Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

MAGA’s Defender Of Christianity

Trump’s base is disproportionately composed of Christian nationalists–people who tell you they support him because he is a defender of (their version of) the Christian faith. The notion that Trump has ever encountered Christianity–or any faith tradition–is ludicrous, but then, so is the pretense that Christian nationalists represent any variety of authentic Christianity.

The other day, I was reading Heather Cox Richardson’s daily Letter, and after reading the following passages, I wanted to find a self-identified Christian nationalist (Micah Beckwith? Jim Banks?) and ask “Do you really think this is what Jesus would do?”

Here’s what Richardson wrote:

Yesterday the Trump administration said it would not use any of the approximately $6 billion the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds in reserve to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The government shutdown means that states have run out of funds to distribute to the more than 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

Roll Call’s Olivia M. Bridges notes that this position contradicts the shutdown plan the USDA released in late September. Then, it said: “Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown. These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

Yesterday’s USDA memo also says that any states that tap their own resources to provide food benefits will not be reimbursed.

That last paragraph especially infuriated me, because it makes the fact that the cruelty is intentional too obvious to miss.

The Trump administration is not only withholding food from families and children. It clearly recognizes that–as food banks have been warning–nonprofit agencies will be unable to make up the deficit. This “let them eat cake” administration is well aware that a stoppage of SNAP means that millions of Americans (disproportionately children and the elderly) will not have enough to eat. And just in case some potentially “woke” Blue state government might be tempted to step in to ameliorate the situation, the administration is sneering that they’d better not expect reimbursements.

I guess those states will join the other “suckers and losers” who put themselves at risk to help their fellow Americans…

I’m not a Christian, but I cannot imagine this cruelty being consistent with the genuine teachings of Jesus. For that matter, I cannot conceive of any religion or religious tradition that teaches adherents that it’s fine to deny basic sustenance to millions of people in order to score political points. Or, for that matter, deny disaster relief to people who have the misfortune to live in Blue states, as the administration is also doing.

These and multiple other travesties are consistent with Trump’s war on “woke-ism”–and with MAGA’s belief that kindness, civility and concern for our fellow-Americans is evidence of a wimpy, “librul” unAmericanism.

At the No Kings rally I attended, a number of signs went beyond anger aimed at Trump and the incompetent clowns in his cabinet. Those signs were rebuttals to the utter inhumanity of this administration–the masked ICE goons, the effort to portray all immigrants as criminals, the constant, vicious assaults on concepts like equity and fair play.

When I was young, I could not have conceived of a President willing to portray himself as a King showering the citizens of his country with excrement–with shit. I could not have imagined a senile occupant of the Oval Office posting incoherent, misspelled diatribes on social media, or a President turning the Justice Department into a weapon of personal, petty vengeance. I absolutely would not have believed that a President of these United States would be willing to deny food to children in order to satisfy a political pique.

But this is where we are. Trump is the Jim Jones of a MAGA cult that is willing to shut the government down rather than restore the subsidies that make health insurance affordable to millions of Americans.

If these are the behaviors of a defender of Christianity, I’ll eat my hat.

Comments

A Visual Representation

A recent newsletter focusing on a conversation between Charlie Sykes and Adam Kinzinger opened with a list of Trump’s  offenses against the rule of law (and arguably, sanity…) during just one week.

Posted a video of “King Trump” dumping feces on fellow Americans.
Announced that he is completely demolishing the East Wing of the White House to make room for his sh*tty ballroom.
Demanded that the DOJ cough up $230 million in taxpayer dollars to salve his wounded ego.
Murdered two more people on the high seas, without providing either due process or actually any evidence at all.
Presided over the explosion of the national debt to $38 trillion.
Screwed over America’s farmers as he bailed out his buddies in Argentina.
Commuted the sentence of chronic fraudster, fabulist, and MAGA lickspittle George Santos; even as we learn that one of the J6 rioters pardoned by Trump was arrested for plotting the murder of a top congressional Democrat.
Failed to end the killing in Gaza or the war in Ukraine. Failed to reopen his own government.
Declared that he — Donald J. Trump — is greater than either George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

And that was just one week! 

