Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Can Trump/Musk Take Us Back?

At the base of the Trump/Musk war on American values is the question whether the cultural progress we’ve made really can be rolled back–whether the effort to excise references to women and minorities from government websites and bully corporations and universities into abandoning “woke” DEI efforts can successfully return the country to White Christian male dominance. No matter what other excuses are offered by Trump voters, it is that goal that elected Donald Trump.

Call me Pollyanna, but I don’t think it will be successful.

I don’t want to minimize the significance of Trump’s assault on our government and our Constitution–an assault conducted by a senile, intellectually-limited and very greedy man. (His elevation to an office for which he is manifestly unfit was a result of the MAGA bigotry he very clearly shares, but it facilitated his increasingly overt corruption. Want a favor from this autocrat? Buy enough of his “meme coins” and I’m sure he’ll be favorably disposed….)

I understand that what we face is frightening.

That said, America’s culture really has moved on from the bad old days. I’ve lived through the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement and the sexual revolution, and I can attest to the fact that the social environment we inhabit today (at least in cities…and probably even in most rural precincts) is considerably different than the one I was born into.

I thought about how far those changes have taken us when I went with members of my (mixed religion) family to a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at Indianapolis’ Athenaeum–a magnificent edifice that once served as home for our city’s pro-Nazi German American bund. It was a mob scene of Black, White and Asian folks wearing green, and I couldn’t help thinking how far the Irish have come from the early days of Irish immigration, when native-born “real” Americans criticized Irish immigrants for  their supposed laziness and lack of discipline, their public drinking style, their religion, and their presumed capacity for criminality and violence. (Sound familiar?)

Today, Americans from a wide variety of backgrounds–including our local German establishments– don green clothes and drink green beer to celebrate St. Patrick’s day.

It isn’t just the integration of Irish and German immigrants. Over the past half-century, Blacks and women have become increasingly prominent parts of the workforce and the political world, intermarriages between people of different races and religions have soared, gay folks have come out and married…and while we’re still adjusting our attitudes about people who identify as trans, understanding and acceptance are infinitely higher than they once were.

That cultural progress has produced major changes in both law and public opinion. As the Brookings Institution has noted, it’s not 1968 anymore. “Seventy-six percent of Americans now say that discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in the United States is a “big problem,” including 57% of conservatives, 71% of whites, and 69% of whites without college degrees. Pew Research has found that  large shares of Americans recognize the existence of discrimination against minorities. “About eight-in-ten see discrimination against Muslims and Jews, as well as against Arab, Black and Hispanic people.” That percentage is considerably higher than those who believe–with MAGA and Donald Trump– that efforts at equity  discriminate against White Christians.

The electoral successes of MAGA Republicans would have been impossible but for the frantic resistance of  White Christian Evangelicals to these cultural changes. While the rest of us have been going about our daily lives, accepting (and often applauding) the changes in the culture, White Christian Nationalists have mounted a determined resistance. They are not a majority of Americans, but the real majority–the rest of us– have large differences in ideology and political identity. The cultish coherence of MAGA’s resentments and anger have allowed them to amass far more power than their raw numbers would entitle them to.

THE question that confronts us now is whether those of us who applaud–or at least accept– America’s social and cultural changes can resist the Trump/MAGA efforts to return us to a much meaner time.

Can those of us in the majority– Black and White, Hispanic and Asian, Jew and Muslim and atheist, the civically active and the politically apathetic– come together and resist the intense rage of the White Christian Nationalists? Can we ignore our very real differences and work together toward the shared goal of protecting the American Idea and restoring constitutional government?

If we can all be Irish on St. Patrick’s day, this Pollyanna thinks we can.

Comments

Doonesbury Understands What MAGA Doesn’t…

I tried to reproduce last Sunday’s Doonesbury cartoon in lieu of today’s post, but my digital skills weren’t up to the task, so I will have to describe and discuss it instead.

The comic strip’s radio personality, Mark, gets a call from Al Gore. The conversation focuses on what Mark says was Gore’s “jam”–government efficiency. Gore explains that it had indeed been his “job one” as Vice President, and that in the space of seven years that effort had reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 workers, consolidated 800 agencies and eliminated 640,000 pages of rules.

When Mark says “Wait. Why didn’t I know any of that,” Gore responds “You didn’t notice because the process was carefully planned and responsibly executed. It never disrupted essential public services. Compare that to now.”

As I read that comic strip, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. (Okay, I did both.)

