I am amazed. A columnist for The Oregonian actually asked for my critique of the new President of the United States. Of course, Elizabeth Hovde is not one of their Left-Wing journalists, but she has consistently opposed Donald Trump, as has the paper.
The Oregonian has tolerated my Op-Eds for the last decade but only grudgingly acknowledged that I might have a worthwhile perspective on the crucial scientific issues of our day. If I become too critical of the ruling class or the paper itself, my Op-Eds go in the circular file. Such was the case with my latest that was critical of the City of Portland for being unprepared for a strong dose of winter weather and for adamantly refusing to plan for any swings of our climate to the cold side. Stirring up trouble causes too much heartburn in the halls of power. I should know better!
Here is what Elizabeth Hovde asked me:
Hi, Gordon.
Tell me: From your point of view, what should I be encouraged about and scared about with Trump in charge.
Here is what I told her:
Dear Elizabeth,
To critique the new President of the United States after just a few days in office is a tall order indeed, and the objective answers will not be clear for some time. All U.S. Presidents have their good and bad points. I suspect that Donald Trump’s good points will FAR outweigh any negative ones.
I am very encouraged that he is the oldest President ever to be inaugurated. That not only says that he is mature but also that he intends to get something accomplished in his four or eight year term. No one who is my age or slightly older would want to be President, just to pad his resume. I know that for sure. We take up high risk challenges where so many others have failed, because we feel that this nation, or in my case science, is in desperate trouble, having been sidelined by corruption, greed, ideology, and radical politics.
As successful businessmen or scientists we know how things really work in an objective world. Although we may seem like just the mirror image of those we criticize, we are actually moderate politically, more interested in the objectivity of the business or scientific worlds. That gives us a good basis from which to build.
With so many promises from President Trump during his campaign, I would first look to see if he is moving toward implementing them or merely falling back into the politics as usual in Washington. By reverting to the standard operating procedure for most politicians, President Trump would make his term far more tranquil and pleasant. Then he could push a golf ball around the many golf courses designed for men his age. But what would be the point? Why not just leave the Presidency to younger men in the first place?
Trump is obviously not headed in that direction at all. Note that he has selected people of great distinction, energy, and brilliance for his cabinet. That says that he wants the best advice that he can get and is not the least bit concerned that these people may overshadow and even disagree with him. He does not want ‘Yes’ men who will tell him what he wants to hear. He wants those who tell him what he needs to hear. Note that he is keeping FBI Director James Comey, despite differences during the campaign.
As to policies, President Trump seems to be rolling out Executive Orders in a carefully considered fashion, not only to fulfill promises but to build momentum and avoid getting mired in the molasses of government. If he waited for his cabinet choices to be confirmed, he would lose that momentum. And if he waited for Congress to act, he would be waiting his entire term. His job is to lead, and he understands that.
Is there a danger that our new President goes too far with the Executive Orders? I doubt it, because he seems to be merely taking charge and reversing the excesses of the Obama years. That greatly needs to be accomplished, before additional damage occurs. We need American businesses and American science restored to their proper functions, freed from the shackles of over-regulation, ideology, and corruption.
The Left will see all of this as an unmitigated disaster, because of the impacts it will have on their ability to micromanage our society and to impose their pseudo-religion on all of us. But even they may come to realize that a more prosperous country can more easily attend to the needs of its citizens and environment. Despite what they say about Donald Trump, he is far from the monster they imagine.
What we need to watch about President Trump is his ability to understand the many “zero sum games” that he faces. These are situations like health care, where he can reconfigure America’s approach but is still stuck with choices that create winners and losers. He can undoubtedly make improvements but not perform miracles. Someone, from ratepayers to taxpayers to physicians to hospitals, is going to have to deal with the very high costs. Probably all.
Trump’s efforts to return manufacturing to the USA will have some negative consequences for the cost of goods sold here and for the prosperity of the Third World that has found a way out of their pervasive poverty. He also needs to practice protectionism in moderation to avoid trade wars that harm everyone. While completely free trade has its downside, completely halting it does too.
Another ‘zero-sum game’ is taxes. The Federal Government ultimately has to take in enough revenue to pay its bills. Reducing the size of government and cutting out very wasteful spending is a good start. But it needs to be matched with restraint on new spending and tax cuts, such that we create a proper balance over time.
With science, the new administration will need to understand that science is far more than a good story, far more than a politically convenient story, and certainly far more than the “unprecedented” tall tales and alarmism that President Obama found sooo appealing. If President Trump is careful to fund only those scientists who adhere to the Scientific Method, he will go a long ways toward returning science to its proper place in our society. In the field of “climate science” that will mean reducing funding by at least 75% to get rid of all the bad science and bad scientists.
As the famous MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen pointed out recently, prior to 1990 hardly anyone in most meteorology departments considered themselves to be a “climate scientist.” Now most do. And they largely crank out studies that pleased the previous administration in exchange for ample funding. That is prostitution, not science. They need to find alternative employment, because they have violated the “Utter Honesty” required of all scientists. Being wrong is forgivable. Being deliberately dishonest is not.
Will President Donald John Trump display the wisdom of Solomon? That’s unlikely, even though his initial moves have been very hopeful. I would settle for 75%. That would be a huge improvement over Obama and even Bush 43.
Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research and has no conflicts of interest on this subject.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Northwest Connection.)
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel