The Silent Gutting of Government

Michael Lewis is by now a well-known journalist who manages to find scandals or unknown areas of chicanery to expose in a highly readable way. Previous books have focused on Wall Street (The Big Short), baseball (Moneyball), and football (The Blind Side). His latest book is titled The Fifth Risk, and what it exposes is the scandalous nature of the Trump Administration’s transition, or more precisely, lack of transition, when it took the reins of power in 2017. Normally, that is, an incoming administration will devote a whole team to preparing itself to take over the running of the major agencies of government: the State Department and the Justice Department most visibly, but then the agencies that reallymanage the nation—the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (within which is NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and so on. It will appoint a head of transition to oversee the thousands of details and massive learning it takes to successfully keep these huge departments of government running smoothly. And the Trump administration actually did try to appoint someone, ex-New Jersey governor Chris Christie, to be the overseer. The problem that emerged almost immediately, however, was that Christie wanted to spend money on the transition, and the President expressed outrage at this alleged waste. Then the fact that Christie had been involved in a lawsuit against son-in-law Jared Kushner seems to have sealed his fate, and he was fired. The Trump administration from then on decided it could simply ‘wing it’ and that is where Lewis focuses his story and his outrage. For in the crucial early weeks and months of the Trump administration, Obama agency heads, prepared to brief their successors on critical details of agencies like The Department of Energy, found themselves waiting in vain. The new administration simply didn’t show up. “Across the Federal government, the Trump people weren’t anywhere to be found,” writes Lewis. Indeed, the same Jared Kushner who got Christie fired was so naïve about how transitions transpire that he expressed surprise that so much of the White House staff was leaving. “It was like he thought it was a corporate acquisition or something,” says an Obama White House staffer. “He thought everyone just stayed” (p. 36). So all across Washington, heads of departments were waiting with voluminous reports on the major activities of their departments they figured the new people would need, and for months, they waited in vain. The Trump administration seemed deeply uninterested. 

            Lewis focuses much of his attention on the huge Department of Energy. This is the department that, among other things, monitors our very large and very dangerous nuclear arsenal. The DOE, which oversees 115,000 employees spread throughout the nation at national labs like Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia, operates all this with a multi-billion-dollar budget, but the CFO of this department, Joe Hezir, after waiting and waiting to brief someone about its workings, simply left. When a few young Trump apparatchiks finally did show up, “They were just looking for dirt, basically,” said one of the veterans who briefed them about national security. They had no idea that U.S. scientists no longer test nuclear weapons, but relies on simulated explosions carried out at the labs. Nor did they have any idea of—and still may not be interested in—the risks that DOE monitors and is responsible for. These include losing a nuclear weapon (this has actually happened), and “cleaning up all the unholy world-historic mess left behind by the manufacture of nuclear weapons” (54), and where to store the hazardous waste. These risks are as serious as anything in government gets (one glitch involved using organic kitty litter instead of inorganic litter to soak up nuclear waste, which caused an explosion), such as the “Broken Arrow” syndrome: this refers to a nuclear accident, like losing a weapon somewhere, that doesn’t lead to a nuclear war. It also includes keeping track of weapons to prevent them from being stolen and used by terrorists. But again, the Trump people were simply content to remain ignorant of all this. As Lewis concludes at one point, “Trump’s budget, like the social forces behind it, is powered by a perverse desire—to remain ignorant” (p. 80). 

