The culmination of a once great nation,

founded on principles of liberalization.

Enlightenment trumping degradation,

thoughts unbound, no stagnation.

~

Liberty unleashing new illumination.

Opinions unfounded fuel frustration.

Left and right debate causation.

Answers found no destination.

~

Conformity’s no coadunation.

Thoughtlessness fuels desperation.

Interdependence declares restoration.

Higher ground’s no damnation.

~

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Here is a simple test: do you think of public employees should work for the public, or for a political party? Until very recently, the vast majority of people, even those skeptical about government, would have said that a nonpartisan public service was better than a politicized one, and that giving politicians more control over public employees was a bad thing. Most people still believe that, but a growing number, mostly Republicans, believe politicians should be able to purge public employees for any reason. For much of my career as a public administration professor, how the public thought about the public sector was a bit of an afterthought. Politicians from both parties broadly criticized the bureaucracy, but did little about it. This has changed. Trump made attacks on the administrative state a central part of his political identity, and acted those claims in his second term. Most of these actions are, in my view, deeply damaging, but in this post I want to consider how it might have affected how the public thinks about government.

Conventional wisdoms about public opinion of government

Before we get into the data about changes in about politicization, here are some useful conventional wisdoms about trust in government. When people talk about trust in government, it is a) good to be specific (trust in what?) and b) be a little informed by what is driving those beliefs. Trust in the federal government is lower than other levels of government, and other parts of society. It has also been declining over time. But much of distrust in government is distrust in national politicians, who are more visible and salient than state and local officials.

[...] If you want to lean into Stier’s cautious optimism, what might this look like? I think it would involve the confluence of two things. First, that consequences change people’s views. Trump’s talk about the deep state, by itself, did not alter views of politicization. His politicization actions did. It may be that the consequences of those actions will cause people to revise these views. Second, people need to be able to connect specific public sector failures to Trump’s broad project of politicization. Trump has a readymade story to explain failures: they are other people’s fault — his opponents, advisors, or bureaucrats. This story has limited appeal but does resonate with his supporters, and they are the ones who have changed their minds. The alternative story is that politicization breeds failure: it puts decisionmakers in bubbles where staff are afraid to question them; it sees competent people purged at the behest of social media nut jobs, replaced with less capable loyalists, or simply does not replaced at all; it removes checks on corruption. The politicization-breeds-failure story has the benefit of being true, supported both by research evidence on the effects of politicization as well as example after example where Trump is undermining capacity. But the story still needs to be told. What this implies is that the media connects specific outcomes to broader actions: public sector failures occur in the context of politicization. For example, Trump basically broke the Inspectors General system by firing anyone he disliked, not bothering to follow the minimal requirement to explain his reasoning to Congress. You don’t have to be an institutional theorist to see the problem with the President firing the people who, by law, are supposed to investigate waste, fraud and abuse in his administration. How hard is it for reporters to connect stories of these firings to stories of failure? (Of course we have fewer of those stories, because Inspectors General were one of the primary sources, which is why they are being fired). Anytime anything bad happens in these agencies, note that Trump fired the cop whose job it was to stop it from happening.

Rejected Letter to the Editor, October 2024.

I submitted this to the Scranton Times-Tribune on October 5, 2024, and never heard back, so I’m posting it here.

I am appalled at the news of mask bans popping up in various places. I ought to have a right to protect myself from the elements: viruses, pollen, pollution, wildfire smoke, or cold, by wearing a mask. Health exceptions are not sufficient because having to carry papers or explain medical status is Un-American. Anonymity should not be forbidden and we should be allowed liberty of movement, a right described in our Constitution. There are already reports of disabled and elderly being targeted with harassment. It was in the news that a cancer patient in North Carolina, at a time a mask ban was merely proposed, was “confronted by a man who shouted expletives and called her a liberal for wearing the mask”, he feigned coughing and said he hopes the cancer kills her. It was also in the news that a mayor in Kentucky, a state with the highest rates of cancer, suggested mask bans would “curb gun violence” - instead of doing something about the guns, which seems entirely misguided. Mask bans are likely to lead to more violence. There have been letters to the editor in a New York newspaper suggesting vigilantism - one suggesting that others should harass people wearing masks by rudely taking photos, and fear mongering with the suggestion that masked elderly community members might actually be dangerous criminals “in costume”, which is ridiculous. Mask bans put targets on vulnerable innocent citizens who already have been marginalized by a society that’s politicized personal safety and is failing in the prevention of various disease spread. It’s a grotesque irony for people with cancer to get difficult and expensive treatments, only to be recklessly infected with a virus because masks are criminalized in some places. I hope nobody suggests such a nonsense law in northeastern Pennsylvania.

References:

https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/nyclu-condemns-nassau-county-mask-ban

https://www.wral.com/story/scared-to-put-on-my-mask-cancer-patient-says-she-was-intentionally-coughed-on-in-spat-over-mask/21478890/

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2024/10/01/louisville-mask-ordinance-what-is-it-who-is-exempt-upcoming-changes/75468091007/

https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/map/map.withimage.php

https://www.asbestos.com/cancer/state-cancer-rates/

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/lithium-ion-battery-storage-state-abortion-laws-nassau-mask-ban-ji10m9i5

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/31/omicron-covid-cancer-deadly

It’s always okay to remain silent, wait for more information and reserve judgement, especially when a media and social media firestorm erupts.

The notoriously apolitical New England Journal of Medicine isn’t endorsing any particular candidate, and isn’t mentioning any specific names, but “our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”

“The response of our nation’s leaders has been consistently inadequate. The federal government has largely abandoned disease control to the states. ... governors do not have the tools that Washington controls. ... This crisis has produced a test of leadership. ... Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.”

Other points of interest:

“Our leaders have stated outright that masks are political tools rather than effective infection control measures.”

The CDC “has been eviscerated and has suffered dramatic testing and policy failures.”

The FDA “has been shamefully politicized, appearing to respond to pressure from the administration rather than scientific evidence.”