Tag Archives: Trump

One More Time

Yesterday, I posted about Trump’s attacks on the basic research that generates medical breakthroughs, and the critical importance of the government grants that fund that research. Medical advances are obviously salient to the general public; we care about cures for the diseases that cause death and suffering, and when we understand the significance of assaults on the research that makes those breakthroughs possible, we oppose them.

What is less well understood is that basic research funded by government has given America its global dominance in technology and innovation.

A recent essay from the Washington Post reminds readers what is at stake as Musk and Trump wreak havoc with those research grants.  reminding us that “we are the nation that spawned the internet and GPS, and has the most Nobel laureates curing deadly diseases, making intelligent machines and shedding light on the dark secrets of the universe.”

Whether they are geeks in garages or eggheads in university labs, American entrepreneurs have built their ideas and fortunes on the back of basic research supported by taxpayers, who then reap the rewards. It’s not an accident of geography or artifact of culture that the United States has bred some of the best inventors of the 20th and 21st century. The hidden engine of the country’s illustrious track record has been the grants given to academic researchers by federal agencies that the U.S. DOGE Service has been decimating and that President Donald Trump proposes to shrink catastrophically in the next budget.

Lithium-ion batteries that power your smartphone and computer, weather forecasts that help you figure out what to wear, wings of airplanes that take you on vacation and all the messaging you do online can be traced to the symbiosis between research funded by government and private industry, the scaffolding for mind-melds of scholars and entrepreneurs. Moderna’s multibillion-dollar coronavirus vaccine that saved millions of lives owes its origins to decades of research on mRNA, viruses and vaccines that was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Google arose from a National Science Foundation digital libraries grant that supported then-Stanford University graduate student Larry Page. We have QR codes, barcodes and MRIs today because of basic research investments in mathematics and physics.

The essay explains why the free market will not fill the gap. Corporate and business research understandably has a narrower focus and shorter time horizon than the basic research funded by government. Its timelines are adequate for building a somewhat better gadget, but there is no business purpose to be served for funding open-ended questions with no immediate, obvious payoff–questions that, over time, have yielded the big breakthroughs.

Giving out grants for what might look frivolous or wasteful on the surface is a feature, not a bug, of publicly funded research. Consider that Agriculture Department and NIH grants to study chemicals in wild yams led to cortisone and medical steroids becoming widely affordable. Or that knowing more about the fruit fly has aided discoveries related to human aging, Parkinson’s disease and cancer.

We all benefit greatly from what the author calls “America’s innovation engine.” Yet Congress is about to allow the Trump administration to break it, because most of the general public doesn’t yet see–or understand– what’s being lost.

The most profitable companies in the country continue to trade on investments in research made decades ago, while political leaders strip the next generation of the chance to become groundbreaking inventors and innovators. Preventing such entrepreneurs from rising might even protect the big companies’ profits. Little wonder, then, that many of the richest men in the world — men who call themselves innovators — have done little to protect the invention engine from Trump’s havoc. Or that the richest of them, Elon Musk, has even been an architect of its destruction. Meanwhile, Musk keeps boosting his own companies with public funds, proving that at least his private-sector innovation depends on the government he is stripping for parts.

In the late 20th century, the United States invested in knowledge while other countries invested  in infrastructure projects that were more visible and politically palatable. As a result, their growth stagnated while America’s thrived. America’s investments in research built great universities that became magnets for the world’s brightest minds– and for the immigrants who founded major companies in the United States.

As the author concluded,

There is no plainer betrayal of the MAGA promise to restore the nation’s storied past than to destroy this legacy of invention. What we’re losing is far more important, however, than the pride one felt being part of that America. We’re losing the country’s future.­

Comments

More Of This, Please!

