Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

There’s No Method To His Madness

The New Republic recently ran an essay titled “There is No Method to his Madness. He’s Simply Insane.” I couldn’t agree more.

The article began by noting that past heads of state have sometimes pretended irrationality in order to confuse opponents, but noted–confirming what any rational observer has already concluded–Trump is not among them. For one thing, he clearly lacks the intellectual capacity to devise such a strategy. Or any strategy.

It’s not just Trump’s unpredictable tariff policy that appears insane. His entire administration is defined by madness—in both senses. On Friday, he went on another incoherent rant on social media, claiming once that the 2020 election was stolen from him and rewriting history to blame all of our current problems, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, on Joe Biden. In other Truth Social posts, he’s boasted about being a king and claimed that the “European Union was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States.”

If these acts were merely confined to deranged posts, perhaps one could argue there’s “method in his madness.” After his rant on Friday, Trump gave a speech at the Justice Department wherein he kvetched about various imaginary enemies of the United States (which, coincidentally, are his personal enemies) and made clear that he expects the department to serve as an extension of his personal wrath. Similar delusions have led to the dismantling of USAID, a wasteful visit to Fort Knox to check if the gold had been stolen, and continual talk about annexing other countries.

The article goes on to detail further evidence that our would-be King has no (mental) clothes, despite his courtiers’ efforts to find method in the madness.

What makes the insanity so dangerous, however, isn’t simply Trump’s ignorance of governance and economics, but the venom that characterizes his approach to others, and the festering resentments that impel his actions. Trump is a limited intellect and damaged ego occupying a human body;  fears and jealousies and grievances–not strategies or principles–prompt his eruptions, and explain both his grandiose fantasies (comparing himself to Winston Churchill, annexing Canada) and his tacky decorating fetishes (gold toilets).

While it would be inaccurate to describe them as principles, there are a few long-standing grievances that predictably motivate Trump’s constant stream of illegal (and often ridiculous) Executive Orders. Our mad king thinks he is in a position to take revenge, not just over the legal system which (finally) was holding him to account, but over all those people who sneered at him over the years–those “elitists” with their intellectual and cultural bona fides, the businesspeople who made their fortunes without ripping off suppliers or hiding in bankruptcy court, the women who found his “charms” unpersuasive.

Politics gave Trump the adulation he wanted, but from people he clearly despises.

Those long-standing resentments explain so much: Trump’s war on a legal community defending rules he regularly broke–and his special animus for the lawyers who had the nerve to represent people antagonistic to him. His refusal to allow disclosure of his own GPA undoubtedly sheds some light on his efforts to destroy intellectual inquiry on the nation’s campuses. Both his own resentments and the need to pander to his MAGA cult help explain his efforts to turn academia into a mechanism for Right-wing propaganda.

As for the roots of his White Nationalism–his definition of “DEI” as discrimination against White men and his ferocious efforts to return women and minorities to subservience–I can only assume that he agrees with MAGA that his White skin is a sign that he is superior and that any effort to ensure fair treatment for women and minorities is an attack on that superiority. (Unfortunately, his entire administration demonstrates the folly of believing Whiteness denotes even minimal competence…)

Bottom line: the United States has a president who is ignorant, petulant and demonstrably insane. He is also, in all probability, a Russian asset. Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently not working, because members of the GOP majorities in the House and Senate fear the mad king and are not living up to their oaths of office, and the Supreme Court’s majority is ethically compromised.

The remedy must come from We the People. And it begins by acknowledging the truth of that last paragraph.

Comments

Poison Gas

I have repeatedly cited the observation by a noted civil libertarian to the effect that poison gas is a great weapon–until the wind shifts.

In case the clear meaning of that observation eludes anyone, it is a recognition that ignoring the rule of law in order to punish people you dislike is a very dangerous tactic, because when those disliked folks gain power–as they inevitably will– they can turn those same illegal tactics against you.

It is abundantly clear that Trump and his MAGA minions don’t understand the operation of due process guarantees. (Granted, Trump is embarrassingly ignorant of all civil liberties, and indeed, ignorant of how the world works.) That ignorance is shown by the increasing hysteria with which the administration keeps asserting that Abrego Garcia is “a bad dude,” and that bad dudes aren’t entitled to due process.

