Jacksonian or Amateur Politics?

I’m trying to figure out what the 45^th President of the United States is trying to do with his newfound powers. So far, I think it’s either a deliberate attempt to reduce the size of the government, or just plain amateur handling of the most powerful government in the world. Perhaps it is both.

The President campaigned on reducing taxes for all, which I’m not sure isn’t a bad idea as long as we don’t go into further debt. The Bush administration had to borrow money from China to repay a surplus back to taxpayers. Mr. Trump immediately put a hiring freeze into effect, which will slowly reduce the federal employment rosters as people retire or find a place in the private sector. I can agree with that. But his choices for cabinet have politicians on both sides of the aisle scratching their heads and voicing strong concern about their qualifications, or lack thereof. But can you think of a better way to downsize bureaucracy than to put people in charge of government organizations they oppose? In some ways I agree with the idea of destroying the education department. I’ve always viewed education as a state, not federal, issue. Any school board member will tell you that complying with federal regulations takes up a sizeable share of a school budget.

And of course, there are other departments that seem to be going down this path. If there is one bureaucracy that has been very ineffective, it is the EPA. Now the most obvious thing is that the environment is a federal issue. And the EPA does do many good things for the environment. But there are many, many things that are mired in bureaucratic nonsense and should be state issues, especially polluted sites. A good example can be found in the waters of the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn in New York City. More than 100 years ago, oil was stored in the area and leaks were ignored at that time. Now, the area is a major problem as toxic waste water has invaded the ground water among other things. My former sister-in-law became involved in this and if I am correct, she believes that the area has a high cancer rate as a result.

But this area, as well as hundreds of toxic areas throughout the country, has to involve local, county, regional, state and federal government organizations. Millions, and probably billions, of dollars are wasted on study after study. And the federal government provides the funds to clean up these sites. The problem is the feds don’t clean them all up. There’s not enough money in the budget. I wonder if it became a matter for the states to fund, that we wouldn’t have a higher priority for places like Greenpoint where hundreds of thousands are being affected?

I also wonder if we are looking at an attempt to revive Jacksonian democracy, which is a political movement toward greater democracy for the “common man.” Andrew Jackson's policies followed the era of Jeffersonian democracy. And much like today it was a movement to reduce the role of the Federal Government. A major concept of this political idea was that Congressmen (no women then) would serve one or two terms and then let another person serve. If this was the case, I suspect we would have more of the best and the brightest serving. But to paraphrase E. Y. “Yip” Harberg: Each Congressman has two ends – a sitting end and a thinking end. And since his whole success depends on keeping his seat, why bother friend?

Each Congressman has two ends – a sitting end and a thinking end. And since his whole success depends on keeping his seat, why bother friend?

We have term limits for our presidents for good reason. But term limits for Congress would also have the impact of far less political spending. Today, it’s not about serving. It’s about getting and keeping power. And so I doubt that term limits are possible. Republicans have struggled for many years to dominate all three branches of government and since they will determine the makeup of the Supreme Court, I have no doubt they want to keep that power. I am somewhat fearful about this since throughout my lifetime both parties have generally shared power. How will they do so is something those who oppose them will remain a critical idea.

Now if we are going to downsize the federal government, we’re probably going to ramp up state governments. I’m not sure about this since the coastal states tend to be dominated by Democrats and the rest dominated by Republicans. If states choose to refuse the responsibilities a reduced federal government will foist on them. It could cause chaos.

Let’s look at the differences between the era of Jackson and the 21st century. First of all, the United States had settled little west of the Mississippi River, though that would soon change as the result of Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory and the Lewis and Clark expedition. But we weren’t a world power by any means. Immigrants were more than welcome although discriminated against. Chinese immigrants built our railroads in the west, but were subjected to much discrimination, including the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s after the railroads had been built. Of course just about every group who came here faced problems. Catholics had little influence outside of Maryland in colonial times, and it wasn’t until 1960 that an Irish-American Catholic became president by a very close margin. My father’s German-American family faced great discrimination during the world war eras. And the sins against Japanese-Americans during the Second World War is a national disgrace.

