Trump’s War on Science Is One of the Few Predictable Elements of His Presidency
In our ongoing quest to make sense of the utterly inane goings on in U.S. politics today, it could be said that there are two vast categories of events unfolding every day: the unpredictable and the all-too-predictable.
In the former class we have things like the president’s suggestion to arm teachers on Tuesday and to take guns without due process on Wednesday. One day he’s trying to resolve the moral/humanitarian catastrophe of DACA by making friends with Chuck and Nancy (Schumer and Pelosi, the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate and House, respectively) and the deal is in the bag; the next day, all deals are off if they don’t contain provisions for building a wall on the Mexican border.
Unemployment low and the national debt high? Cut taxes! Sure, it’s the precise opposite of what actually should happen, but what the hell; the base will love it–both the rich who will become richer, and the idiots who are too stupid to know they’ve been ripped off.
Feeling “angry and unglued?” Launch a trade war against U.S. allies that randomly favors one set of industries over another.
Anyone who claims to know what’s coming next is full of beans, simply because the president himself has shown countless times that he can change his mind 180° on any issue at any time, based on something he might have seen on television earlier that day.
Some speculate that all this erratic, unhinged behavior and the chaos it generates is actually carefully orchestrated to distract us from what’s really going on, e.g., vast conflicts of interest, collusion with Russia, the progress Mueller is making in unraveling all this, the take-over of the federal government by the alt-right, etc. I leave it to readers to draw their own inferences here.
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Trump presidency that are entirely predictable, like his war on science. This has been an unchanging aspect of his thinking since well before he took office, but over the last 13 months we’ve seen his nonstop aggression to rid government of policies that are based on reason and fact.
In the last year, the phrases “climate change” and “evidence-based” have been scrubbed from federal Web sites. The Environmental Protection Agency has banned EPA-funded scientists, but not industry representatives, from serving on its advisory boards. (This contains its own particular irony, of course, i.e., this happens to be the same year that saw three once-in-a-century hurricanes and two major drought-fueled wildfires that wreaked incredible destruction onto several different parts of the nation. The irony gets deeper when we take into consideration the temperature in the Arctic that soared above forty-five degrees Fahrenheit, astonishing climate scientists around the globe.)
From this article in the New York Times:
Trump’s newly proposed federal budget for 2019 continues the assault on knowledge and reason. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the E.P.A. would each be cut by eighteen per cent or more, and a number of important Earth-science missions would be eliminated from NASA’s budget.
The few budget increases, to the budgets of the Energy and Interior Departments, are designed to fund fossil-fuel research, offshore drilling, and surface mining.
Research on clean energy would be cut by more than seventy per cent. Already in 2018, the E.P.A., under Scott Pruitt, has suspended Obama-era changes to the Waters of the U.S. Rule, which would have limited pollution in more than half the nation’s waters and pursued a repeal of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
And many of the candidates whom Trump has nominated for science-oriented roles are woefully underqualified. His pick to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality—essentially the President’s top environmental adviser—was Kathleen Hartnett White, a fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank backed by the conservative Koch brothers, and a vocal climate-change denier. In 2015, she lamely argued that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but “the gas of life,” and in December, during a withering confirmation hearing, she conceded that she did not “have any kind of expertise” to answer the question of whether water expands when it is heated.
Here again, one can only speculate as to the motive, since there are at least four good candidates:
• Trump’s support base tends to be uneducated, and carries with it a sour grapes disdain for science as an elitist enterprise.
• Trump’s friends in Big Oil stand to benefit from environmental policies that are as free from science as possible.
• Each one of Trump’s policies that affects the environment actively inflicts harm; removing science is a way to obscure the horrific impact he’s having on out planet.
• Science is intrinsically unbiased and intellectually curious. In Trump, we have a person who refuses to read his much abbreviated and dumbed-down intelligence reports; as a person, he’s the very antimatter of learning and objectivity.
Take your pick; feel free to select more than one.
Craig,
“angry and unglued?” Yes, that would be an apt description for your irrational tirades against the President.
Why must everything be described in terms of “war” ? Why must you level hysterical abuse toward those who do not agree with your political/ideological beliefs ? I’d hoped as the Presidency advanced it might be possible for you to be become more objective. Y’know, it’s possible to be opposed to the administration’s policies, even work to change those policies or replace the government at the next election, without resorting to all this hysteria.
At least I’d hoped you would have realized it’s counter-productive, since you alienate many who would otherwise be sympathetic.
You know perfectly well, the President never suggested arming all school teachers! He made a sensible suggestion for teachers who had served in certain military capacities, were reserve military, or even reservists in police organizations etc, to consider volunteering to have access to weapons to defend students against domestic terrorist attacks. The teachers would receive regular training, insurance etc. (they could even be sworn in as auxiliary police).
As a suggestion, it’s not without merit and should be carefully examined to see if practical. The President did not announce it as a policy, it was simply an idea which occurred during a meeting with victims including teachers. One of the teachers present at that meeting was a former veteran, current National Guard officer, and part time Sheriffs deputy. That teacher, if armed, could add to the security of her educational facility, and provide be a real deterrent
It’s an idea I would have mooted myself in such circumstances. So, why all the distortion and derision ? It may or may not be practical, but it’s worth exploring.
Instead you would rather heap abuse on the President’s humble, but practical, suggestion in favour of demanding a huge, but unrealistic, reform on gun control, that won’t happen.
That pretty much sums up the American left. You’d always ignore practical environmental progress in favour of huge political( and social) grand gestures accompanied by cries of outrage for “symbolic” but impractical public investment.
President Trump may not be ideal, but he is President. He’s the first President who forced to deal with the reality of a much diminished America. He must guide the US through a vastly different new world dynamic.
The US is no longer the world’s only super power. The world is no longer sustained by American largess, those day have gone forever. It’s going to be very difficult for Europe and the rest of the world to come to terms with a rapidly changing world order where the US no longer picks up the tab for everyone.
For the American left, they must decide between living in a fantasy, gloating at their own nations demise while still pretending it’s all America’s fault, or wake up to the new reality.
The US is beset by economic enemies and hemorrhaging economically from a thousand cuts. It’s a slow process, but inevitable, unless the US people awake to the danger. US rivals have the advantage of long term political planning alien to the US system which plans only for short term advantage. The era of vast national treasure and the luxury of unending opportunity against weak opposition, is over.
The wolves are circling America’s decaying and neglected defenses.
President Trump may be flawed, but at least he has the merit of understanding the new reality. He may not have the answers, but he understands the peril and the need to act.
Domestically, the President’s enemies are looking less and less relevant. As the Mueller inquiry continues it has done more to destroy the reputation of James Comey, the FBI, and the NYT than the President.
President Trump is not “at war with science” or the environment ! It’s true his administration places US economic prosperity and competitiveness before grand environmental gestures and symbolism.
It’s equally true the US administration does not place the environment as an absolute priority in terms of focus, but that’s not “at war with science” it’s just a rearrangement of priorities. The shift in priorities was inevitable. Technology has simply not advanced rapidly enough to ensure national economic survival by radical and immediate conversion to renewable energy.
Progress is still happening, clean tech is still advancing, and huge improvements in the US economy due to a revival in fossil fuel energy, has created a timely economic boom in North America. As a result, the US remains able to invest in developing clean technology.
Progress is more possible in a prosperous economic environment.
One of the advantages of bringing industry back to the US will mean better environmental industrial practices. Shipping dirty industries abroad where little or no incentive exists to invest in environmental mitigation technology, may help improve US emission statistics, but is really useless hypocrisy.
It’s time the US Left started a complete reappraisal of their beliefs. The left need to reassess what they’re for, instead of just what they’re against.
Already the Obama-Clinton era is fading into a sort of effete European dream, a faded era. The more brutal and candid era of Trump is consolidating as the new reality. Trump is only the herald not creator of the new global order.
The question of whether the US can rise to the challenge and eventually triumph, is still very much in doubt. Asia and most of Europe are betting against the US (and allies). Will they be proved right? It’s too early to tell, but at least the President and US Secretary of State are determined not to yield without a fight.
Environmentalists must learn to adapt to the realities of the new era if we are to remain relevant. There are so many projects able to be pursued with proven economic and environmental benefits waiting for action. It’s these project “green advocates ‘ should be concentrating on, not bitter tirades.
“Sign of the Times” . Yesterday, in the small Australian state of Tasmania elections were held for the State government. Despite a strong team of experienced politicians, and facing an tired conservative government, the Green Party suffered a devastating collapse in support.
Tasmania is significant because it was in this state “Green” politics first emerged. In 1972 with the establishment of the United Tasmania Group the world’s first Green party was born. Since then the movement and influence of the Tasmanian Greens internationally (and in particular Germany)has been enormous.
Like Greens Parties world wide, increasing integration and infiltration by the older socialist-left has seen a shift in support. Initially, the older conservation movement gained from dramatically with the infiltration of trained and experienced political operatives from the socialist-left. These new members we adept at organization, recruitment,(especially the young and radical) were expert advocates, and experienced trained activists.
By 2006 the movement was in full cry !2006 to 2012 saw the movement reach a zenith of power and influence. However, by 2016, the Green movement was beginning to falter due to a combination of excessive over zealous claims, intolerence and extraneous issues alienating the general public.
Trump may be eccentric and alarming, but he’s not boring! His enthusiasm and genuine interest in solving problems the average person is worried about, is evident. Yeah, he speaks the same language ! He talks to the average person about what they care about. Not what some supercilious pundit tells them they should worry about, or what the chattering classes worry about, Trump talks to the average and their concerns.
That’s the real bond between Trump and his supporters, he’s one of them. No acting, no ‘focus groups, no careful image created by a spin doctor, what you see is what you get. He uses social media to by-pass entrenched powerful media outlets, just as he out outmaneuvered the best funded, most professional, most experienced and largest political machine in US history.
His reforms will have long lasting effects, long after his departure. He’s broken the mold and the US will never be the same again. Never-never land has come to an end. The cold winds of a new era are dawning and the US had better wake up and start competing.
For those of us concerned with environmental conservation and clean technology, we must start winning back the trust of the ordinary citizen. We must prove without patronizing lectures how we can make life better for the ordinary citizen in ways they understand and want.
Hey, stopping telling Joe Public he’s deplorable and stupid might be a good start.
I put “unglued” in quotes because it was a quote from within the White House. The headline read: “Trump was angry and ‘unglued’ when he started a trade war, officials say”
He’s emotionally unstable, and that instability represents a great danger to everyone living on this planet…even you.
Craig,
That’s an opinion of yours, based on what ? An unknown source from “within the White House” cited by a journalist who in all probability made it up after falling down the stairs leaving Morton’s and staggering to Bullfeathers bar on Main street, having realized he’d missed yet another deadline.
After one year in office, I see no danger, no erratic behavior, but then I can see beyond rigid stereotypes.
Donald Trump was never going to be a conventional President. He’s not a professional politician, he lacks the usual party organization and political allies of a party politician, at best he’s only a nominal Republican.
He represents no vested faction. He’s as close to the citizen-President as you always idealized about (until you got one, and decided you didn’t like him). His democrat opponent attracted more support from the rich and powerful, including corporate wealth.
Republican stalwarts barely tolerate him, and only because they fear his popularity with the base voters. He’s an oddity, a new man for a new era. (that’s neither good nor bad, just reality).
The only people to whom he represent danger, is the over-bloated bureaucracy, Washington insiders, entrenched media, politically correct, smug elite, and politicians who take the voters for granted. he also is a danger to America’s enemies and rivals.
It’s true he plays by different rules. He’s more flexible and willing to ditch policies and attitudes that prove impractical or unworkable, because he’s lacks vested interests. He’s not beholden to anyone, has no loyalty to political or ideological agenda or doctrine, he’s not afraid of the political consequences of changing his mind, because he doesn’t care about the consequences!
I understand why you, and the most of the old media who see politics and government through the old ideological prism, are experiencing such difficulty coming to terms with someone who simply doesn’t care about obeying your rules of how a President should behave.
Craig, sometimes the guy of of step, is just well,..out of step, but sometimes he’s like the pig escaping from a hole in the slaughter yard pen who looks back in amazement when his fellows don’t follow him and to his disbelief, call after him “come back, you’ll get in trouble” !
Think of all those American left elite who threatened “if Trump is elected,I’ll leave the US”!
Did they ? Of course not, and that’s why despite the relentless media campaign the President’s approval rating is increasing, all the hysteria only buoys his popularity and destroys the credibility of his detractors. That’s the advantage of playing off a low base.
The President only needs to do or say something rational and sensible and the public will say, “see..he’s not that bad after all !” The problem for his detractors is it’s almost impossible when occupying the high moral ground to always be 100% right. Just one slip, one error of judgement, one scandal, any human weakness, and the public will lose in you faith altogether, crying “Hypocrite,…can’t believe any of them, just all BS, think they’re better, but they ain’t”.
President Donald Trump is no more “emotionally unstable” than the average American, less so in fact since he’s shown over a lifetime to have a hide as thick as a rhino. He just has a different style.
He’s certainly egotistical. but all successful politicians and business leaders are egotistical. (Some are just better at acting). Most Presidents are a mixture of ego and self belief. As men they’ve all flawed. Trump has show extraordinary self control in his abstinence from alcohol. Given his personality, and lifestyle over the years, this displays a formidable capacity for self control and commitment.
His family speak of him as a kind and tolerant father and brother. Given the personalities of many past Presidents, he’s not that bad. Fortunately, the American system doesn’t vest all that much power in a President. President Obama pushed the limit of Presidential authority eventually by-passing Congress to rule by regulatory authority backed by Presidential Fiats.
Don’t you find it a contradiction to your claim President Trump is “a great danger to everyone living on this planet”, that President Trump is winding back the use of Presidential power ? Trump is discontinuing the use of Presidential ‘fiats” while insisting Congress do its job and pass legislation to replace Presidential decrees ?
I may be wrong, but I don’t see “emotional instability” in the President’s bluff and bluster, just a different acting style. What the press and bureaucracy interpret as “chaos and disruption” in the White House,is just a normal environment for corporate property developer who must learn to deal with crisis on a daily basis. Not having a doctrinaire agenda makes for a highly fluid set of policy objectives. This is a challenge for public servants and professional politicians pursing long terms goals.
The President’s business style approach is unsettling. Trump’s method of dealing with a roadblock is first bluff and bluster and intimidation, if that doesn’t work (as it often does) contain and isolate the problem and move on returning later to deal with the problem when most have lost interest and support has dwindled.
This is a well established military and business tactic, but unnerving in politics where issues are usually supported by political dogma, entrenched factions and the treacle pace of civil service action and procedures.
A President like Trump, is a nightmare for the Washington elite who measure government effectiveness by activity, not achieving objectives.
An example would be welfare for the unemployed. The civil service measure effectiveness in responding to unemployment by the number of civil servants employed, resources including increasing budgets, welfare workers, including counselors trained, services provided and relief systems put in place, logistic for the department, career status for department heads and administration.
President Trump measures effectiveness as having full employment and a minimal need for civil service expenditure !
In a nation with 3 million or so people directly employed by the Federal government, 26 million by government funded agencies(not including military), more than 40 million employed by State and local governments etc., the public payroll must be a growing concern as for every 6 people employed in the US nearly half are on the public payroll.
It’s not entirely the fault of the civil service. For many years politicians have been lauded by a lazy and leftist press when announcing new government “programs and initiatives” to address social and economic problems.
For the politician the political problem goes away with the passing of a legislation to fund the program. From the civil service perspective the problem is solved once the department begins to deploy resources and administration.
But, in reality the original problem isn’t solved,in fact it grows but is now papered over.
Trump’s dilemma is he want’s to actually solve unemployment by giving everyone a productive job and reducing unemployment. The task is immense. Since most of the nation no works for the government the forces against his aspirations are very formidable. Half the educational institutions in the US are turning out graduates who hard earned qualifications are only suitable for government or government funded employment!
The task is Herculean. I would agree Donald Trump is a most unlikely candidate to be the man chosen to deal with these issues ! But is he so unsuitable ? It’s worth considering the circumstances. Any other candidate would be hampered by being a professional politician, with party, ideological, vested interest loyalties and other considerations. Perhaps Donald Trump despite his flaws is the only President able to commence real reform.
Commeth the age, commeth the man ?