There is substantial evidence to rebut the administration’s accusations about Garcia, but their probity is totally irrelevant. Giving an accused individual due process requires that the government prove its allegations in a court of law. If Garcia is really a gang member or otherwise unfit to live among us, the state should be able to demonstrate that fact. A grant of due process doesn’t keep authorities from expelling bad guys–but it does require government to provide the evidence upon which they are painting an individual as someone who should be expelled from our shores.

If a mere accusation is poison gas sufficient to justify deportation, none of us is safe. The accusatory finger can be pointed at anyone, for any reason. That’s why Talking Points Memo–among many others–has  editorialized about the extreme importance of this case.

As best we can tell, Abrego Garcia was on the third deportation flight from Texas to El Salvador on March 15. The other two flights contained people deported under the Alien Enemies Act without any judicial review. The AEA deportations were the first to be challenged in court, which led to the big blow up in U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s court about whether the Trump administration had willfully violated his order blocking them.

It was in the midst of that legal battle that the case of Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation emerged, an error the Trump administration admitted, serving as the perfect signifier for why due process is so essential. If Abrego Garcia could be deported in error – and in violation of an existing order by an immigration judge – isn’t that precisely why the law offers procedural protections that all of the deportees that day were entitled to at some level?

TPM noted that the administration’s positions inside the courtroom have been at odds with its public statements. It  has gone from admitting the deportation was in error to the launch of “a full-scale propaganda campaign from the White House on down, sowing misinformation, inventing facts, smearing Abrego Garcia with falsehoods, and furiously trying to muddy the waters to obscure its own malfeasance.”

The editorial quoted Timothy Snyder, a noted scholar of tyranny:

The president defied a Supreme Court ruling to return a man who was mistakenly sent to a gulag in another country, celebrated the suffering of this innocent person, and spoke of sending Americans to foreign concentration camps.

This is the beginning of an American policy of state terror, and it has to be identified as such to be stopped.

Americans who have been following the news are aware that Garcia is only the most prominent example of extra-legal apprehensions and deportations, which have been accelerating under this lawless regime. This reality–among other Trump acts in defiance of the rule of law–has brought us to the current constitutional crisis, as the administration stonewalls and evades, and refuses to submit to court orders.

The Republicans in the House and Senate could end this crisis. Even if they failed to impeach the mad king, they could assert their powers under the Constitution and take back the authority that Trump has usurped–authority that is rightfully theirs. Their failure to do so–the cowardice preventing them from even publicly protesting Trump’s blatantly illegal, unconstitutional and immoral behaviors–is a betrayal of immense proportions. Assuming we emerge from the current abyss, these Republicans will go down in history as weaklings and traitors whose failure to honor their oaths is a repudiation of the values upon which this country was founded.

It will also be seen as an invitation to turn the poison gas in their direction when Democrats gain control. Of course, if that happens, we really will have lost the Founders’ America.

Comments

The Problem With Mad Kings

Back in 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style,” in which I explored the role of trust in government and civil society. My research for that book involved dipping into the considerable scholarship on the subject, and confirmed the immense importance of trustworthy behavior by both governments and the various elements of our society. I traced the negative effects of then-emerging examples of untrustworthy behaviors–by businesses like Enron, by a variety of sports figures, and by religious figures. (Catholic Church scandals were in the news daily.)

I did not, however, turn my attention to the importance of trust to national economic performance. Paul Krugman has recently filled that void, explaining the likely, significantly negative consequences of having a madman and would-be king occupying the Oval Office.

Krugman began by focusing on the stupidity of the law firms that “bent the knee” to our mad king–pointing out what should have been blatantly obvious (and raising doubts about the intellectual and analytic bona fides of the fat-cat partners who cowered before Trump’s patently illegal threats.)

Less than a month ago many of America’s biggest law firms made deals with the White House in which they promised to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices and to devote substantial resources to pro bono work on causes the administration supports. It was a shameful capitulation.

It was also stupid. Anyone who looked either at Donald Trump’s personal history or the history of authoritarian regimes in general would have realized that there’s no such thing as a deal with this administration. Whatever you think Trump and co. have agreed to, they will feel entirely free to make new demands whenever it suits them.

Those firms should have known that giving in to Trump just signals weakness, which leads him to demand further concessions.

Then Krugman explains why Trump’s mercurial behaviors are such a threat to the American economy. U.S. efforts to build an anti-China trade alliance are doomed to failure, Krugman says,  “Because nobody with any sense trusts the Trump administration to honor the terms of any deals it makes, whether they’re deals about pro bono work with law firms or tariff deals with other governments.”

And as more and more people realize that Trump and his minions can’t be trusted, the damage will spread from trade to finance. The international role of the dollar and, eventually, America’s ability to service its debt are very much at risk.

Why can’t Donald Trump be trusted? Partly because he’s Donald Trump. But even if he weren’t, absolute monarchs — which is what Trump is trying to become — are fundamentally untrustworthy. The ruler may sometimes choose to honor his promises, but it’s always his choice — a choice that can be changed at any moment. And his untrammeled power makes the nation he rules weaker, not stronger.

Krugman uses historical examples to buttress his central argument that reliance upon a nation’s commitment to the rule of law–a commitment that promises stability–is central to economic growth and prosperity. And as he says, Trump will be unable to make trade deals because nobody trusts his promises.

The international role of the dollar depends in significant part on the belief that the U.S. government can be trusted to behave responsibly. “Among other things, international investors normally assume that the president will respect the independence of the Federal Reserve and refrain from, say, arbitrarily rewriting the terms of federal debt.”

Krugman ends his economics lesson by writing that, “Even now, I don’t think businesses, investors and the public in general fully appreciate what it means that we’re all subject to the whims of a mad king. But they’ll learn.’

Actually, there are indications that the more sophisticated investors and businesspeople are beginning to understand the enormous consequences of installing this madman in office, and of surrounding him with sycophants and clowns unable to restrain his incoherence.

But I’m quite sure Krugman is correct when he says that the public in general doesn’t “get it.”

A couple of days ago, I quoted Frederich Hayek for his analysis of the conditions giving rise to the emergence of “the worst.” They were 1) a dumbed down populace, 2) a gullible electorate, and 3) scapegoats on which that demagogue can focus public enmity and anger. MAGA voters have proved Hayek prescient. Millions of Americans lack even rudimentary civic and economic literacy, and have been kept gullible by media outlets that tell them what they want to hear.

And as a recent Facebook meme has it, “This is all so unfair to people who were just voting their racism.”

Sic transit America…

Comments

Why Government Grew

Among the many things that drive me up the wall (I’m close to the ceiling most of the time) is the common inability to distinguish between bigger government and inappropriately intrusive government. What the Founders feared was a government that invaded the individual liberties of citizens, not a government that established new agencies to deal with new problems.

This isn’t, I hasten to say, a misconception held only by Republicans. I still remember a friend who worked for the state during the Evan Bayh administration. His small agency was addressing the then-emerging problems of HIV. The federal government instituted a program that would have paid to place two more desperately-needed personnel in his agency–including the overhead costs of their employment. He was told he couldn’t take advantage of that program because Bayh didn’t want exposure to the accusation that state employment had increased during his term in office.

I think about that persistent bias against numerical growth–the very common inability to differentiate between the growth of power and authority and an increase in manpower–whenever I read about Musk’s determination to slash the size of government while blithely erasing limits on its authority.

A recent New York Times essay provided a perfect example of the difference–and a brief demonstration of how government growth occurs and why the Trump/Musk assault is so dangerous.

In the late 19th century, the government chemist Harvey Washington Wiley proved several shocking suspicions about the American food supply as correct: Milk was routinely thinned with dirty water, coffee contained bone, ground pepper was full of dirt, cocoa was packed with sand, and cayenne was loaded with brick dust.

The findings turned Wiley into a crusader for food safety, and by 1906 Congress finally agreed that regulations were needed. With the passage of the Food and Drugs Act and the Meat Inspection Act, the United States created the framework for a federal system to test ingredients, inspect food factories and recall unsafe products.

This system has been criticized as seriously underfunded and often overcautious. But it has prevented a return to the fraudulent and poisonous food supply of the 19th century, which one historian called the “century of the great American stomachache.” That is, until recently, when the Trump administration began to unravel that safety net.

When this nation’s Founders wrote the Constitution, most Americans still grew their own food. If mom wanted to cook chicken for dinner, she was likely to go out in the yard and wring the neck of one of her flock; if that chicken was ill, the consequences were her responsibility. When food preparation became an industry, responsibility for product safety became a communal issue. The representatives of We the People decided (properly, in my view) that government had an obligation to regulate that production.

Our mad king doesn’t recognize that responsibility, and we are all endangered by the heedless effort to reduce government employment and responsibility.

