{"id":294,"date":"2023-03-13T17:40:25","date_gmt":"2023-03-13T17:40:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/chapter\/module-6-14\/"},"modified":"2023-04-28T20:46:27","modified_gmt":"2023-04-28T20:46:27","slug":"module-6-14","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/chapter\/module-6-14\/","title":{"raw":"6.14 The Obama Years","rendered":"6.14 The Obama Years"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"700\"]\"In In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American elected to the presidency. In this official White House photo from May 2009, 5-year-old Jacob Philadelphia said, \u201cI want to know if my hair is just like yours.\u201d The White House via Flickr<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBy the 2008 election, with Iraq still in chaos, Democrats were ready to embrace the antiwar position and sought a candidate who had consistently opposed military action in Iraq. Senator Barack Obama had only been a member of the Illinois state senate when Congress debated the war actions, but he had publicly denounced the war, predicting the sectarian violence that would ensue, and remained critical of the invasion through his 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. He began running for president almost immediately after arriving in Washington.\r\n\r\nA former law professor and community activist, Obama became the first African American candidate to ever capture the nomination of a major political party.1<\/sup><\/a> During the election, Obama won the support of an increasingly antiwar electorate. When an already fragile economy finally collapsed in 2007 and 2008, Bush\u2019s policies were widely blamed. Obama\u2019s opponent, Republican senator John McCain, was tied to those policies and struggled to fight off the nation\u2019s desire for a new political direction. Obama won a convincing victory in the fall and became the nation\u2019s first African American president.\r\n\r\nPresident Obama\u2019s first term was marked by domestic affairs, especially his efforts to combat the Great Recession and to pass a national healthcare law. Obama came into office as the economy continued to deteriorate. He continued the bank bailout begun under his predecessor and launched a limited economic stimulus plan to provide government spending to reignite the economy.\r\n\r\nDespite Obama\u2019s dominant electoral victory, national politics fractured, and a conservative Republican firewall quickly arose against the Obama administration. The Tea Party became a catch-all term for a diffuse movement of fiercely conservative and politically frustrated American voters. Typically whiter, older, and richer than the average American, flush with support from wealthy backers, and clothed with the iconography of the Founding Fathers, Tea Party activists registered their deep suspicions of the federal government. 2<\/sup><\/a> Tea Party protests dominated the public eye in 2009 and activists steered the Republican Party far to the right, capturing primary elections all across the country.\r\n\r\nObama\u2019s most substantive legislative achievement proved to be a national healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt had striven to pass national healthcare reform and failed. Obama\u2019s plan forsook liberal models of a national healthcare system and instead adopted a heretofore conservative model of subsidized private care (similar plans had been put forward by Republicans Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, and Obama\u2019s 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney). Beset by conservative protests, Obama\u2019s healthcare reform narrowly passed through Congress. It abolished pre-existing conditions as a cause for denying care, scrapped junk plans, provided for state-run healthcare exchanges (allowing individuals without healthcare to pool their purchasing power), offered states funds to subsidize an expansion of Medicaid, and required all Americans to provide proof of a health insurance plan that measured up to government-established standards (those who did not purchase a plan would pay a penalty tax, and those who could not afford insurance would be eligible for federal subsidies). The number of uninsured Americans remained stubbornly high, however, and conservatives spent most of the next decade attacking the bill.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, in 2009, President Barack Obama deployed seventeen thousand additional troops to Afghanistan as part of a counterinsurgency campaign that aimed to \u201cdisrupt, dismantle, and defeat\u201d al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Meanwhile, U.S. Special Forces and CIA drones targeted al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In May 2011, U.S. Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces (SEALs) conducted a raid deep into Pakistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The United States and NATO began a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, with an aim of removing all combat troops by 2014. Although weak militarily, the Taliban remained politically influential in south and eastern Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda remained active in Pakistan but shifted its bases to Yemen and the Horn of Africa. As of December 2013, the war in Afghanistan had claimed the lives of 3,397 U.S. service members.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"700\"]\"Former Former Taliban fighters surrender their arms to the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during a reintegration ceremony at the provincial governor\u2019s compound in May 2012. Wikimedia<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n

Stagnation<\/h2>\r\nIn 2012, Barack Obama won a second term by defeating Republican Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. However, Obama\u2019s inability to control Congress and the ascendancy of Tea Party Republicans stunted the passage of meaningful legislation. Obama was a lame duck before he ever won reelection, and gridlocked government came to represent an acute sense that much of American life\u2014whether in politics, economics, or race relations\u2014had grown stagnant.\r\n\r\nThe economy continued its halfhearted recovery from the Great Recession. The Obama administration campaigned on little to specifically address the crisis and, faced with congressional intransigence, accomplished even less. While corporate profits climbed and stock markets soared, wages stagnated and employment sagged for years after the Great Recession. By 2016, the statistically average American worker had not received a raise in almost forty years. The average worker in January 1973 earned $4.03 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that wage was about two dollars per hour more than the average American earned in 2014. Working Americans were losing ground. Moreover, most income gains in the economy had been largely captured by a small number of wealthy earners. Between 2009 and 2013, 85 percent of all new income in the United States went to the top 1 percent of the population.3<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nBut if money no longer flowed to American workers, it saturated American politics. In 2000, George W. Bush raised a record $172 million for his campaign. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to decline public funds (removing any applicable caps to his total fund-raising) and raised nearly three quarters of a billion dollars for his campaign. The average House seat, meanwhile, cost about $1.6 million, and the average Senate Seat over $10 million.4<\/sup><\/a> The Supreme Court, meanwhile, removed barriers to outside political spending. In 2002, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold had crossed party lines to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, bolstering campaign finance laws passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. But political organizations\u2014particularly PACs\u2014exploited loopholes to raise large sums of money and, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC<\/em> that no limits could be placed on political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Money flowed even deeper into politics.\r\n\r\nThe influence of money in politics only heightened partisan gridlock, further blocking bipartisan progress on particular political issues. Climate change, for instance, has failed to transcend partisan barriers. In the 1970s and 1980s, experts substantiated the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Eventually, the most influential of these panels, the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 1995 that there was a \u201cdiscernible human influence on global climate.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a> This conclusion, though stated conservatively, was by that point essentially a scientific consensus. By 2007, the IPCC considered the evidence \u201cunequivocal\u201d and warned that \u201cunmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a>\r\n\r\nClimate change became a permanent and major topic of public discussion and policy in the twenty-first century. Fueled by popular coverage, most notably, perhaps, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth<\/em>, based on Al Gore\u2019s book and presentations of the same name, addressing climate change became a plank of the American left and a point of denial for the American right. American public opinion and political action still lagged far behind the scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming. Conservative politicians, conservative think tanks, and energy companies waged war to sow questions in the minds of Americans, who remain divided on the question, and so many others.\r\n\r\nMuch of the resistance to addressing climate change is economic. As Americans looked over their shoulder at China, many refused to sacrifice immediate economic growth for long-term environmental security. Twenty-first-century relations with China remained characterized by contradictions and interdependence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China reinvigorated its efforts to modernize its country. By liberating and subsidizing much of its economy and drawing enormous foreign investments, China has posted massive growth rates during the last several decades. Enormous cities rise by the day. In 2000, China had a GDP around an eighth the size of U.S. GDP. Based on growth rates and trends, analysts suggest that China\u2019s economy will bypass that of the United States soon. American concerns about China\u2019s political system have persisted, but money sometimes matters more to Americans. China has become one of the country\u2019s leading trade partners. Cultural exchange has increased, and more and more Americans visit China each year, with many settling down to work and study.\r\n\r\nBy 2016, American voters were fed up. In that year\u2019s presidential race, Republicans spurned their political establishment and nominated a real estate developer and celebrity billionaire, Donald Trump, who, decrying the tyranny of political correctness and promising to Make America Great Again, promised to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants and bar Muslim immigrants. The Democrats, meanwhile, flirted with the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from Vermont, before ultimately nominating Hillary Clinton, who, after eight years as first lady in the 1990s, had served eight years in the Senate and four more as secretary of state. Voters despaired: Trump and Clinton were the most unpopular nominees in modern American history. Majorities of Americans viewed each candidate unfavorably and majorities in both parties said, early in the election season, that they were motivated more by voting against their rival candidate than for their own.7<\/sup><\/a> With incomes frozen, politics gridlocked, race relations tense, and headlines full of violence, such frustrations only channeled a larger sense of stagnation, which upset traditional political allegiances. In the end, despite winning nearly three million more votes nationwide, Clinton failed to carry key Midwestern states where frustrated white, working-class voters abandoned the Democratic Party\u2014a Republican president hadn\u2019t carried Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, for instance, since the 1980s\u2014and swung their support to the Republicans. Donald Trump won the presidency.\r\n

