Your attempted explanation is wrong. Trump won the rust belt in 2016 because neoliberals sold out the working class and their unions. This behavior by the administration is a half hearted attempt to roll some of that back.
After all, slave labor is cheap and lets the wealthy pool wealth, while feeling good about pouring money and industry into third-world countries. Best of all, it left the purchasing power of the middle class intact.
For a time.
I do agree though, that the liberals turned a blind eye when things were becoming unsustainable in the rust belt (fly-over country).
I cringed when my co-workers talked about “fly-over” country, but I was equally shocked when Hillary Clinton lost.
As much as I hate to say it, Trump getting elected (wrong person, but gets a point across) shows the system sort of works.
Edit: Just to be clear, I’m a liberal at the end of the day but anyone who thinks “their side” doesn’t have problems, I can’t really agree with.
That's not taking for granted like you are saying. That's coastal elites and intelligentsia looking at "fly over" working class with contempt. It's a mutual cultural divide equivalent to xenophobia.
>Just to be clear, I’m a liberal at the end of the day but anyone who thinks “their side” doesn’t have problems, I can’t really agree with.
Not a Trump supporter. I'm a "politically homeless" liberal as well.
The question is whether those voters wanted other things more than that (and whether Trump managed to deliver those other things to their satisfaction).
It may happen with the unions too. Especially with the blue collar private sector unions. I do not expect this change for public sector unions to happen.
That's just assumed and is normal politics so I didn't see it worth mentioning. You didn't refute my other point that President Biden does not see Musk as a political ally
From your linked article:
>using this language to specify those who are exempt:[10]
> (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
> (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
I'm sure that "the administration" that evv555 was talking about involves either of those people, instead of some random civil servant.
From the linked article again:
>Its main provision prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government,
Do "political (elected) officials" count as "civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government"? My memory from civics class is a bit hazy, but I recall that elected officials are in the legislative branch, not the executive branch?
The Hatch Act is primarily about using political office for campaigning for political office, with the president and Vice President notably excepted.