If there was any lingering doubt that MAGA and Trumpism are rooted in racism, the extension of refugee status to White South Africans–at the same time Trump rescinded the similar status of vetted Afghans who had, at significant risk, worked with U.S. forces during the war–should put an end to it. That “in your face” evidence joins the administration’s barely-less-obvious measures to “protect” White folks from perceived victimhood: the dismissal of Blacks and Women from positions of authority (and their replacement with laughingly unqualified Whites), the scrubbing of websites documenting the achievements of women and minorities, and especially the disgraceful and dishonest all-out war on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

An embarrassing number of institutions have folded under that attack, but others have not. Vernon shared an entirely appropriate response to the federal government’s anti-DEI demand from one school superintendent.

Here is that letter.

___________-

To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:

Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.

You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a “certification” declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that ci1vil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.

That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.

Let me see if I understand your logic:

If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.

If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.

If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.

And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?

How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.

Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?

And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?

If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?

Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.

And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports… wait for it… low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.

So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”

We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.

We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.

We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.

We are interested in teaching the truth.

We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.

We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.

And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.

Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.

We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.

Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.

_________________

May that Superintendent’s tribe increase.

Comments

Where We Are

Donald Trump opposes the “invasion” of immigrants.

Well, not all immigrants–just Brown or Black ones. Perhaps you have somehow missed the administration’s daily efforts to reverse the progress of women and people of color, but there’s no way to miss the racism of his recent exemption of (properly pale) folks from his otherwise unremitting war on immigration–his grant of refugee status to “persecuted” White folks from South Africa. According to our racist and demented Chief Executive,  White South Africans should be welcomed while dark-skinned people escaping actual persecution–and dark-skinned people already living in the U.S.–should be excluded.

Per the linked New York Times report:

Mr. Trump has halted virtually all refugee admissions for people fleeing famine and war from places like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But he has created an expedited path into the country for Afrikaners, a white ethnic minority that created and led the brutal apartheid regime in South Africa.

The refugee process often takes years. But only three months have passed from the time Mr. Trump signed an executive order establishing refugee status for Afrikaners to the first cohort making its way to America.

As I have often written, and as any sentient American knows, Trump’s appeal to his MAGA base is rooted in racism. Some wealthy Americans probably voted for further tax breaks and the ability to evade government oversight, but the devotion of his MAGA voters was and is firmly based upon his none-too-veiled promises to put “those people” in their place.

Unfortunately, people who embrace racist tropes are also likely to misinterpret–or entirely miss– numerous other aspects of the world they inhabit. It’s doubtful whether most of the fearful and angry folks who cast their ballots for an ignorant buffoon understood that they would get a demented puppet controlled by the authors of Project 2025, or that his profound ignorance would destroy the robust economy left by his predecessor.

But here we are.

In a recent newsletter, Robert Hubbell described our current civic/governmental landscape. He began by reporting on the most recent violation of the Emoluments Clause–the fancy airplane being gifted to Trump by Qatar (a country that has supported Hamas to the tune of 1.8 billion dollars and for whom Pam Bondi, our current Attorney General, once lobbied, for a hefty $115,000 a month.)

He then turned to the recurring question that arises as evidence of corruption mounts: how does he get away with it?

The short answer is that Trump has neutralized the guardrails of democracy that would prevent behavior violating US criminal laws and constitutional provisions.

First, the US Supreme Court has immunized Trump from the criminal laws of the US (in Trump v. US). In the normal course, the DOJ would investigate and prosecute Trump under the the US criminal code.

Second, Trump has immunized himself from impeachment and conviction by engineering a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. In the normal course, Congress would impeach, convict, and remove Trump from office.

Third, Trump has neutered Congress, which could stop his corruption through legislation, oversight, and investigations.

Finally, Trump has corrupted, compromised, or destroyed the DOJ, FBI, and the system of inspector generals and independent agencies.

All in one hundred days! But as Hubbell notes, Trump didn’t do all those things alone. He had help weakening the guardrails of democracy–the damage he’s done has been “enabled and assisted by a corps of cultural war shock troops who believe in white supremacy, Christian nationalism, and antisemitism.”

