How can we determine President Trump’s actual agenda?

With the release of the first Trump White House budget, we know what some in the White House are trying to accomplish. There is, however, a great deal of discord within the White House staff and cabinet. It’s still not clear how many of the proposals come from Mr. Trump’s overarching objectives and how many are the work of members of his entourage, some of whom might be “fired” at any time. And, our Tweeter-in-Chief has been known to say two opposite things in the span of less than 24 hours. So in terms of specific ways that his nationalist and anti-regulations agenda will be carried out, this budget is our best indication of his agenda to date. It includes

• big increases in Dept. of Defense
• big increases in Dept. of Homeland Security
• big wall
• big decreases in health/medicine
• big decreases in science and technology
• big decreases in education
• big decreases in environmental protection
• big decreases in foreign aid

How do we translate these budget priorities into the Trump White House agenda? Fortunately, the budget document that was submitted to Congress explains the rationale pretty clearly. This gives us the assumptions they’re making and their “agenda.” Two examples give an idea of the agenda with respect to domestic policy.

Example #1: Trump put Scott Pruitt at the head of the EPA— a spokesperson for climate change deniers who sued the EPA about a dozen times, and Trump has now proposed an EPA budget cut of 31%. As outlined in the budget document, this guarantees there will be no further federal support for cleaning up toxic sites (like the Great Lakes, which hold 20% of the world’s fresh water). Pruitt’s EPA has already removed all the confirmed data on climate change (such as the relative contributions of natural meteorological variations on Earth, natural variations in solar energy release, and human use of fossil fuels) that was on the EPA website.

Pruitt and his advisors are “working on” a replacement for the 2016 EPA website. They say that the new website will focus on commerce (turning away from the EPA as our environment protector). Pruitt intends for the new site to explain how economic growth requires greater use fossil fuels, which will happen if businesses can pollute more (Some environmental regulations are already being repealed.) At the same time, the EPA has an updated section of the overall website that specifically addresses the importance of reducing pollution by U.S. businesses: https://www.epa.gov/p2/p2-resources-business [May 2017].

Pruitt recently claimed that carbon dioxide is not a “greenhouse gas.” (Pruitt has no background in chemistry, biology, or atmospheric sciences, so it is not surprising that he would make such a fundamental “misstatement.”) The EPA budget greatly decreases support for renewable energy options. The most recent headline regarding Trump’s position is that he is moving away from contending that the claims about climate change are part of an international hoax. This, after hearing from G17 leaders that he needs to adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement and why.

White House Assumptions & Rhetoric: If businesses can be free to pollute more, they will create more jobs and enjoy larger corporate profits. This is a specific instance of how trickle-down economics is purported to work. If toxic sites are going to be cleaned up, it’s on each state to find the budget to do so. If fossil fuel drilling and mining do not have to meet standards for toxic and polluting releases into the air, water, and land, then those in the fossil fuel industry will expand their drilling and mining (which feeds back into the first two assumptions).

Agenda:

#1-- Support the fossil fuel industry’s dominance as a provider of U.S. energy.

#2-- Convince working-class people that more manufacturing jobs will come their way as a result of significantly more jobs in the fossil fuel industry and, indirectly, more jobs in the business sectors that choose to increase the pollution they create.

(Republican caveat: There is also talk of Washington dictating to states that they cannot have more stringent laws regarding environmental protection, which flies in the face of Republicans’ strong push for states’ rights over federal rights.)

= = =

Example #2: Science, health, and technology are taking huge hits. Trump’s right-wing cronies are not fans of scientific research in many areas. The explanations for these reductions are mentioned in the budget proposal document. However, one recent White House comment is that these cuts are, in part, because scientists within the federal government have gone “too far” in their research on climate change. Here are a few of the agencies that are being cut to or through the bone.

National Science Foundation: 11% reduction in budget
This is how university innovation is funded: through NSF grants. Academic scientific research and early prototyping of applications are a major way that the United States develops advances in science, health, and technology. The majority of American businesses that used to have their own research labs have changed their innovation model so that they take the results of academic research (free and open to all because they’ve been federally funded) and develop their own products and services. (That is not to say that there is no research in these businesses, only that the investment is modest compared with what it used to be.) This new model substantially reduces the risk to businesses that used to have a one-in-ten internal research outcome that could be turned into profitable product lines and services.

Department of Health and Human Services: 16% reduction in budget
The stated intention is to cut Medicaid severely, to greatly reduce eligibility for children’s health insurance, and to eliminate the low-income energy assistance program. There is no acknowledgment that most Medicaid recipients have jobs, jobs that do not pay enough to be able to afford health insurance and co-pays for medical services. Instead, White House officials suggest that Medicaid can be cut significantly if recipients would “just get jobs.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, there will be about 23 million more people without health insurance. This, compliments of the House AHCA proposal. Trump has vacillated on his policy intentions regarding healthcare coverage for Americans. It appears that the vacillation may be due to gauging the reaction to his political base of supporters (who seem equate reduced coverage with reduced income taxes), but some of that vacillation appears to be due to learning-on-the-job about these federal services’ benefits to his base.

National Institutes of Health: 19% reduction in budget
These are the experts who regularly make breakthroughs in medicine and related health problems. It’s also the NIH that funds university research in important problems, from technology that will help elderly people live longer and more safely in their homes to prevention and cure of cancers. Notice how these would be ways to reduce the government’s costs for the AHCA, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 17% reduction in budget from last year, bringing it to the lowest level in 20 years.
The cuts significantly reduce the ability of the CDC to discover new ways to effectively prevent diseases and to respond to emergent epidemics. The budget explanation states the intention to nearly eliminate all CDC aid to populations most at risk regarding health,  such as Native Americans living in tribal “reservations,” where poverty is endemic, and those in socioeconomically “disadvantaged” areas. “Disadvantaged” is a euphemism for disproportionate lack of economic opportunity and availability of services that would lead to improved opportunity and health outcomes.

White House Assumptions & Rhetoric: Federal funds have to come from somewhere to finance increased military costs, homeland security strength, and construction and maintenance of The Wall. It (apparently) isn’t important for the U.S. to be a leading contributor in advances in technology, science, and medicine. Science is highly over-rated as a source of facts. (I’m not sure where they think “facts” originate.)

Agenda:

#1— Fund nationalism (for example, increased investments in the DoD and DHS) through a significant reduction in support for Americans’ health.

#2— Put Americans at ease that science, technology, and health advances aren’t that important to their day-to-day lives.

How Can Liberals Understand Conservative Thinking?

The greatest imperative in understanding someone with political ideologies other than yours is to listen without interruption.

Right now, Republicans are having difficulty “understanding” each other. So, “the other party” is, for now, not so easy to characterize. However, the basic tenets of political ideologies in the U.S. answer just a few questions (that you can ask of Conservatives whom you know). For each question, understanding comes from asking the follow-up question, “What reasons do you have for believing your position?” Listen. Don’t even think about using a tone of voice that could be interpreted as accusatory.

• Is federal government or state government where the seat of governance and the provision of services best located? This is the argument of federalism vs. confederalism that has been part of U.S. history since states were trying to decide whether or not to sign the Declaration of Independence. This was the essential question of the U.S. Civil War. It is a war that is still being fought.
• How much of social welfare is the responsibility of the government (either federal or state)? Conservatives rightly point out that at the founding of the U.S., social services were not central to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of the government. However, the U.S. Constitution speaks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, starting with freedom of the press, of speech, and of religion. Major events over the past 240 years, such as economic disasters, have taught us that national security and national stability are strongly linked to economic stability— of institutions and individuals. Most social services came about as a result of economic disasters, like the Great Depression, or the impact of national and foreign wars.
• Do people in certain demographics of the United States have inherent obstacles to achieving economic well-being? If so, is there an obligation on the part of government to lessen these obstacles? There is the Horatio Alger portrayal of disadvantaged Americans as people who just need tenacity and hard work to achieve “success.” There is the cultural belief in the right to achieve “The American Dream” (owning a home, having food security, being able to take vacations away from home, etc.).
• Who is deserving of legal protection against biased treatment? This starts with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. But most Conservatives believe the law has gone too far. Protecting people in the LGBTQ community? Muslims? Hmmm.
• How much should the government regulate? For national regulations pertaining to the financial industry, the same economic disasters have driven the addition of regulations. The most recent motivation for asking this question was the Great Recession of 2007–2010. Sub-prime mortgages and other forms of very loose lending— not just in the United States— are credited/blamed for this recession (from which some industries and individuals have not yet recovered). In 2017, there seems to be a difference in interpretation of what happened in 2007. Get past those interpretations and understand a Conservative’s belief about if and when the government (and the semi-independent Federal Reserve) should assert itself into the economy.
• Which alternative to free trade is best for the U.S. in the long-/short-term? For international agreements, all political ideologies talk about “free trade” and no party actually wants it. The question requires some understanding of the global economy and the ways that trade agreements and trade, itself, are tied to political foreign affairs. So, the question to a Conservative is to understand which alternative to free trade they think the U.S. should pursue (and why).
• What are the pros and cons of the separation of Church and State? It’s difficult to understand at least the majority of Conservatives without understanding their beliefs about how religion (especially, Christianity) should influence such things as Supreme Court decisions and Acts of Congress. Noting the preponderance of pros vs. cons will tell you a lot.

In my experience and as a fundamental belief, there is no better way to understand the thinking of “Conservatives” than to talk with then (not at them). “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)