            The same pattern governed the transition at the huge United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is a department with over 100,000 employees and a budget of $151 billion. It runs food stamps, free school lunch for kids, food for pregnant women and their infants, and programs that literally finance the rural America that so loves Trump, and many others. And yet, no one from the new administration showed up for over a month. Then in came a gaggle of idiots with no relevant experience (a long-haul truck driver, a clerk at AT&T, a gas-company meter reader, a country club cabana attendant, and the owner of a scented-candle company) who were mostly interested in rooting out any ‘subversives’ who had displayed an interest in climate change. The man chosen to head the transition team was Brian Klippenstein, also rumored at one time to be Trump’s pick to head the entire USDA (Trump eventually chose ex-Georgia governor Sonny Perdue). Klippenstein’s main bona fide was that he headed a group called Protect the Harvest, an organization rabidly opposed to the Humane Society of America, which it says intends to “put an end to animal ownership” (actually, its opposition likely stems from the Humane Society’s backing of legislation meant to end the brutal elements of factory farming, such as tight cages in egg and pork production). Protect the Harvest puts its mission more popularly, saying its purpose is “to protect your right to hunt, fish, farm, eat meat, and own animals” (88). This is the guy Trump wanted to put in charge of the entire Department of Agriculture, but saner heads apparently prevailed. Not too sane, though, for the main effort of the new administration seemed to be a) to root out anyone with an interest in climate change (which will, in time, have a huge and possibly apocalyptic effect on American agriculture), and b) to eliminate those ‘radical’ Obama programs like the one to make school lunches actually nutritious instead of laced with junk food. Shortly after being confirmed by the Senate, therefore, Sonny Perdue announced that “USDA would no longer require schools to meet the whole-grain standard, or the new sodium standard (less salt), or ban fat in artificially-sweetened milk” (105). 

            There are similar outrages throughout this book. The bottom line is that Lewis asked John MacWilliams, the chief risk officer in the Department of Energy, what he opined the chief risks were if government agencies were run badly. The five risks were not surprising: 1) a nuclear weapons accident; 2) a potential conflict with North Korea; 3) a nuclear conflict with Iran (which is why the Iran Nuclear deal was so important); 4) a terrorist attack on the United States electrical grid. That left the fifth risk, which gives the book its title, and which I actually had to search for (my biggest criticism of the book). It turns out to be, according to MacWilliams, Project Management; or rather, Project Mismanagement. This is the kind of thing that can result from putting in charge of major government agencies people who have no interest in or qualifications for those jobs (or worse, whose interest, like NOAA nominee Barry Myers’, is in prohibiting the National Weather Service’s public forecasts so his private company, AccuWeather, can charge big bucks for the very information it gets from NWS). And the numbers of such people Trump has put in charge is terrifying. They all seem to have no interest in what government agencies actually do (and one of the takeaways from Lewis’ book is that these agencies actually keep immensely important operations humming, with dedicated bureaucrats, such as nuclear scientists, doing the major work). Their main interests are political—rooting out those who actually believe government does anything worthwhile (and many of the most experienced have indeed been driven out). This is the real legacy of the Reagan era—which insisted that “government IS the problem.” Government agencies, to this type of zealot, only muck things up with red tape and excessive regulation. Which, of course, became Trump’s mantra for what he planned to do: end regulations wherever possible. Which itself means ‘end regulation where such action can mean windfall profits for my contributors.’ 

            To bring this idea home, Lewis has many great portraits and interviews with pre-Trump bureaucrats. One of my favorites is Lillian Salerno, the Obama-appointed head of Rural Development Solutions (part of the Department of Agriculture). This agency makes $30 billion in loans and grants a year, often to rural banks that finance poor farmers who usually have difficulty getting loans elsewhere. But most of these farmers have no idea that the rural bank money actually comes from the government. “I had this conversation with elected and state officials almost everywhere in the South,” said Salerno. “Them: We hate the government and you suck. Me: My mission alone put $1 billion into your economy this year, so are you sure about that? Me thinking: We are the only reason your shitty state is standing” (122). Nonetheless, despite the fact that Rural Development Solutions helped the very people (rurals) who put Trump in office and keep him there, this critical government department was one of the first ones eliminated by Trump. 

Lillian Salerno’s comment on this gutting of the very agency that makes rural life possible is priceless: “At the end of the day, what do I think they are going to do?” she said. “Take all the money and give it to their banker friends. Do things like privatize water—so people in rural Florida will be paying $75 a month for it instead of $20” (125).  

