Metaphorically, you could go with either pigs or clocks. Take your choice: "Even a blind pig can sometimes find an acorn," or: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." But perhaps that's too dismissive, since Donald Trump suddenly championing an issue that originated among progressive Democrats is not really just random chance. Trump is doing so for his own political benefit, plain and simple. But in this particular case, progressives should still try to work with him to see if some sort of deal could actually be achieved. Because the biggest beneficiary could be the American people.

Right now, Trump is worried -- and he has every right to be. He is worried about Republicans' chances in the midterm elections, and he deeply fears Democrats retaking control of the House (or perhaps even the Senate, too). He knows Congress won't continue to act as his doormat for the final two years of his term if that happens. And Trump also knows he is most vulnerable on the economy.

Trump campaigned in 2024 on how he would magically bring down prices on everything "on Day One." We are approaching the milestone of his first year in office, however, and prices on all sorts of things remain high -- and they've gotten worse due to Trump's tariffs (which are nothing more than a tax on American consumers). So he is floundering around seeking some quick fix that will make him more popular on the economic front. He's recently latched onto a number of ideas, and this weekend floated a new one: a one-year limitation on credit card companies to charge no more than 10 percent interest.

This could be a very potent issue indeed. The blind pig found an especially-tasty acorn, to put it metaphorically. Big banks have been charging Americans what can only be called usurious interest rates for a long time now. Even people with good credit routinely get charged over 20 percent, and those with not-so-good credit can pay over 30 percent interest on their credit card balances. That is outrageous.

Progressives -- people like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- have been calling for a law limiting credit card interest rates to only 10 percent (which is still a very high rate, when compared to any other loan these days). And now somehow the idea has came to the attention of Donald Trump.

Trump being Trump, he proposed what seems like a completely unworkable and temporary solution. He seems to be flirting with just issuing an executive order, and has only called for a 10-percent limit on credit card rates for a single year (which is, coincidentally enough, long enough to push the issue out just beyond this year's midterm elections). Neither would really solve the problem, though.

A president can't change banking laws or regulations by executive order alone. He just can't. Such a move would require Congress to act. And what good would only a one-year limit be, really? The only way to bring real relief to American consumers would be to make it permanent. Which is exactly what the progressives have been proposing.

The banks, of course, have already begun to howl. According to them, their business model would suffer if they couldn't charge 20, 25, or 30 percent interest rates to credit card holders. They also threaten to revoke credit for those without perfect credit scores, and predict that millions of families would be left in the lurch without their credit cards.

There is some truth to their claims. Credit would likely become more restricted. Credit card fees may either rise or suddenly appear, as banks scramble to make up the lost revenue. And those with weak credit could lose access to it and be forced to only use debit cards instead. But the whole process might not be as apocalyptic as they are predicting. The big banks rake in an exorbitant amount of money from credit cards, so it might just cut into their profit margins a bit -- but they'll be wary of cutting too many people off from credit entirely, since that would shrink their profits even more. Nobody really knows how it would all play out -- which is something to keep in mind when you hear banking industry talking points.

Cutting credit card rates to 10 percent would help out an enormous amount of consumers, however. Many people are crippled by credit card debt and can barely afford the minimum payment each month. If that minimum payment had less interest in it (which always must be paid first, since the bank gets its cut before anything else), then people would begin paying down their principals a lot faster. The move could even boost the overall economy as well, since it would free up some money (previously paid as monthly interest) to consumers, who might just spend some of it as a result.

To progressives, the issue is one of fairness and populism. Banks shouldn't be allowed to charge rates which have crossed the borderline into loan-sharking, period. Banks shouldn't be allowed to bleed people dry in such a fashion. They can make money in other ways, without resorting to such usury. They're not going to go broke if credit card rates are limited to 10 percent. It's the billionaires versus the people -- it seamlessly fits right into the entire progressive agenda. But surprisingly, the issue is already somewhat bipartisan, as Senator Josh Hawley (not generally known for being a moderate Republican) joined with Bernie last year to put forward a bill to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent. Trump reportedly got the bee in his bonnet this weekend right after speaking to Tucker Carlson, who previously endorsed the Hawley-Sanders bill. So there's some populist support on the right already, even before Trump jumped into the fray.

Still, it was surprising to read this, in an article on Elizabeth Warren telling the Democratic Party to be boldly progressive:

[Elizabeth Warren] also repeatedly slammed [Donald] Trump for failing to live up to his populist promises, arguing he's letting bipartisan legislation to increase housing supply wither and die and challenging him to work with Democrats on a proposal to cap credit card interest rates.

"At least so far, he hasn't delivered anything that would take one dollar out of the pocket of a billionaire in America," she said.

(After the speech, Warren said, Trump called her and offered to work together on credit card interest rate legislation.)

That's pretty stunning, you have to admit. Donald Trump called up Elizabeth Warren and offered to work together on a progressive economic agenda item. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and all of that. This shows how pinched Trump is getting on the economy, more than anything else. His polling on the economy is so dismal it could drag his entire party down this November -- and he knows it.

While Trump cannot dictate bank interest rates by fiat, he sure thinks he can. He issued a threat to the big banks to comply with his one-year limit of 10 percent by January 20th. It is, of course, an empty threat, when it comes to legalities. If the deadline passes and the banks don't budge, then nothing will happen. Trump may issue an executive order, but it will be a completely toothless bit of political posturing without a bill from Congress.

Then again, who knows? It might work, at least partially. One of Trump's strengths is how viciously he can bully big corporations into doing what he wants them to do. He's done so to lawyers, the entertainment industry, big tech, and any number of others. Trump threatens, and they knuckle under. You might say Trump has redefined what Teddy Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit" of the presidency (with a more-modern usage of the word "bully").

With Trump's political weight behind the idea, a whole lot of Republicans in Congress might also jump on board. The problem with taking on the big banks is that they spread their campaign contributions around between the two parties enough that people like Warren and Sanders (and, to be fair, Hawley) have to fight within their own party before they can even begin fighting with the other side. Big reform bills never make it to the floor, as they are quietly scrapped in committee, by politicians from both sides of the aisle who are beholden to the big banks for campaign funding.

Even the threat of congressional action might be enough, in the end. If the big banks saw that Donald Trump had teamed up with progressive Democrats to cast the big banks in the role of evil villain, they might start making moves on their own, in the hopes of fending off proposed legislation (and averting some of the wrath of the public). Maybe it wouldn't result in a complete drop to 10 percent across the board, and maybe it wouldn't last for more than one year (which is what Trump is so far demanding), but at this point anything would certainly be a step in the right direction. If banks voluntarily reformed in a big way, it might (as they would hope) dampen the issue politically to the point where they could plausibly say: "See? Legislation is not needed!"

With Donald Trump (and Tucker Carlson) from one side joining Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the other, maybe they could successfully shame the rest of Congress into actually doing something. Trump could finally act on all that populist bluster he ran on, in a very big way. It might help him out in November, and it might help progressive Democrats out instead (a lot would depend on who had the better messaging on the issue). But no matter who it helps politically, both sides should make the effort.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant