Comprehensive Impacts of Trump’s First Year: Social Contract
2017 was a surreal year. Just when we think things can’t get any worse, lo and behold, a new tweet comes out. Or a new policy is introduced. Or a new world leader is so offended that we get closer to doomsday. Trump’s election has normalized and publicized the proverbial anonymous yahoo comments, and it’s hard to imagine that he still has a small but loud base of support and that people chose this narcissistic, sexist, racist sociopath consciously. He has exemplified our slow, subtle transformation from intelligent citizens to mindless consumers to salivating spectators who have a constant need for entertainment and outrage.
I always said that when voting for president, what we’re really voting for was the Supreme Court. I am going on record to say that I was wrong. Dead wrong. Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are so many ways a president can be harmful other than by Supreme Court appointments. To be sure, judicial appointments are one major way that Trump is detrimental to the country, and it will take at least a generation to recover from those appointments alone. But this document shows that a president can do deep and lasting damage in many ways.
Although I vacillate between disgust and defeat and anger, I am trying very hard to channel all of those feelings into fighting against our spiral toward Idiocracy. The only way to do this is for everyone who is eligible to actually get out and vote in every single election. This November’s midterm elections will tell us if Americans are really ready for progress or if they’re apathetic enough to continue our moral, ethical, and constitutional decline.
There have been several year-end round-ups about Trump’s first year. Many of them are laughably revisionist. But there were some informative ones. Axios created a great chart of search trends for some of the biggest news events of the first year, showing how we’ve all jumped from one four-alarm news fire to another. Rolling Stone summarized the damage of Trump’s first year. And Roger Cohen with the New York Times editorialized our frightening reality in If This is America.
This piece is meant to be a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of Trump’s first year as President of the United States of America (let that sink in). There are many things that happened during the campaign that are not included. Included are impacts from January 20, 2017, to January 31, 2018 (in some cases, February 1). There are sure to be things missing, but I have done my best to record these impacts. The impacts are listed under 19 different categories:
3. Women & Families;
4. LBGT;
6. Ethics;
7. Targeting free press/free speech/Privacy;
8. Health & Safety;
10. Education;
11. Transportation/Infrastructure/Housing;
12. Immigration;
13. Social Contract;
14. Business/Economy/Budget;
15. Military/Defense/Police;
16. World;
17. General Governance;
18. Character; and
19. Some good news. Because there is always some good news.
Of course, some of the impacts may fit under multiple categories. For example, does Trump’s encouragement of police to treat suspects violently fall under Health and Safety or Law Enforcement? Or maybe Ethics or Character? There are many such conundrums, and I have tried to categorize each example appropriately. Some may disagree on the categorization. And that’s OK. As a researcher, I’m still pondering good ways to visualize all of this data, but in the meantime, it’s listed here. Fair warning: This is long. The items may not necessarily be in chronological order.
Since this will take me months to write, I will publish each section as I complete it. This is the 13th article and covers Trump’s impacts on the social contract.
I want to acknowledge Amy Siskind’s weekly list of subtle changes that experts in authoritarianism say to watch out for. Amy’s in-depth listings were invaluable, and a must-read itself.
Buckle your seatbelts.
Social Contract
The rise of Trump has started a slow tear in the social contract that distinguishes developed nations. Craig Klugman of The American Journal of Bioethics explains it well:
Since World War II, the United States has invested heavily in science and technology, developing transportation, and building a better world (and winning wars). Since the 1960s, the US has provided a safety net for the poor, support for the arts, and public broadcasting. Since 1970, the U.S. has worked to ensure that people have the opportunity for flourishing by protecting the environment, providing financial aid for college, and strengthening our relationships with international partners — peace through diplomacy. [Trump’s] 2018 budget undoes 80 years of social progress and support.
David Coates of the Political Studies Association described what Trump is doing as not simply conservative, but a radical reassertion of “older notions of patriarchy, of homophobia, of nativism, and of anti-intellectualism in all its forms.” According to Coates, Trump is doing three things: Pushing back on a half-century of regulations “designed to curtail the worst excesses of unregulated capitalism;” re-establishing an argument for “trickle-down economics,” which we know is the antithesis of protecting those who are least able to benefit from an unregulated free market; and alienating voters by discrediting our governmental systems. All of this undermines our social contract “between the healthy and the sick, between immigrants and the native-born, between men and women, between Americans of differing sexual orientations and religions, between the rich and the poor, and — most of all — between those who own capital and those who do not.”
For the first time since a survey on Americans’ fears was started, researchers found that Americans are most fearful of government corruption and things that are happening specifically with the presidency such as Trump’s dismantling healthcare, pollution and climate change, and not having enough money or resources for the future. Another study found that trust in government “to do what is right” is collapsing.
· Trump’s budget drastically reduced funding for programs for the poor and homeless. Of course, one exception to these funding cuts is a federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords, such as himself. Trump gets millions of dollars a year as a part-owner of one of the country’s largest subsidized housing complexes.
· The budget isn’t the only thing that targets our social contract. Greg Kaufmann noted that the tax plan is actually about “shredding the safety net.” He writes,
Think of it as a two-step project. A deficit-exploding tax giveaway to the very wealthiest corporations and individuals is step one. You cannot invest in the strategies that have been proven to help lift families out of poverty . . . without adequate revenues. Not only will revenues take a hit at the federal level, but it’s expected that local and state governments will roll back investments in necessities like schools, drug treatment centers, pensions and more to lessen the tax burden on residents who will no longer be able to take the same federal tax deduction on property, state, and local income taxes. Then, by adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit, the tax plan sets in motion the second step: in the name of deficit reduction, congressional Republicans will move to cut the programs that help Americans experiencing financial hardship have at least some shot at affording basic necessities like food, housing, health care, education, and a little dignity in our later years.
· With his budget and tax bill ballooning the deficit, right on cue, Republicans have targeted cutting spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs as a way to trim the federal deficit.
· In what has been described as “sabotage of a five-decade social contract,” the Trump regime is trying to decimate Medicaid, which covers “more than one in five Americans, almost one half of births, 39 percent of children, about two-thirds of nursing home and long-term care, and more than one-quarter of mental health services.”
· Reversing the humane policies of President Obama, the Trump regime started encouraging states to pursue work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, which is an administrative way to destroy Medicaid by avoiding Congress. This is despite the fact that there’s no evidence to show that having work requirements increases workforce participation, presumably because the people who can work already are working. This was in response to Trump’s failed attempt of repealing Obamacare and preventing Medicaid from covering the poorest Americans in states that expanded Medicaid to them. And it’s despite the fact that most people on Medicaid who can work already are working. Eight states have begun the process of requiring Medicaid recipients to either work or provide community service.
· At the state level, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker moved forward with a plan for poor people to undergo drug testing in order to get food stamps. This despite the fact that research has shown that drug testing welfare recipients is a complete waste of taxpayer money and does nothing except perpetuate stereotypes and racism.
· Also on cue, Republicans proposed cutting Social Security and raising the retirement age from 67 to 69.
· Senator Marco Rubio confirmed that the Republican tax plan benefits corporations and the wealthy and will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.
· Trump proposed cutting off heating assistance — a critical lifeline for low-income Americans.
· Trump appointed a right-wing proponent of limited government and a free-market approach to regulations as head of the Federal Communications Commission.
· Trump’s FCC voted to roll back the Lifeline program, which is known as the “Medicaid of the telecommunications universe,” subsidizes broadband and phone service for low-income households. The FCC also voted to consider a spending cap for the Lifeline program and barring certain providers from offering the program at all. In addition, they voted to eliminate the extra $25 per month subsidy for people who live on tribal lands.
· The FCC also repealed net neutrality rules, clearing the way for internet providers to block or slow access to internet services or to create “fast lanes” for people willing to pay more. The FCC is also trying to preempt any state or local net neutrality regulations that would try to protect its own consumers.
· In Puerto Rico, access to water and electricity continues to be spotty while the federal government has abandoned the island.
The next article will cover business, economy, and budget. Note that for subsequent years, the topics of business and economy are separated from the topic of budget.