Along with its other ill-considered actions, the administration has been targeting food safety programs for “downsizing.” As the linked article notes, last month two Department of Agriculture advisory committees that had provided guidance on fighting microbial contamination of food as well as meat inspection protocols were simply shut down. (If that wasn’t dangerous enough, the administration also expanded the ability of some meat processors to speed up their production lines–a provision that makes it more difficult to carry out careful inspections.)

The administration also delayed a rule that would have required both manufacturers and grocery companies to quickly investigate food contamination and pull risky products from sale. At the start of April, thousands of federal health workers were fired on the orders of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; a plan called for terminating 3,500 employees at the Food and Drug Administration — a move that he welcomed as a “revolution.” Consumer watchdogs and others described it as a safety blood bath.

Of course, it isn’t just food safety. Or drug efficacy. The Founders didn’t envision an FAA, either. Forgive me for wondering whether the recent rash of air mishaps is connected to the “downsizing” of that agency. And while the MAGA morons dispute the reality of climate change–okay, the utility of science generally–the EPA also protects the water we drink and the air we breathe from industrial pollution, among other things that didn’t exist in the 1700s. The list goes on.

The threat to individual liberty doesn’t come from the employment of officials to monitor food and drug safety, or oversee air traffic. The threat comes from autocrats unwilling to respect the constraints of the Bill of Rights.

Comments

Health And Safety

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry while you’re watching the Keystone Kops dismantle the federal government.

A recent article charting the decimation of HHS under RFK, Jr.–aka Mr. Brain Worm– contained the following tidbits: employees who were laid off and who wanted to pursue discrimination complaints were told to contact Anita Pinder, former director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights. Pinder died last year.  Then there was the report that a number of FDA staff members only discovered they were part of the sweeping reduction in force when they arrived for work one morning and their badges would no longer let them into the building.

Kennedy’s haphazard and unprecedented downsizing of the federal health workforce–the dismissal of twenty thousand workers–was evidently conducted with similar inattention to careful analysis, let alone standard procedures or pesky details. The dismissals removed what the article called “a broad swath of expertise: biomedical scientists, staff who respond to freedom of information requests and researchers who work to improve patient safety.”

Those dismissed from HHS included numerous senior leaders–individuals who represented often irreplaceable institutional memory.

At the National Institutes of Health, a nearly $48 billion biomedical research agency, at least five top leaders were put on leave. Among those offered reassignment were the infectious-disease institute director Jeanne Marrazzo, according to emails obtained by The Post and multiple people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Marrazzo had succeeded Anthony S. Fauci as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which helped lead the nation’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and later became a target of Republicans. An internal email showed that two other leaders there, H. Clifford Lane and Emily Erbelding, also lost their jobs, and the agency had no advance notice of who had been targeted for layoffs through the reduction in force, or RIF

The story was the same throughout the reckless purge of HHS. At the CDC, for example, senior leaders overseeing global health, infectious diseases, chronic disease, HIV, sexually transmitted disease, tuberculosis, outbreak forecasting and information technology were all among those notified that they would be reassigned to the Indian Health Service (a reassignment most refused). The article quoted one official for the probable effect: “The agency will not be able to function. Let’s be honest.”

The purge included some 3500 scientists working on bird flu and vaccine safety, as well as the safety of the U.S. food supply and tobacco products.

“The FDA as we’ve known it is finished, with most of the leaders with institutional knowledge and a deep understanding of product development and safety no longer employed,” Robert Califf, who served as FDA commissioner under Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, wrote on LinkedIn on Tuesday morning.

Forbes was among the publications warning that the cuts could have profound effects on the health and well-being of Americans. A capacity to respond to emerging new diseases that has arguably already been inadequate will be even more vastly curtailed; food and drug safety are being imperiled; and research on diseases like cancer, Alzheimers and Parkinsons (among many others) will be dramatically set back. Other cuts significantly reduced the number of caseworkers who assist Affordable Care Act consumers and Medicare beneficiaries.

The list goes on.

And what about the “savings” being touted? Will the vast majority of Americans whose health and safety are being compromised by these ill-considered dismissals at least see a financial benefit? Hardly. The Trump administration is “saving” this money in order to fund further tax reductions for the wealthy–trading the health and well-being of the many for fatter pockets for the few.

America has long been the only Western democratic country without a program of national health care. Now we face the prospect of greatly diminished public health and safety protections, in order to exempt our plutocrats from paying their fair share of taxes.

Makes me want to ask those folks with the red hats: are we great yet?

Comments