Trumps Attack on Amazon Actually Has Its Instances

As public postures towards Silicon Valley and Big Tech continue their speedy pivot from admiration to vilification, the current inmate of the White House has sought to lead the chorus. Several a few weeks ago, he launched a tweet-driven crusade against Amazon and CEO Jeff Bezos, accusing the societies of rending off the US Postal Service and harming Americans by not accumulating more sales tax. His Thursday order for its consideration of Post Office’s finances is a clear attempt to undermine one of its largest customers, Amazon.

WIRED Opinion


Zachary Karabell is a WIRED Contributor. Karabell is the president of Global Strategies Envestnet and the president of River Twice Research.

The president’s aggressive–and factually doubtful–attacks have triggered expressed concerns about the fragility of our democracy and possibilities for the powers of the state to be used to quash private business. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said Trump’s criticizes on Amazon echoed Mussolini’s Italy, where the commonwealth cowed private corporations or destroyed them. Sheila Bair, former chair of the FDIC, suggested that Trump is subverting the Bill of Rights by assailing a company based on personal pique at negative coverage in the Bezos-owned Washington Post.

Yet, here as abroad, the reaction to Trump may say more about his ability to kindle strong and often negative infatuations than about how close the US is to a constitutional crisis or an deterioration of fundamental liberties. Trump is scarcely the first chairperson to attack a large fellowship by reputation. He is by no means the first to let his personal animus prescribe his approach , nor the only to entertain employing the significant powers of the conference of presidents to harm or hobble a company or CEO that he detests. While the past is at best prologue, compared against presidents of yore, Trump scarcely stands out as remarkable in his willingness to engage in personal and public brawl with big corporations that pee-pee him off.

Take Teddy Roosevelt. He famously began his tenure in the White House, on the heels of the assassination of William McKinley, with a dedicate to take on the great corporations then referred to as “trusts.” He wrote to Congress at the end of 1901 that “There is a widespread conviction in the mindset of the American parties that the largest corporations known as the cartels are in certain of their the characteristics and bias hurtful to the general welfare.” The only way to safeguard the common good and counter the “crimes of cunning” perpetrated by the business world was to more aggressively use the authority of the recently passed Sherman Antitrust Act.

Roosevelt then proceeded to take over the most significant trust of the day, the Northern Securities Company structured in 1901 by an alliance of banker JP Morgan, railroad tycoons, and oilmen including John D. Rockefeller. The arising holding company limited an excess percentage of the nation’s rail line, with the health risks to grow prices for its own earning at the public’s overhead. So Roosevelt–personally–instructed his attorney general to engage Northern Securities under the Sherman Act. The trust crusaded back, but the State supreme court ultimately backed with national governments and Northern Securities was forced to dissolve.

Trump has yet to do anything nearly as draconian. Some have suggested that he is responsible for the Justice Department’s suit to block the proposed merger of AT& T with Time Warner, because of his oft-stated disapproval of Time Warner’s CNN. But it appears that the case was instead put forward by the attorneys in the antitrust discord and not on the urge of the White House. Nor has Trump utilized the Justice Department to go after any other busines. His texts may be foreboding but his actions here have been essentially non-existent.

After Northern Securities, Roosevelt’s trust busting convened great defiance, as courtrooms demonstrated less willingness to certify breakups. Franklin Roosevelt had more success tearing down the supremacy of big banks during the Great Depression. The big banks’ role in the crisis remains unclear, but FDR saw them his prime target in 1933. “A tiny radical had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor–other people’s lives.” Such assaults may have been seen as justifiable, but numerous Trump followers appreciate his attacks on some private corporations as equally vindicated. All is not in the eye of the bystander, but some surely is.

Flash forward to the 1960 s, when John F. Kennedy squared off against the CEO of US Steel over sword rates. Believing that “hes been” double-crossed by CEO Roger Blough over the size of price increases, Kennedy devoted to retaliate. “You have made a terrible mistake, ” Kennedy told him. “You have double-crossed me.” He then announced at a press conference that the steel conglomerate was guilty of “a wholly unjustifiable and reckless defiance of the general interest, ” perpetrated by “a tiny handful of steel administrations whose chase of private superpower and profits excess their appreciation of public responsibility.” Kennedy ordered the Defense Department to steer orderings away from US Steel and towards firms who hadn’t invoked tolls, and instructed other agencies to probe US Steel for regulatory and tax irregularities.

Arguably, Kennedy’s vendetta against US Steel was a move to defend the public good against a private company’s self-interest, but specific actions and the anger were nonetheless personal. Kennedy pictured an easy dismis for process and a casual willingness to exit mano o mano with a corporate administration simply because he find a deal hadn’t been reputation. Somehow, republic and the republic survived.

And then there was Nixon, whose rampage and craze at the press and at antagonists real and perceived are captured in hundreds of hours of tape-recorded dialogues. It was Nixon after all who publicly accused his enemies of a “witch hunt.” Not simply did he sue both the Washington Post and The New York Times for divulges of the Pentagon Papers, he ranted late into the night about Jews controlling the media. His threats and usage were raw and ripe and menacing, and perhaps the biggest difference with Trump was that most of those spouts were in private. He employed the FBI to molest foes, and the IRS to put pressure on corporations that he did not like or that he felt had traversed him. In the process, Nixon provoked a constitutional crisis of the style that Trump’s critics now fear.

For the moment, Trump hasn’t started that far. But this little tour of biography suggests that influence struggles between the chairpersons and large-scale fellowships were based on different savvies of the lawful powers of government. We may tend to side with JFK in his campaign against big-hearted sword, but it was still a questionable call of presidential power based mainly on personal indignation that a deal–with no patrol of law–had fallen apart. The expectation of the executive branch running after a private firm can seem ruffling, but it’s barely unique to Trump. His oral assaults are a long way from dictatorship and the end of the principles of the rule of law. Messages and deeds are not the same thing. That isn’t an argument for complacency, but it is a call for waiting until statements carry in disturbing deeds before we seem the klaxon too loud.

Trump vs. Amazon

Amazon views artificial intelligence as a “flywheel” to strengthen the company. Go inside the lab where Amazon’s Alexa takes over the world. Amazon is dead serious about delivering goods by monotone.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here