Each of these offenses warrants an in-depth discussion. Some of them are additional evidence–as if additional evidence were needed–of his accelerating mental decline; others demonstrate his utter lack of qualifications for any public office, let alone the highest office in the land. But I want to focus in on what might seem like the least consequential of these assaults on decency and respect for the rule of law–the demolition of the East Wing of the People’s house.

That demolition is a metaphor for the entire Trump Presidency–not only because it is vivid, but because it demonstrates Trump’s inability to understand the office he holds.

In a very real sense, Presidents are tenants–entitled to reside in the White House during their terms of office. We the People are the landlords. Our tenants can make alterations if they are properly approved by the agencies entrusted with those decisions–a process that Trump has contemptuously ignored. 

Not only has Trump destroyed part of a historic structure that is not his, he is proposing to construct a gaudy and inappropriate “ballroom” that will extend over the site and dwarf the rest of the White House. And as Paul Krugman has explained, the fact that the proposed addition is gaudy and tasteless reinforces our understanding of Trump’s mentality.

Why, you might ask, at a moment of national crisis am I writing about Trump’s bad taste?

Masked government agents are snatching people off the street. The National Guard has been sent into major cities on the obviously false pretext that these cities are in chaos. The U.S. military is essentially murdering people on the high seas. Huge tariffs are, in addition to their economic costs, undermining a system of alliances former presidents spent generations building. Green energy is being eviscerated, vindictive prosecutions are the norm, and many millions are on course to lose their health insurance. So why do I want to talk about Trump’s appalling design sense?

But these aren’t separate issues, because tackiness and tyranny go hand in hand. Yes, Trump has terrible taste and probably would even if he didn’t have power and, thanks to that power, wealth. But the grotesqueness of his White House renovations is structural as well as personal. For the excess and ugliness serve a political purpose: to humiliate and intimidate. The tawdry grandiosity serves not only to glorify Trump’s fragile ego, but also to send the message that resistance is futile.

Trump’s tastelessness has long been the subject of derision. (The interior of his New York apartment–with its gold toilet, overscaled rooms, and inaccurate historical detailing has been widely mocked.) But as Krugman notes, the ballroom isn’t simply one more sign of Trump’s personal vulgarity. “Trump is turning the people’s house into a palace fit for a despot partly because that’s his taste, but also to show everyone that he can.” 

There’s an old adage to the effect that a picture is worth a thousand words. The photos of the East Wing’s destruction will test  the accuracy of that adage.

Citizens who are unaware of the administration’s assaults on democratic processes and the rule of law–people whose “information bubbles” don’t include the appalling behaviors of the incompetent clowns Trump has installed, or the video of Trump dumping shit on the American public– may nevertheless react to the visual evidence that this man is both mentally ill and exceptionally dangerous.

Not to mention vulgar and trashy.

Comments

There’s A Lesson Here

A recent Vox article focused on a question–perhaps the question–that consumes most sentient Americans these days, especially the seven million of us who turned out for the No Kings protest: can America recover, or have we lost representative government forever?

As the article began,

The president of the United States is deploying masked troops to the streets of blue cities, working to put friendly billionaires in charge of the media environment, and attempting to jail his personal enemies.

Can any democracy come back from this?

There is relevant research on that question, and the article cited two papers published earlier this year that seemingly came to opposite conclusions. In both, researchers examined what are called “democratic U-turns.” Those are situations in which  a country that begins as a democracy subsequently moves toward authoritarianism, but recovers in relatively short order. The first research team’s conclusions were optimistic. “They identified 102 U-turn cases since 1900 and found that, in 90 percent of them, the result was “restored or even improved levels of democracy.”

The second team, however, focused on 21 of the most recent cases and concluded that “nearly 90 percent” of alleged U-turns were “short-lived mirages.”

