Walmart is absorbing some tariff costs. So are its suppliers. But the chain says it will start losing money if it absorbs the full weight of the tariffs, so it’s passing on those costs to shoppers. And this prompted a direct attack from President Trump. He wrote an online post to say Walmart should stop blaming tariffs and, in fact, should, quote, “eat the tariffs.” He also added China should eat some tariffs. But just to say the basics, the way the system works, it’s American businesses that import the goods that get the tariff bill.

So Walmart and other retailers are now facing much higher costs for much of what they sell and they have two choices. They can either raise their prices to account for those higher costs, or they can “eat” the tariffs — selling products at a loss and costing the company tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

That doesn’t seem like a difficult choice for any retailer that wants to stay in business, but Selyuk says it is, because if those retailers do raise prices, they risk being “called out by Trump by name.”

That’s the weird bit. What does it matter if Trump — the guy who personally and arbitrarily created this problem with his weird and dumb tariff hobby — says mean things about you in late-night posts on his personal social media platform? How could that possibly be meaningful enough to weigh against the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that would come from “eating” his tariffs and selling a third of your inventory at a loss?

It’s because of what Selyukh knows but doesn’t say — what she and all of NPR and all of every other mainstream news agency knows but doesn’t say. When the thin-skinned Mad King gets peevish and starts calling you out by name, that signals that he is about to abuse his powers through some vindictive act of lawless retaliation.

The context for Selyukh’s otherwise-absurd comments about Walmart — the context that makes sense of what she’s saying — is things like this Morning Edition story from a few days later, “Harvard’s Steven Levitsky says Trump administration acts as authoritarian government.” That’s an interview piece in which a guest is invited to say that which business reporters like Selyukh are not allowed to say. The hook for that interview is Trump’s flagrant abuses of power in his attempts to attack Harvard University and, by extension, all of higher education in America.

Here is another NPR report on that explaining why even large, powerful, deep-pocketed institutions that follow the law “don’t want to find themselves in Walmart’s shoes,” “Trump again blasts Harvard over international students as judge blocks revocation.”

Trump’s latest attack against Harvard comes two days after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from being able to revoke the university’s ability to enroll international students.

The university had argued that the Trump administration’s revocation was a “blatant violation of the First Amendment” and punished the school for rejecting “the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students.”

Is there any legal or constitutional basis for a president having or using the power of the presidency to “revoke the university’s ability to enroll international students”? No. Unambiguously no.

Will this president do that anyway? Yes. Will he also abuse his power in other lawless, unconstitutional ways to continue to attack Harvard and other institutions and individuals he “calls out by name”? Yes. Yes he will. And the harm he may do to them may even exceed the cost of selling half your inventory at a loss.

The point here is that everyone knows this. Everyone knows that this president abuses the powers of his office and is constantly threatening to abuse those powers further against anyone who doesn’t “eat the tariffs” or fire all the non-white professors or whatever cruel and capricious thing the misfiring synapses in his syphilitic brain come up with next.

Which means we’re all already “in Walmart’s shoes.” No matter what we do or don’t do, we’re already there.

The abuse of power by this president is a given. It is assumed.

The only question is whether or not it will also be accepted.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 25, 2025

Sunday reading

Next Post

May 28, 2025 A certain man went down to Jericho and fell among leopards

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"My thoughts on impeaching Pete Hegseth, from the Chernobyl miniseriesValery Legasov: And now Dyatlov will ..."

Skybison

The possibility of possibility

"https://bsky.app/profile/cpsc.gov/post/3mzxprzskrs26"

Jon Maki

The possibility of possibility

"Is that Melon Usk in the picture?"

MG Remoaner

A Psalm for Election Day

"I remember A: but not B:. It was just A: for floppies and C: for ..."

MG Remoaner

A Psalm for Election Day

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who preached the first sermon in Acts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Peter John Paul