Trump remains in control of about one-third of the electorate–the segment of the population that has embraced White supremacy and Christian nationalism. But as Hubbell reminds us, a third is not a majority. It is not enough—or should not be enough–to turn America into a country governed by a White Christian Taliban. 

The outcome of this very fraught time in our national story depends on the rest of us.

I wish there were a better, easier answer than saying that years of protesting in the streets and showing up at town halls and ballot boxes will be needed to get us out of this mess. But here we are. The only question is, “What are we going to do about it?” For me, the answer is, “Exactly what we have been doing, only louder, more frequently, and in greater numbers.”

No new leader will emerge who can miraculously save us. We cannot hope for a “deus ex machina” end to our current national story.

It’s up to us.

Comments

The Brazen Corruption…

One thing about life under an autocracy: it spawns a particular kind of black humor. Among the various telling memes and cartoons making the rounds, one especially has captured (at least in my mind) the essence of our current situation. The cartoon shows Nixon and Trump; Nixon is famously saying “I am not a crook.” Trump is saying “I am a crook. So what?”

I think that sums up how far we’ve traveled–and in what direction.

I’m willing to believe that some of our former Presidents have been less than honest. But those who failed to meet social expectations of honor and virtue did work to hide their bad behaviors–to deny dishonesty or venality, to appear to be the sort of leaders Americans had the right to expect. Trump doesn’t bother.

Most of us who find this administration horrifying have focused upon the damage being done to the federal government and  Constitution, and on the out-and-proud racism and misogyny motivating so much of that damage. Only recently has the media turned to what has been the elephant in the room: the immense corruption that Trump makes no effort to hide.

In the Contrarian, Norm Eisen recently addressed the enormity of that corruption.

As a former White House Ethics Czar, I have been stunned by the sheer number of ethics issues afflicting Donald Trump’s first 100 Days. But Trump and his cronies’ ethics violations have been overshadowed by his other frequent and flagrant transgressions. For example, in his first term, there was heavy mainstream media attention from day one of his selling hotel rooms to foreign governments and the like. This time around, not so much–although they have been a steady theme here on The Contrarian and for the Democracy Movement.

This should be a national scandal, which is why I co-authored this major report on Trump’s crypto corruption. It is the single most profound Presidential conflict of the modern era: a POTUS who has almost 40% of his net worth in his crypto ventures, at the same time as he is regulating the digital currency industry–and, for good measure, has substantial foreign government cash pouring into those ventures!

Eisen is not alone in highlighting the unprecedented corruption. Senator Mark Kelly–among others–recently blasted what he called Trump’s “corruption in broad daylight.”

Kelly is one of the sponsors of what is called the “End Crypto Corruption Act,” which would prohibit the president, vice president, senior executive branch officials, members of Congress and their immediate families from issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets, such as meme coins and stablecoins.

As Kelly put it in a news release, “Trump is cashing in on his presidency and making millions from his own crypto coins — this is corruption in broad daylight. I’m supporting this bill to make it illegal for the President and other government officials to make a profit from crypto assets. It’s time to put a stop to this.”

A number of other lawmakers and media outlets have reported on what can only be called Trump’s open invitation to bribe him. The most egregious example: he has invited the 220 largest holders of his personal $TRUMP “memecoin” to a dinner at which the top 25 will get “exclusive access” to the president.

As the official in charge of crypto policy for the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Biden administration put it, “This is really incredible. They are making the pay-to-play deal explicit.”  The executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics was even more blunt.

“I’m not sure we ever saw anything as blatant as this meme coin dinner. This is over the top — even for Trump — because while the practice of putting money in his pocket and subsequently gaining access to the presidency is far from new, it is more shameless than it has ever been.”

The entire Trump crime family is participating in the grift. Several media outlets have reported that an Abu Dhabi state-backed investment firm is making a $2 billion investment in the Trump family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial– the latest example of a foreign entity making a major investment in a Trump family business. Anyone who thinks that such an “investment” doesn’t give that foreign entity leverage with the administration is smoking something strong.

As the extent of the Trump corruption becomes more widely known, the question will be whether it matters to the MAGA cultists. After all, they are getting exactly what they voted for: an administration promoting White Christian nationalism.

Thus far, there’s no evidence that they care about the honesty or competence of those they’ve elected, or about the America the Founders bequeathed us.

Comments

A Constitutional Convention?

During the past couple of weeks, the subject of a Constitutional Convention has been raised twice: once during a question-and-answer session following a speech, and once via an email from a good friend. So it would seem reasonable to revisit the subject, and explain why I find that prospect–as proposed currently– horrifying.

Would it be possible to improve upon our centuries-old charter? Sure. We now see flaws that have emerged over the years, (If nothing else, there’s the Electoral College–a system used by no other country, for reasons that have become increasingly apparent…). If the idea of a reasonable review seems innocuous, however, we can be disabused of that conclusion simply by looking at the people pushing for a redo. The most prominent are ALEC (the far-Right American Legislative Exchange Council) and the Heritage Foundation. (Yes, the same Heritage Foundation that produced Project 2025.)

The goals of these and the other ideologues advocating such a convention are entirely inconsistent with the values of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Back in 2017, members of Indiana’s legislature were calling for such a convention, and I explained my opposition. As I wrote then, proponents clamoring for shortcuts to major change—revolution, a new constitution—always assume that the changes that ultimately emerge will reflect their own preferences and worldviews. History suggests that’s a naive assumption.

Indiana’s proponents wanted the state to join the calls for a Constitutional Convention. They claimed that a convention could be limited to budgetary matters–to devising “a framework for reigning in overspending, overtaxing and over-regulating by the federal government and moving toward a less centralized federal government.”

Constitutional scholars disagree with the assertion that such a convention could be limited to specified goals, but even if it could be, the specified matters would open a Pandora’s box. Think about it.

Wall Street bankers could argue that financial laws are “over-regulation.” One definition of “overspending” might be the massive subsidies enjoyed by (very profitable) U.S. oil companies; others might be Medicare or farm subsidies. Many Americans think we spend too much on the military; others target foreign aid. “Less centralization” could justify virtually any limitation of federal government authority, from FDA regulation of food and drug quality to laws against discrimination.

But the risk isn’t simply that a convention could rather easily be hijacked by people who disagree with the conveners about the nature and extent of needed changes. It isn’t even the likely influence of well-heeled special interests. The real danger is in calling together a presumably representative group of Americans and asking them to amend a document that few of them understand.

At the Center for Civic Literacy I founded at IUPUI (now IU Indy), we focused on the causes and consequences of what we’ve come to call America’s civic deficit. The data we accumulated was depressing. The last time I looked at survey results, only 36 percent of Americans could name the three branches of government, and only 21% of high school seniors could list two privileges that United States citizens have that noncitizens don’t. Etc. Even bright graduate students came into my classes with little or no knowledge of American history, episodic or intellectual. Most had never heard of the Enlightenment or John Locke. They certainly hadn’t read Adam Smith. A truly depressing percentage of undergraduates couldn’t explain what a government is, and they had no idea how ours operates. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The counter-majoritarian purpose of the Bill of Rights? Blank stares.

Given the Trump administration’s current attacks on the Constitution and media attention to those attacks, those percentages have undoubtedly improved, but civic ignorance is still obviously widespread. Do we really want to turn over the task of rewriting our Constitution to people who don’t understand the one we have?

Common Cause has looked at the unanswered questions implicit in these calls for a convention–questions that lay bare the dangers involved: How will delegates be chosen? Will there be any limits placed on the role of well-funded special interests in influencing the selection of delegates? How will votes be allocated amongst delegates? One person one vote? One vote per state? Something else? What kinds of changes would the convention consider? Will the Convention start with the U.S. Constitution or write an entirely new document?

The civically-ignorant and clinically-insane megalomaniac who occupies the Oval Office is currently being restrained only by the existing U.S. Constitution, which he has clearly neither read nor understood. The likely result of a constitutional convention would be to empower him.

Comments