That pretty much says all you need to know about Trump world and how it is ravaging the very elements of government designed to protect the masses of the American people—especially from the predatory nature of the corporate sector. Whether or not the nation can survive this onslaught remains to be determined. But one way or the other, the damage will be extensive and severe (just think what Scott Pruitt has already done to the EPA), and will require decades to recover from. 

Lawrence DiStasi

            

Enemy of the People

Though the last few days have produced several items suitable for “most captivating news story of the week” (the Democrats took over control of the House of Representatives in the mid-terms; Donald Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replaced him with a so-called lawyer who has previously argued that a new AG could stop the Mueller investigation in its tracks by cutting its budget to the bone; some new nut case has murdered 12 or 13 people in a Country Music Bar in California), the news conference run by the President himself to comment on the mid-term election really takes the fascist prize. That is the one where the President’s racism emerged not once, but twice, hammering first his longtime nemesis Jim Acosta of CNN for even asking questions, and then the PBS Newshour’s Yamiche Alcindor for asking a question about his proud labeling of himself as a “nationalist.” 

            Let’s take Alcindor first. I have watched her on the Newshour for almost a year now, and she is careful, measured, and generally quite perceptive in her reports about this chaotic White House (though I must admit, her delivery is a bit too rapid for me). On Wednesday, she got up to ask Trump a question about his oft-repeated boast that he is a “nationalist.” She noted that many have interpreted this as emboldening “white nationalism,” and asked what he had to say about that. The President, so sensitive a creature, immediately took umbrage. “To say that what you said is very insulting to me,” the President responded, pointing his finger. “It’s a very terrible thing what you said.” Then he went into a completely unsupported rant about how he has “the highest poll numbers ever with African Americans,” and then repeated again that “That’s such a racist question.” And not content with having said it twice, he repeated it, “Honestly, I mean, I know you have it written down, and you’re going to tell me. Let me tell you: It’s a racist question.” He then explained that being a nationalist only means he loves our country. And then cut Alcindor off again to repeat how insulted he was: “Excuse me. But to say that—what you said is so insulting to me. It’s a very terrible thing that you said.” 

            One 'coincidence' deserves mention. On this very day, November 7, Patrick Casey, the leader of a white nationalist group called Identity Europa, posted pictures to Twitter of his visit to the White House, posing for selfies on the White House grounds. He said his visit was designed to “pay my respects,” and also added “Europa has landed at the White House!” 

            Among the important points to add about Trump’s berating of Alcindor is that she is an African American—a fact that made his ire about her question, about the “nerve” of someone like herasking him, the world’s great white leader, such a question, more fraught with meaning. What it suggested, in short, is that she, a person of color, ought to know her place; ought to know that asking a white President a question about racism was “insulting” and more, was itself “a racist question.” This is presumably because she, a black woman, had the temerity to ask a white man an impertinent question, and to do such a thing clearly—in the President’s eyes—revealed her own racism towards white people. 

            Of course, simply on its own, the President’s response to Alcindor was shocking (reverberating, as it does, with the ugly historical periods in the United States when such an ‘impertinence’ could have gotten a black person killed). But added to his response, the same day, to Jim Acosta of CNN, it comes to more than shock. It suggests that this President, if he could, would abrogate the entire First Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment, the very first one, says: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

This is about as plain as the founders could make it: a free press is necessary to the functioning of any self-governing republic. That’s because the press is one of the main checks on unlimited executive power which the founders worried so much about. They had had experience with English kings; they knew about the excesses of monarchs throughout Europe, and throughout both modern and ancient history. And they knew that the first step that despots take in moving towards unlimited power is to muzzle or outlaw a free press that can criticize them. 