Perhaps, our greatest shame has been our dealings with Native Americans. An unforeseen part of this was the spreading of “white” diseases such as measles and smallpox. It is estimated that 90 percent of the Native American population died of these diseases. And the greed of whites resulted in constant wars after broken treaty after broken treaty, including today. 

But this is history. Today we are a world power, but not the only one, as some will have you believe. The re-emergence of Russia onto the world stage as well as the development of China as the world’s leading economic power has recreated an economic cold war, which will be impacted by Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies. Now don’t get me wrong. I think NAFTA always has been a dumb idea as good American jobs went both north and south of the border. Well-paying union jobs in manufacturing disappeared almost overnight. Nearly all of our appliances and a growing number of our automobiles are being made in Mexico and Canada has a major share of the auto parts industry. Trains and subways are now built in Canada too. So yes, I actually agree with the President on some things.

But this is history. Today we are a world power, but not the only one, as some will have you believe. The re-emergence of Russia onto the world stage as well as the development of China as the world’s leading economic power has recreated an economic cold war, which will be impacted by Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies. 

But our level of political sophistication has gone way beyond Andrew Jackson’s time. We have nukes, and so do Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and France. Iran will, no doubt, develop them (if they haven’t already) and worst of all, terrorists are capable of creating “dirty” bombs containing nuclear material that are just as able to make a city unlivable as a nuke.

Our position in the world, as well as our domestic issues calls for a very sophisticated presence. So can the Trump administration do this with inexperienced “amateurs?”

Now although I do not personally approve of  many of the nominees that have been put forth, many are highly successful businesspersons who, I suspect, will turn out to be fairly good administrators.

But the way the American people have traditionally been informed is through a free press. The profile of the press has certainly changed. Newspapers, then radio and television have been the way to inform us. But this election campaign has seen the emergence of many so-called Internet “news” sites that have done little but rile up people with misleading and false articles without attribution. And frankly, I have been very disappointed in the content of such institutional papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, which have been clearly biased. As a former newspaper reporter, I have long since learned that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.

As a former newspaper reporter, I have long since learned that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.

At the same time, the role of whatever press we now have is continuously changing. As a teenager, I had access to many magazines such as Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report. Now, these magazines are a shell of what they are and have drifted politically. As one political comedian pointed out the only person that Newsweek has put more on its cover than Sarah Palin is Jesus.

When I was in high school, we also had Life, Look and The Saturday Evening Post. All gone though the Post has restarted as what is basically a bi-monthly nostalgia magazine.

Yet, the need for a free press remains a backbone of our way of life. While many still feel it was wrong, a free press uncovered Watergate, as well as many political scandals from other eras.

The handling of the White House press corps has been bungled badly. You don’t call CNN liars, especially when they are the most neutral cable news enterprise. You don’t have your press secretary tell “alternate truths” about the size of the inaugural crowds, especially in light of the photographic evidence and DC Metro passenger data.

And finally, we need to ask ourselves if the President the Electoral College has chosen is up to the job. He obviously has a tremendous ego and is very quick to make judgments about things that don’t please him. He is clearly not “acting presidential” and I wonder if this is a good or bad thing. Harry Truman was known as one who also spoke his mind. But he also guided us through the end of the Second World War and most of the Korean Conflict.

Does the new President have the political sophistication to deal with a worldwide economic system and our longest war ever?

But most importantly, during much of my near-70 years, politics has been vicious. I can’t think of a single administration since Eisenhower’s that has not been under a microscope by the press and political opponents. Mr. Trump, it seems to me, must develop a thick skin, and so does his press secretary. Ignoring those who disagree and simply stating his policies and views must be the cornerstone of his administration. I don’t like the man. But he is our President. Mr. Obama once noted that the job of the President is to serve the American people, not just his supporters. I hope Mr. Trump can rise above partisan politics. It’s about time someone does.