Political divisions only deepened after the election. A nation already deeply split by income, culture, race, geography, and ideology continued to come apart. Trump\u2019s presidency consumed national attention. Traditional print media and the consumers and producers of social media could not help but throw themselves at the ins and outs of Trump\u2019s norm-smashing first years while seemingly refracting every major event through the prism of the Trump presidency. Robert Mueller\u2019s investigation of Russian election-meddling and the alleged collusion of campaign officials in that effort produced countless headlines. Meanwhile, new policies enflamed widening cultural divisions. Border apprehensions and deportations reached record levels under the Obama administration, but Trump pushed even farther. He pushed for a massive wall along the border to supplement the fence built under the Bush administration. He began ordering the deportation of so-called Dreamers\u2014students who were born elsewhere but grew up in the United States\u2014and immigration officials separated refugee-status-seeking parents and children at the border. Trump\u2019s border policies heartened his base and aggravated his opponents. But while Trump enflamed America\u2019s enduring culture war, his narrowly passed 2017 tax cut continued the redistribution of American wealth toward corporations and wealthy individuals. The tax cut exploded the federal deficit and further exacerbated America\u2019s widening economic inequality.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Notes<\/h4>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Thomas J. Sugrue, Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan, \u201cPoll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, April 14, 2010; Jill Lepore, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party\u2019s Revolution and the Battle over American History <\/em>(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Kerry Close, \u201cThe 1% Pocketed 85% of Post-Recession Income Growth,\u201d Time<\/em>, June 16, 2016, http:\/\/time.com\/money\/4371332\/income-inequality-recession\/. See also Justin Wolfers, \u201cThe Gains from the Economic Recovery Are Still Limited to the Top One Percent,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, January 27, 2015, http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/01\/28\/upshot\/gains-from-economic-recovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.html \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Julia Queen and Christian Hilland, \u201c2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized: Receipts Nearly Double 2004 Total,\u201d Federal Election Commission<\/em>, June 8, 2009, http:\/\/www.fec.gov\/press\/press2009\/20090608PresStat.shtml; Andre Tartar and Eric Benson, \u201cThe Forever Campaign,\u201d New York Magazine<\/em> (October 14, 2012), http:\/\/nymag.com\/news\/politics\/elections-2012\/timeline-2012-10\/ \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis <\/em>(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Global and Sectoral Aspects<\/em> (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Philip Bump, \u201cA Quarter of Americans Dislike Both Major-Party Presidential Candidates,\u201d Washington Post<\/em>, July 14, 2016, https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2016\/07\/14\/a-quarter-of-americans-dislike-both-major-party-presidential-candidates\/?tid=a_inl; Aaron Zitner and Julia Wolfe, \u201cTrump and Clinton\u2019s Popularity Problem,\u201d Wall Street Journal<\/em>, May 24, 2016, http:\/\/graphics.wsj.com\/elections\/2016\/donald-trump-and-hillary-clintons-popularity-problem\/. \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
    \n
    \"In
    In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American elected to the presidency. In this official White House photo from May 2009, 5-year-old Jacob Philadelphia said, \u201cI want to know if my hair is just like yours.\u201d The White House via Flickr<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

     <\/p>\n

    By the 2008 election, with Iraq still in chaos, Democrats were ready to embrace the antiwar position and sought a candidate who had consistently opposed military action in Iraq. Senator Barack Obama had only been a member of the Illinois state senate when Congress debated the war actions, but he had publicly denounced the war, predicting the sectarian violence that would ensue, and remained critical of the invasion through his 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. He began running for president almost immediately after arriving in Washington.<\/p>\n

    A former law professor and community activist, Obama became the first African American candidate to ever capture the nomination of a major political party.1<\/sup><\/a> During the election, Obama won the support of an increasingly antiwar electorate. When an already fragile economy finally collapsed in 2007 and 2008, Bush\u2019s policies were widely blamed. Obama\u2019s opponent, Republican senator John McCain, was tied to those policies and struggled to fight off the nation\u2019s desire for a new political direction. Obama won a convincing victory in the fall and became the nation\u2019s first African American president.<\/p>\n

    President Obama\u2019s first term was marked by domestic affairs, especially his efforts to combat the Great Recession and to pass a national healthcare law. Obama came into office as the economy continued to deteriorate. He continued the bank bailout begun under his predecessor and launched a limited economic stimulus plan to provide government spending to reignite the economy.<\/p>\n

    Despite Obama\u2019s dominant electoral victory, national politics fractured, and a conservative Republican firewall quickly arose against the Obama administration. The Tea Party became a catch-all term for a diffuse movement of fiercely conservative and politically frustrated American voters. Typically whiter, older, and richer than the average American, flush with support from wealthy backers, and clothed with the iconography of the Founding Fathers, Tea Party activists registered their deep suspicions of the federal government. 2<\/sup><\/a> Tea Party protests dominated the public eye in 2009 and activists steered the Republican Party far to the right, capturing primary elections all across the country.<\/p>\n

    Obama\u2019s most substantive legislative achievement proved to be a national healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt had striven to pass national healthcare reform and failed. Obama\u2019s plan forsook liberal models of a national healthcare system and instead adopted a heretofore conservative model of subsidized private care (similar plans had been put forward by Republicans Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, and Obama\u2019s 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney). Beset by conservative protests, Obama\u2019s healthcare reform narrowly passed through Congress. It abolished pre-existing conditions as a cause for denying care, scrapped junk plans, provided for state-run healthcare exchanges (allowing individuals without healthcare to pool their purchasing power), offered states funds to subsidize an expansion of Medicaid, and required all Americans to provide proof of a health insurance plan that measured up to government-established standards (those who did not purchase a plan would pay a penalty tax, and those who could not afford insurance would be eligible for federal subsidies). The number of uninsured Americans remained stubbornly high, however, and conservatives spent most of the next decade attacking the bill.<\/p>\n

    Meanwhile, in 2009, President Barack Obama deployed seventeen thousand additional troops to Afghanistan as part of a counterinsurgency campaign that aimed to \u201cdisrupt, dismantle, and defeat\u201d al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Meanwhile, U.S. Special Forces and CIA drones targeted al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In May 2011, U.S. Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces (SEALs) conducted a raid deep into Pakistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The United States and NATO began a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, with an aim of removing all combat troops by 2014. Although weak militarily, the Taliban remained politically influential in south and eastern Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda remained active in Pakistan but shifted its bases to Yemen and the Horn of Africa. As of December 2013, the war in Afghanistan had claimed the lives of 3,397 U.S. service members.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \"Former
    Former Taliban fighters surrender their arms to the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during a reintegration ceremony at the provincial governor\u2019s compound in May 2012. Wikimedia<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Stagnation<\/h2>\n