            We are now in a situation in this nation where the chief executive has indicated repeatedly that he sees such a free press as a threat to his power. He has consistently labeled as “fake news” what the major and most respected media organs in this country—the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc.—report about him. He has gone even further with his contempt, calling the free press in this country (all except Fox News, his favorite, and a virtual propaganda arm of his administration), “the enemy of the people.” And in recent weeks, he has not only refused to censure the Saudi Arabian government for its blatant assassination and dismemberment of Washington Postcolumnist Jamal Kashoggi, he at first claimed that “nobody knows anything about it,” when evidence from Turkey about the murder seemed to be quite damning. He urged people and governments to wait and see what the Saudis could come up with in their investigation. As of this date, though he has claimed to be somewhat alarmed at the “bad stories” that are coming out, he has still not seen fit to condemn the Saudis for what was clearly a brazen, unapologetic and brutal assassination of a journalist who ‘didn’t know his place,’ didn’t show the proper deference to those in power. The outcome of all this might be seen in the bombs that were sent, recently, to not just major political figures like Barack Obama, but also to major news outlets like CNN—the very company Jim Acosta represents, and which Trump has attacked relentlessly for its critical reporting on him and his administration. In other words, the open attacks by the most powerful political figure in the world on journalists and their attempt to tell the truth about him—those attacks have real-world consequences. As, for example, the attack on the Capital Gazettein Annapolis MD, in which five people were shot dead (see Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Violence Aimed at Journalists in the United States,” NY Times, June 29, 2018.)

            So when the President of the United States, in a news conference which is traditionally a forum where journalists get to ask hard questions of a president, attacks a journalist like Jim Acosta personally, calling him a “rude terrible person” and repeatedly cutting him off, that is something to be alarmed about. So is the fact that one of the presidential interns, a woman, tried no less than four times to seize the microphone Acosta was using, until the president shouted something like “that’s enough” and she sat down. Acosta, by the way, was only asking a logical question: why had Trump labeled the migrant caravan from Central America as an “invasion of the country.” Trump refused to answer the question and kept ordering Acosta to sit down. The president tried to move on to another reporter but Acosta persisted, with another question about the Russia investigation, but Trump said he wasn’t worried because it was a “hoax.” When Acosta tried to continue, over Trump’s continued attempt to shut him up, “That’s enough. That’s enough,” the president insulted CNN: “When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, then you are the enemy of the people.” With this, Acosta finally yielded and Trump asked questions of other journalists.

            But it wasn’t over for Acosta. He reported that night on Twitter that “I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH (white house). Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit.” This means that Acosta’s livelihood as a journalist has been deeply threatened (though CNN has stoutly defended him). It also means that Donald Trump believes he can suspend press freedom if he takes a dislike to a reporter’s ‘impertinent’ questions. Perhaps more ominously, in an attempt to justify the banning of Acosta, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s press secretary with whom Acosta has sparred often in the past, tweeted that Acosta had laid his hands on a White House intern, and that was the reason for his ban. She included what was apparently a doctored videoof Acosta’s encounter with the intern, speeded up by the right-wing site InfoWars, to make it appear that Acosta had karate-chopped the intern’s arm. But the slower running of the video clearly shows that it was the female intern, not Acosta, who was grabbing at Acosta, and his microphone. She did it no less than four times. CNN itself said the White House’s ban of its reporter was “unprecedented,” and based on “lies.” CNN added that “It was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference…This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better.”  

            The reaction on social media has been voluminous, many calling for the resignation of Sarah Sanders for her part in falsifying the video evidence. But the resignation, in this observers’ opinion, would be more appropriate coming from the president himself. The reaction of the people in this country to this kind of dictatorial behavior from the highest elected official of the United States—someone who has an obligation to those who elected him to publicly answer for his words and his behavior; otherwise, what is the meaning of government of, by, and for the people?—should be swift and meaningful. If we the people allow the most powerful man in the country to bully reporters, sully the reputation of journalists trying to do their jobs, and treat them like uppity second-class citizens whether or not they are people of color, then democracy in America has become a sad, sick, and dangerous joke. Then the people of this nation are allowing the real “enemy of the people” to lord it over them like any of the despots he so admires, and would obviously like to emulate if he could.

Lawrence DiStasi