In just a few panels, Gary Trudeau made an essential point: if your intent was really to improve service delivery, to root out fraud and waste (and in most bureaucracies, very much including government, waste is a far more prevalent problem than intentional fraud), you would go about that task carefully. Responsibly. You wouldn’t approach it with what Paul Krugman has aptly called a group of Dunning-Kruger interns and a meat-ax.

You would take the time to determine what each agency did, and take care not to lose valuable institutional knowledge with your layoffs and firings–especially when that knowledge was essential to the management of things like atomic weaponry. You would learn the vagaries of government’s (frequently antiquated) digital systems, and avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions, avoiding ludicrous and easily debunked assertions that millions of dead Americans are receiving Social Security checks.

It has become abundantly clear that Musk’s manic exhibit with a chain-saw was a perfect representation of his real motive: to destroy the federal government–what the Rightwing crazies call their war against “the administrative state.”

I think there are two distinct reasons for pursuing that destruction, although they are not mutually exclusive. (Musk rather obviously falls into both categories.)

One motivation for the chain-saw approach is the naive and increasingly divorced from reality belief that we don’t really need government, except perhaps to maintain law and order. All those regulations that–among other things– keep your groceries safe to eat, prevent your bank from ripping you off and keep your airplane from crashing, and all those silly programs that do things like feed schoolchildren and support cancer research–and especially all those intrusive rules that prevent you from discriminating against people who have different skin colors, genders or religions–all of that activity is an unnecessary intrusion on your individual rights.

Once Musk bought Twitter and turned it into the cesspool of bigotry and ignorance that is now called X, his belief that government should operate minimally– and only for the benefit of rich White men– became clear. (As if we’d failed to notice..)

The second motivation is greed. We’ve seen the billionaires “bend the knee” to an administration that is hell-bent on destroying the economic system that facilitated their acquisition of wealth, evidently in the belief that when markets crash and they are free of regulations and that pesky rule of law, they will be in a position to buy low. (Their accompanying belief that they will be able to sell high after a time, however, is fatally flawed–stock values are unlikely to rebound in the absence of a stable democratic society, just as America’s reputation as a reliable ally is unlikely to recover in our lifetimes, if ever.)

Sometimes, uncomfortable truths are better conveyed by humor than by the efforts of would-be pundits writing blogs like this one. People of a certain age still quote a very famous Pogo strip for an essential insight: We have met the enemy and he is us.

The question we are now facing is: how many of us are willing to confront that particular insight? How many of us are willing to accept the unavoidable inefficiencies and annoyances that come with a government able to serve us all–and to fight for its preservation?

I guess we’ll find out…..

Comments

What Real Conservatives Understand

Bret Stephens is a conservative columnist for the New York Times. He recently penned an essay titled “Democracy Dies in Dumbness”–a take-off the Washington Post’s slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” That essay made two points I’ve tried to convey here.

Genuine conservatives, like Stephens, are appalled by what is being done by the MAGA radicals who are routinely identified as conservative. MAGA, Trump and Musk are anything but, and to label them such is an affront to actual conservatives. The second point–and the one amply documented in Stephens’ essay– is that the most obvious element of this horrific administration is its profound stupidity.

A lot of people, especially well-meaning “libruls,” strain to find some nefarious logic to the disasters Trump is perpetrating in Washington–some evidence that he’s an “evil genius,” or at the very least operating with some sort of intent, misplaced though it may be. To this I say bullfeathers! He’s ignorant, very stupid and also very clearly mentally ill. (I leave it to each of you to decide what that says about those in his devoted MAGA base.)

Stephens detailed much of the ignorance:

It used to be common knowledge — not just among policymakers and economists but also high school students with a grasp of history — that tariffs are a terrible idea. The phrase “beggar thy neighbor” meant something to regular people, as did the names of Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis Hawley. Americans broadly understood how much their 1930 tariff, along with other protectionist and isolationist measures, did to turn a global economic crisis into another world war. Thirteen successive presidents all but vowed never to repeat those mistakes.

Until Donald Trump. Until him, no U.S. president had been so ignorant of the lessons of history. Until him, no U.S. president had been so incompetent in putting his own ideas into practice.

Stephens labels Trump “a willful, erratic and heedless president,” and says he’s prepared to risk both the U.S. and the global economy “to make his ideological point.” I disagree with him only on his evident belief that Trump has an “ideological point.”  I really doubt that Trump could spell ideological, let alone that he possess an articulable “point” he wants to make. He acts solely out of grievance, racism, anger and an insatiable desire for attention–as the inconsistency of his impulsive and damaging actions show, there is no coherent belief system motivating any of this.

Stephens does take on the obvious stupidity:

The Department of Government Efficiency won’t end well. It is neither a department nor efficient — and “government efficiency” is, by Madisonian design, an oxymoron. A gutted I.R.S. work force won’t lower your taxes; it will delay your refund. Mass firings of thousands of federal employees won’t result in a more productive work force; it will mean a decade of litigation and billions of dollars in legal fees. High-profile eliminations of wasteful spending (some real, others not) won’t make a dent in federal spending; they’ll mask the untouchable drivers of our $36 trillion debt: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense.

Just as you don’t cure cancer by shutting down cancer research, walking away from NATO won’t achieve greater security for anyone, including ourselves. What passes for Trumpian foreign policy has already done incalculable damage. His “policy”– centered on cozying up to Russia– is monumentally stupid; as Stephens notes, what Trump has achieved internationally is a Russia that sees even less reason to settle, a Europe that sees more reason to go its own way, a China that believes America will eventually fold, and a once-again betrayed Ukraine that will have even less reason to trust international guarantees of its security.

In his last paragraph, Stephens makes a point with which I entirely agree.

Trump’s critics are always quick to see the sinister sides of his actions and declarations. An even greater danger may lie in the shambolic nature of his policymaking. Democracy may die in darkness. It may die in despotism. Under Trump, it’s just as liable to die in dumbness.

I just hope that there will be a government to salvage when we finally eject Trump, Musk, the clown show they’ve assembled and the sorry bunch of Christian Nationalists and elected invertebrates who continue to enable them.

Comments

The Real DEI

As Trump and Musk continue to destroy the government agencies that monitor or prevent the illegal activities that enrich them, they’ve pursued an ancillary effort that lays bare the source of Trump’s narrow electoral win: MAGA’s war on “wokism” in general and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in particular.

As I have previously noted, the animosity toward efforts to address social and legal discrimination are part and parcel of an unfortunate but persistent strain of American bigotry. To our shame, millions of Americans have defended slavery and Jim Crow, opposed votes for women, donned white sheets and marched with the Ku Klux Klan. Others–who were less virulent but no less bigoted–merely refrained from hiring or otherwise doing business with minority folks, and blackballed Blacks and Jews from their country clubs and other venues.

The current assaults, ironically, are evidence of the nation’s historic protection of straight White Christian males from the uncomfortable reality that they are not a superior breed. It turns out that intellect, character and ability–and absences thereof– are pretty equally distributed among all races, religions and genders.

For confirmation of that fact, we need look no farther than the collection of clowns, incompetents and sycophants Trump has installed in important positions, and compare them to the credentialed and competent “DEI hires” he ejected from those same positions. If we ever needed evidence that White skin is no guarantee of intelligence, integrity or competence, virtually all of Trump’s appointees provide that evidence.

Trump’s base undoubtedly approves of the ferocity with which the administration has pursued its assault on anti-discrimination efforts, but it turns out that Americans in general have moved on from the days when your police chief was a disciple of Sheriff James Clark and your friendly banker or dentist was a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

A recent article in the Atlantic looked at the survey research, and concluded that the extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are wildly at odds with the views of most Americans.

The extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are self-evidently at odds with Americans’ views in the main. Recently, Trump appointed Darren Beattie to a senior diplomatic position at the State Department. Beattie is notorious for making arguments such as “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.” I don’t need to look at survey data to argue that this is a fringe position.

Earlier in the article, the author did look at survey data, and shared evidence of Americans’ views on DEI efforts in general.

Given the way this administration has targeted DEI and “woke” policies, you’d be forgiven for assuming that Americans were completely on board. Yet according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted right before the election, just one-fifth of employed adults think that focusing on DEI at work is “a bad thing.” Even among workers who are Republican or lean Republican, a minority (42 percent) say that focusing on DEI is “a bad thing.” In a January poll from Harris/Axios, a majority of Americans said DEI initiatives had no impact on their career; more respondents among nearly every demographic polled (including white people, men, and Republicans) said they believed it had benefited their careers more than it had hindered them. (The sole, amusing exception being Gen X.) A June 2024 poll from The Washington Post and Ipsos found that six in 10 Americans believed DEI programs were “a good thing.” And all of this was before any backlash to Trump’s presidency had time to set in.

An early signal that the administration is overreaching comes from a Washington Post poll on early Trump-administration actions, which found that voters oppose ending DEI programs in the federal government (49–46) and banning trans people from the military (53–42). When asked about one of Trump’s signature issues, deportation, the poll showed that, by a nearly 20-point margin, Americans do not want people to be deported if they “have not broken laws in the United States except for immigration laws.” It’s hard to imagine that those same Americans approve of sending a man to Gitmo for riding his bike on the wrong side of the street, or of calling a city’s administrator for homelessness services a “DEI hire” because she’s a white woman.

If there’s one thing Trump excels at, it’s demonstrating that White Christian men are not universally superior–and that those who most resent DEI tend to be both unintelligent and dangerously inept.

Comments

Straight Talk About Government Efficiency

We can only speculate about the real motives prompting Trump/Musk to take a hatchet to the federal government. That motive is clearly not efficiency–indeed, in any logical world, it would be universally seen as insane, as would the betrayal of Ukraine, which undermines America’s global interests. (That betrayal is more than likely prompted by Trump’s continuing anger over Zelensky’s prior refusal to be blackmailed into accusing Joe Biden of invented crimes. Trump holds grudges.)

As I’ve watched Musk’s illegal DOGE wreak havoc with the federal government and put millions of Americans at risk, I revisited an article from Governing published just before that “department” began it’s slash and burn operations. The author,  who had participated in several state-level efforts to root out “fraud and waste,” noted that there are proper–and improper– ways to go about that task.

Before sharing the persuasive insights of that article, however, I want to point to a truly foundational issue–one that has become far more evident as DOGE continues its destructive path through our federal government. Most Americans reject what we now understand to be Musk’s definition of “fraud and waste.” Anyone who thinks that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” is clearly incapable of providing an evidence-based definition of either fraud or waste. (Evidently, to Musk, if a government program benefits millions of Americans–or if an agency’s operations interfere with the ability of Musk’s businesses to rip off taxpayers–that function is wasteful, if not fraudulent…)

The linked article begins by agreeing that efforts to streamline government and root out inefficiencies are always appropriate. It then points to some pesky facts about federal expenditures–facts that should guide any legitimate efforts.

Musk and Ramaswamy have promised a 30 percent cut in the federal government. Roughly 60 percent or so of federal spending, however, consists of interest payments on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare and national defense — largely (though not entirely) untouchable. The projected savings therefore purport to come mostly from wiping out everything else: cutting government regulation, eliminating large numbers of government programs and firing even larger numbers of employees.

Gutting regulation does little to reduce government spending, however, while employee compensation makes up only 4 percent of the federal budget. Firing every single federal employee would barely make a ripple. Whatever the merits of all this as policy, in reality it has little to do with efficiency.

In fact, in many ways, the proposed DOGE approach illustrates how not to pursue actual efficiency in government.

The author then suggests realistic ways to make government more efficient.

Be honest and realistic. Thirty years ago, the massive National Performance Review produced recommendations shaving nearly 7 percent off federal operations… it’s possible to reduce spending by as much as 10 percent annually — although not without severe political repercussions.

The “annually recurring” part is important. It’s easy to fake savings through accounting gimmicks and one-time asset sales. Sure, you can close a budget hole by raiding dedicated funds, postponing needed infrastructure repairs or construction, or even doing a sale-leaseback of the state capitol…  Real, meaningful “efficiency” recurs year after year. In fact, so should the search for efficiency.

It would be easy to cut government spending by 30 percent by eliminating all health and welfare spending. That may be the goal under DOGE. Unfortunately, about six months later, emergency rooms will be crammed, hospital systems will be incurring massive debts through charity care, workforce productivity will plummet, and communicable diseases will proliferate. Cutting just to cut generally costs more in the long term.

 Very little government spending consists of actual fraud and abuse, and less still by beneficiaries filing claims for, say, medical care they never received. It is mostly committed, rather, by providers seeking reimbursements for care they never delivered, or by big-dollar private contractors (particularly in defense: know anyone who fits that description?).

Sometimes, spending saves money. That may sound counterintuitive, but you wouldn’t fire your accounts receivable department, would you? Hiring more revenue collectors is good “business,” even in government.

The author noted that the best way to save money is by improving service delivery, not performative gestures like slashing huge programs. Cutting inefficiency doesn’t require attacking the people who carry out the processes — it requires streamlining the processes themselves.

And rather than firing staff, if we really wanted to find ways to eliminate waste and inefficiency, we would ask the people who work for government–because those are the folks who actually know. “That’s how leaders, public or private, proceed if they’re serious about making their operations work better.”

But of course, making government work better is the farthest thing from Trump/Musk’s mind. They just want it to work better for them.

Comments