    In 2012, Barack Obama won a second term by defeating Republican Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. However, Obama\u2019s inability to control Congress and the ascendancy of Tea Party Republicans stunted the passage of meaningful legislation. Obama was a lame duck before he ever won reelection, and gridlocked government came to represent an acute sense that much of American life\u2014whether in politics, economics, or race relations\u2014had grown stagnant.<\/p>\n

    The economy continued its halfhearted recovery from the Great Recession. The Obama administration campaigned on little to specifically address the crisis and, faced with congressional intransigence, accomplished even less. While corporate profits climbed and stock markets soared, wages stagnated and employment sagged for years after the Great Recession. By 2016, the statistically average American worker had not received a raise in almost forty years. The average worker in January 1973 earned $4.03 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, that wage was about two dollars per hour more than the average American earned in 2014. Working Americans were losing ground. Moreover, most income gains in the economy had been largely captured by a small number of wealthy earners. Between 2009 and 2013, 85 percent of all new income in the United States went to the top 1 percent of the population.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    But if money no longer flowed to American workers, it saturated American politics. In 2000, George W. Bush raised a record $172 million for his campaign. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to decline public funds (removing any applicable caps to his total fund-raising) and raised nearly three quarters of a billion dollars for his campaign. The average House seat, meanwhile, cost about $1.6 million, and the average Senate Seat over $10 million.4<\/sup><\/a> The Supreme Court, meanwhile, removed barriers to outside political spending. In 2002, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold had crossed party lines to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, bolstering campaign finance laws passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. But political organizations\u2014particularly PACs\u2014exploited loopholes to raise large sums of money and, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC<\/em> that no limits could be placed on political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Money flowed even deeper into politics.<\/p>\n

    The influence of money in politics only heightened partisan gridlock, further blocking bipartisan progress on particular political issues. Climate change, for instance, has failed to transcend partisan barriers. In the 1970s and 1980s, experts substantiated the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Eventually, the most influential of these panels, the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 1995 that there was a \u201cdiscernible human influence on global climate.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a> This conclusion, though stated conservatively, was by that point essentially a scientific consensus. By 2007, the IPCC considered the evidence \u201cunequivocal\u201d and warned that \u201cunmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    Climate change became a permanent and major topic of public discussion and policy in the twenty-first century. Fueled by popular coverage, most notably, perhaps, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth<\/em>, based on Al Gore\u2019s book and presentations of the same name, addressing climate change became a plank of the American left and a point of denial for the American right. American public opinion and political action still lagged far behind the scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming. Conservative politicians, conservative think tanks, and energy companies waged war to sow questions in the minds of Americans, who remain divided on the question, and so many others.<\/p>\n

    Much of the resistance to addressing climate change is economic. As Americans looked over their shoulder at China, many refused to sacrifice immediate economic growth for long-term environmental security. Twenty-first-century relations with China remained characterized by contradictions and interdependence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China reinvigorated its efforts to modernize its country. By liberating and subsidizing much of its economy and drawing enormous foreign investments, China has posted massive growth rates during the last several decades. Enormous cities rise by the day. In 2000, China had a GDP around an eighth the size of U.S. GDP. Based on growth rates and trends, analysts suggest that China\u2019s economy will bypass that of the United States soon. American concerns about China\u2019s political system have persisted, but money sometimes matters more to Americans. China has become one of the country\u2019s leading trade partners. Cultural exchange has increased, and more and more Americans visit China each year, with many settling down to work and study.<\/p>\n

    By 2016, American voters were fed up. In that year\u2019s presidential race, Republicans spurned their political establishment and nominated a real estate developer and celebrity billionaire, Donald Trump, who, decrying the tyranny of political correctness and promising to Make America Great Again, promised to build a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants and bar Muslim immigrants. The Democrats, meanwhile, flirted with the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from Vermont, before ultimately nominating Hillary Clinton, who, after eight years as first lady in the 1990s, had served eight years in the Senate and four more as secretary of state. Voters despaired: Trump and Clinton were the most unpopular nominees in modern American history. Majorities of Americans viewed each candidate unfavorably and majorities in both parties said, early in the election season, that they were motivated more by voting against their rival candidate than for their own.7<\/sup><\/a> With incomes frozen, politics gridlocked, race relations tense, and headlines full of violence, such frustrations only channeled a larger sense of stagnation, which upset traditional political allegiances. In the end, despite winning nearly three million more votes nationwide, Clinton failed to carry key Midwestern states where frustrated white, working-class voters abandoned the Democratic Party\u2014a Republican president hadn\u2019t carried Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, for instance, since the 1980s\u2014and swung their support to the Republicans. Donald Trump won the presidency.<\/p>\n

    Political divisions only deepened after the election. A nation already deeply split by income, culture, race, geography, and ideology continued to come apart. Trump\u2019s presidency consumed national attention. Traditional print media and the consumers and producers of social media could not help but throw themselves at the ins and outs of Trump\u2019s norm-smashing first years while seemingly refracting every major event through the prism of the Trump presidency. Robert Mueller\u2019s investigation of Russian election-meddling and the alleged collusion of campaign officials in that effort produced countless headlines. Meanwhile, new policies enflamed widening cultural divisions. Border apprehensions and deportations reached record levels under the Obama administration, but Trump pushed even farther. He pushed for a massive wall along the border to supplement the fence built under the Bush administration. He began ordering the deportation of so-called Dreamers\u2014students who were born elsewhere but grew up in the United States\u2014and immigration officials separated refugee-status-seeking parents and children at the border. Trump\u2019s border policies heartened his base and aggravated his opponents. But while Trump enflamed America\u2019s enduring culture war, his narrowly passed 2017 tax cut continued the redistribution of American wealth toward corporations and wealthy individuals. The tax cut exploded the federal deficit and further exacerbated America\u2019s widening economic inequality.<\/p>\n

    Notes<\/h4>\n
      \n
    1. Thomas J. Sugrue, Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    2. Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan, \u201cPoll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, April 14, 2010; Jill Lepore, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party\u2019s Revolution and the Battle over American History <\/em>(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    3. Kerry Close, \u201cThe 1% Pocketed 85% of Post-Recession Income Growth,\u201d Time<\/em>, June 16, 2016, http:\/\/time.com\/money\/4371332\/income-inequality-recession\/. See also Justin Wolfers, \u201cThe Gains from the Economic Recovery Are Still Limited to the Top One Percent,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, January 27, 2015, http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/01\/28\/upshot\/gains-from-economic-recovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.html \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    4. Julia Queen and Christian Hilland, \u201c2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized: Receipts Nearly Double 2004 Total,\u201d Federal Election Commission<\/em>, June 8, 2009, http:\/\/www.fec.gov\/press\/press2009\/20090608PresStat.shtml; Andre Tartar and Eric Benson, \u201cThe Forever Campaign,\u201d New York Magazine<\/em> (October 14, 2012), http:\/\/nymag.com\/news\/politics\/elections-2012\/timeline-2012-10\/ \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis <\/em>(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Global and Sectoral Aspects<\/em> (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014). \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n
    7. Philip Bump, \u201cA Quarter of Americans Dislike Both Major-Party Presidential Candidates,\u201d Washington Post<\/em>, July 14, 2016, https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2016\/07\/14\/a-quarter-of-americans-dislike-both-major-party-presidential-candidates\/?tid=a_inl; Aaron Zitner and Julia Wolfe, \u201cTrump and Clinton\u2019s Popularity Problem,\u201d Wall Street Journal<\/em>, May 24, 2016, http:\/\/graphics.wsj.com\/elections\/2016\/donald-trump-and-hillary-clintons-popularity-problem\/. \"image\"<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":14,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-294","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":36,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":747,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/294\/revisions\/747"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/36"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/294\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=294"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=294"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschis1220ushistsincecivilwar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}