After contacting both teams of researchers, the author concluded that the seemingly opposed findings weren’t actually inconsistent —and that the implications for the United States are both hopeful and disturbing.

Both research teams used a “democracy score” that takes into account how free the press is, whether elections are free and fair, and other accepted markers of democratic societies. A U-turn is defined as the country’s democracy score rebounding after a recent decline — and the data suggests that such U-turns are very common, that over half of all countries that have experienced a slide toward autocracy have also experienced a U-turn. And the research found that those U-turns have typically been very successful.

Good news, right? But as we know from differences in poll results, results will vary depending upon who you ask and how you frame the question.

The second group of researchers focused their analysis on twenty-one cases of democratic U-turns that occurred post-1994.  The authors then looked to see how many of those countries maintained their higher, post U-turn democracy scores. Their analysis extended to the years following those that the first team analyzed–looking to see whether the gains of a country’s U-turn were sustained. The findings on that score give us little cause for optimism; “out of the 21 cases, 19 countries experienced another decline in their democracy score within five years of the seemingly successful U-turn.”

Both teams of researchers emphasized that their findings were not in tension. For one thing, modern autocratization differs from the historical pattern. “Before the 1990s, democracies tended to be toppled by coups or revolutions — unmistakable uses of force that ended the current regime and replaced it with naked authoritarian rule.”

Nowadays, thanks in large part to democracy’s increasingly dominant ideological position around the world, the threat tends to come in a more subtle and hidden form — what scholars call “democratic backsliding.” In these cases, a legitimately elected government changes the laws and rules of the political system to give itself increasingly unfair advantages in future elections. The ultimate aim is often to create a “competitive authoritarian” regime, where elections are not formally rigged but take place under such unfair conditions that they can’t truly be considered democratic. That’s what Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party did in Hungary, and what PiS tried to do in Poland.

And–rather obviously–what Trump is trying to do in the U.S.

As the article notes, because elected authoritarians were elected, they often represent a real constituency–one that is often large enough to make it impossible for their opponents to defeat them permanently and democratically illegitimate for those opponents to outlaw them entirely. Just because you have a democracy doesn’t mean you have a stable democracy. As the article concludes:

Even if America experiences a U-turn upon Trump’s departure, the country may not be out of the woods. The forces that made Trump possible in the first place will still remain, open to exploitation by any political leader with the requisite savvy and shamelessness.

“There is a reason why Trump came to power, and there is a reason why he won those elections… If you don’t solve the underlying reasons, then of course democracy will still be at risk.”

I am increasingly convinced that the U.S. will oust Trump and his band of wildly incompetent White Christian Nationalists–that we will experience a U-turn. I am far less sanguine about our ability to address those “underlying reasons.”

Comments

Forget Dog Whistles

In the ten-plus months of this horrific excuse for a federal administration, the racism that powers the MAGA movement has become impossible to ignore or minimize. Trump and his sycophants aren’t even trying to mask their hatreds–they have withdrawn funding from universities and other organizations that engage in even the most modest efforts to level the playing field for minorities; waged war against (their version of) DEI; fired competent Black officials and replaced them with manifestly unqualified White ones; sent masked goons into Blue cities to kidnap Brown people…the list goes on.

Now, several media outlets report that the FBI has officially abandoned what has for years been its top domestic terrorism concern: White nationalism. The agency has cut its ties with two major civil rights watchdogs, yielding to pressure from MAGA influencers and Donald Trump’s FBI Director Kash Patel.

The FBI has abruptly ended long-standing partnerships with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), organizations that for years have provided the agency with significant assistance in tracking hate groups. Not only has the FBI ended its relationship with those organizations, figures in the administration have libeled them. Kash Patel called the SPLC a “partisan smear machine,” and Elon Musk labeled it an “evil” source of “hate propaganda.”

The animus aimed at SPLC was evidently prompted by that organization’s Hate Map, which identifies White Nationalist, anti-government, and other extremist groups, and which includes Turning Point USA as one of  those anti-democratic, hard-right groups.

The FBI also ended its partnership with the ADL, which for years has trained agents to recognize antisemitism and hate crimes. (Patel mocked former FBI Director James Comey for praising the ADL, sneering: “That era is OVER.”) As one media source reported (link unavailable),

In 2017, then–FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress the agency had about 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations, many linked to white nationalism. A 2021 GAO report backed that up: domestic terrorism cases surged 357% since 2013, with white supremacists responsible for the majority of deadly attacks.

But under Trump and Patel, the FBI is turning its back on civil rights, and walking away from groups that helped prevent homegrown hate.

It isn’t just the FBI. And it goes further than an administration that is “turning its back on civil rights.” This is an administration that absolutely revels in parading its bigotries. Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised by the degree to which its hatreds are being openly expressed–as the Brookings Institution, among others, has documented, racism has always been Trump’s not-so-secret sauce. In 2019, the Institution reported (emphases mine),

Donald Trump’s support in the 2016 campaign was clearly driven by racism, sexism, and xenophobia. While some observers have explained Trump’s success as a result of economic anxiety, the data demonstrate that anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and sexism are much more strongly related to support for Trump. Trump’s much-discussed vote advantage with non-college-educated whites is misleading; when accounting for racism and sexism, the education gap among whites in the 2016 election returns to the typical levels of previous elections since 2000. Trump did not do especially well with non-college-educated whites, compared to other Republicans. He did especially well with white people who express sexist views about women and who deny racism exists.

Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence. FBI data show that since Trump’s election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017.

What is so depressing is the “in your face” evidence that Americans haven’t come very far since the Civil War, that a significant percentage of White Americans continue to hate and fear people who are different. White Christian Nationalism is, in a number of ways, a continuation of the worst of the Confederacy, and it is still as fundamentally unAmerican as it was then.

Trump and MAGA are tearing down more than the East Wing of the White House. That destruction is symbolic of the arrogance with which they are trying to destroy the very fabric of a nation trying to live up to the principle that all people are created equal. 

Comments

That Constitutional Ethic

Thursday, I traveled to Hancock County, to speak at what their community foundation calls a “Collaboration Station.” My assignment was to address–or perhaps commiserate with– local elected and appointed officials who are serving at a time of intense political polarization and hostility–to offer them guidance suggested by relevant academic research.

We covered a lot of ground that isn’t necessary to include in this post, but I think the concluding portion of my presentation is relevant to the discussions that occur here–as well as consistent with the overarching message of the recent No Kings rally–so here’s that portion of my talk.

_________________

Back in 2011, I co-authored a textbook for use in classes on public administration. That textbook was titled American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations, and in it, my co-author and I described what we dubbed “The Constitutional Ethic.” We argued that public officials cannot make intelligent policy decisions unless they have a basic understanding of America’s constitutional framework, because government legitimacy and the rule of law require that a government’s operations be consistent with its country’s legal framework.

It was the thesis of our textbook that the U.S. Constitution dictates a very particular approach to public service—that the legal philosophy animating the Constitution and Bill of Rights establishes certain ethical norms. That philosophy starts with the Founders’ belief in limited government. I want to emphasize that—political rhetoric to the contrary–limited government is not the same thing as small government; in our system, government’s authority is supposed to be limited to areas that in our system are deemed properly governmental.

As we wrote in the introduction to that textbook, a public servant’s ability to do a job well depends upon how well that official understands what the relevant rules are, why we have these particular rules rather than others, and why we choose to solve some problems collectively through government action while leaving other problems to individuals and voluntary associations.

Public officials certainly don’t need to be constitutional scholars, but it is necessary that they understand the general principles and values on which this nation built its governing structures, because—as I said before and as I want to emphasize– ethical public service requires performance consistent with those foundational principles and values.

Let me be clear about what that means. Fidelity to our constituent documents requires a basic understanding of the constitutional framework. Public servants in the United States are responsible for discharging their various duties in a manner that is consistent with that framework, consistent with what I sometimes call “the American Idea,” the philosophy that animates our governing and legal structures. That requirement is obviously more or less relevant depending upon your job description—less to a surveyor or engineer, more to law enforcement personnel. But it applies to some extent to all public officials.

I am certainly not the only person to suggest that citizens’ current inability to engage in productive civic conversation is largely an outgrowth of declining trust in our social and political institutions—primarily, although certainly not exclusively, our government. Restoring that trust is critically important if we are going to make our representative democracy work—but in order to trust government, both citizens and political functionaries need to understand what government is and is not supposed to do. We all need to understand how government actors are supposed to behave—in other words, we need to understand what behaviors our particular Constitutional system requires, and what behaviors are inconsistent with that system. (A sound civic education would impart that knowledge; unfortunately, the current emphasis on job skills and STEM has largely displaced citizenship instruction.)

As most of you in this room understand, the choices originally made by this nation’s Founders shaped a very distinctive American culture. Those constitutional choices have shaped our beliefs about personal liberty, and our conceptions of human rights. They’ve framed the way we allocate social duties among governmental, nonprofit and private actors. I think it’s fair to say that those initial Constitutional choices created a distinctively American worldview.

Most Americans fail to understand how incredibly radical the choices made for the then-new United States were for the times. For example, in the new country our Founders established, unlike the situation in countries elsewhere, citizenship wasn’t based upon geography, ethnicity or conquest; instead, it was based on an Idea, a theory of social organization, what Enlightenment philosopher John Locke called a “social contract” and journalist Todd Gitlin has called a “covenant.” Perhaps the most revolutionary element of the American Idea was that our Constitution based citizenship on behavior rather than identity. An individual’s status and rights depended upon how that individual behaved rather than on who he or she was.

Right now, as you all know, there are elements in American society and government trying to ignore or even reverse that fundamental precept. We’ve had stunning Supreme Court decisions that allow government actors to ignore the 4th Amendment’s requirement of probable cause and to detain people based only upon their skin color or language, and we have numerous political figures who insist that White Christians are the only “real Americans” –and that others are not.

Public officials who are focused on providing basic services usually aren’t tempted to distinguish between members of the public on the basis of their identity—local officials pave streets that everyone drives on, pick up garbage from all the homes in a district, fight fires wherever they erupt and so forth. But many of you do hold positions that allow or even require the privileging of some citizens over others, and making those distinctions on the basis of identity—as some political actors at both the state and national level are encouraging you to do—would  violate both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and a foundational American ideal. Disadvantaging or firing people based upon opinions they’ve expressed, as some political actors are advocating, would be a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Obeying such mandates or similar ones, would violate the Constitutional ethic.

My co-author and I had both practiced constitutional law, and at the time we wrote the textbook, we both held professorships in schools of public affairs. We wrote the book, it was adopted by several schools of public management, and we both went on to pursue other projects. To be honest, I hadn’t revisited that textbook for several years, and when I was preparing for this workshop, I pulled it out again– and I will admit I was startled to read some of the supposedly “far-fetched” examples we’d used that were intended to illustrate the relationship between public administration and the Constitution. We explained, for example, that the Constitution and other authorities in our legal system don’t permit American officials to use U.S. troops to address domestic criminal activity; that the Constitution doesn’t permit censorship as a solution for disfavored political opinions; that the Equal Protection Clause wouldn’t permit the reduction of welfare rolls by refusing to feed Black or Hispanic children, and that substantive due process guarantees prevent government from forcing women either to abort or give birth.

Fourteen years later, some of those examples are no longer so far-fetched.

As we acknowledged in that textbook, the American Idea is not monolithic, and it is constantly contested and evolving, but—as we also insisted– it has real content. It rests on considered normative judgments about the proper conduct of public affairs, and it prescribes an ethic that should dictate the behavior of those engaged in public administration and management—even when it is uncomfortable or even dangerous to do so.

So here’s the bottom line: When push comes to shove—when keeping your heads down is no longer an option— the Constitutional ethic must guide you.

These days, that may not be comforting.

Comments