From left, Democrat, ... ]

From left, Democrat, ... ] Eric Gay/AP

Analysis: Why Won’t Democrats Say They Want Government to Solve Problems?

Americans want government to serve them, but don't have confidence that it actually can.

All 10 Democratic candidates in the Houston debate Sept. 13 spoke about investing public money – taxpayer dollars – in education, health care and economic opportunity for Americans. Those ideas depend on an underlying point none of them came out and said directly: Government can help citizens live better lives and achieve their dreams.

Why won’t Democrats come out and say that government is, or at least can be, good?

Crisis of distrust

The 2020 presidential campaign is happening in an America facing a historic crisis of public trust in political leaders, branches of government and each other. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur seeking the Democratic nomination, said it directly on the stage: “We don’t trust our institutions anymore.”

According to a Pew Research Center report, only 17% of Americans today trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” – down from 77% who trusted the government in 1964.

Likewise, Gallup has tracked the precipitous decline in confidence in American institutions. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has declined from 49% in 1975 to 38% today. Confidence in Congress has declined from 40% in 1975 to 11% today. Confidence in the presidency has declined from 52% in 1975 to 38% today.

What’s worse, Pew says that in 2019 only 39% of Americans have a very great or good deal of trust and confidence in “the wisdom of the American people in making political decisions.”

History of ‘government is the problem’

Americans haven’t always been distrustful of government.

In fact, at least since the presidencies of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, presidents have made the case for the power and authority of the federal government to solve the nation’s problems. For Monroe and Adams the immediate issues were “internal improvements” like building canals, but the bigger question of the proper role and scope of government was the same as today.

Perhaps President Franklin Delano Roosevelt most forcefully advocated for a strong and active government. For example, in a 1938 Fireside Chat he justified the newly enlarged power of the federal government because “history proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones.” Government was the solution, not the problem.

In his Fireside Chats, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt often made the case that government was intended to help people. Harris & Ewing, photographer/Library of Congress via Wikimedia Commons

But, by 1981 President Ronald Reagan famously declared in his first inaugural address, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Reagan used his presidency to push policies of deregulation – to “get the government off the backs of the people,” he said. His successors mostly did more of the same, with very few politicians of either party making a case for why a strong government is a good thing in the post-Reagan era.

A change of heart

Recently, though, the Reagan consensus about the value of government and deregulation has fractured. It’s fractured in part because deregulation has a vocal and polarizing new champion.

No previous president has been as against government as President Donald Trump has been, which has caused quite a bit of controversy. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and presidency has been unusually vehement in opposition to the government’s power to enact regulations.

In one of his first acts as president, Trump issued an executive order to reduce regulation by requiring agencies to “identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed” for each new regulation proposed.

To take just one area of deregulation as an example, Trump has reversed at least 85 environmental regulations. Trump has been accused of “attacking the environment” by the climate scientists, conservationists and average citizens who worry about the catastrophic effects of climate change.

Trump’s war on regulations looks like it will continue, should he win a second term. On June 18, Vice President Mike Pence kicked off Trump’s re-election campaign by declaring that the 2020 election would be a choice between “a future of more freedom or a future of more government.”

What happened at the debate

The Democratic Party of 2019 seems to have a view of an active and energetic government that can solve the nation’s problems. Candidate after candidate at the Houston debate invoked their plans – Sen. Kamala Harris opened by explaining that she planned “on spending tonight talking with you about my plans to address the problems that keep you up at night.” Former Vice President Joe Biden had a “bold plan to deal with making sure we triple the money for at-risk schools.” Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro said he was proud of his “plan to disarm hate.”

So many plans flew across the stage that South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at one point exclaimed, “My plan, your plan. Look, we all have different visions for what is better” for the country. Congressman Beto O'Rourke tweeted out a meme merging his assault rifle buyback plan with Warren’s “I’ve got a plan for that” tagline.

A recent Pew report found that “majorities favor increased spending for education, veterans, infrastructure and other government programs.” The Democrats running for president in Houston have plans for that, but first they have to convince a doubting public that the government is capable of solving problems, not creating them.

This post originally appeared at The Conversation. Follow @ConversationUS on Twitter.

The Conversation

The Bureau of Land Management's new headquarters will be in Grand Junction, Colorado.

The Bureau of Land Management's new headquarters will be in Grand Junction, Colorado. By Paul Gana / Shutterstock.com

Interior Official: Land Bureau Relocations Are Not Intended to 'Drain the Swamp'

Department would like to retain all employees and has instituted a hiring freeze to ensure positions are available for those who don't want to move, official says.

The Trump administration on Tuesday defended itself against accusations that it is trying to shrink the size of the federal workforce by relocating offices out of Washington, D.C, saying it is instead looking to retain every employee. 

The decision to relocate the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to Colorado and move hundreds of additional positions to western states was based entirely on operational concerns, William Perry Pendley, the senior official currently serving as BLM director, said at a hearing before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Interior Department is taking great pains to ensure no employees are forced to leave, Pendley said, noting employees will receive official relocation notices next week. 

BLM and the entire Interior Department have implemented hiring freezes to ensure vacancies for bureau employees who do not wish to move west, Pendley said. He added Interior was “working aggressively” so that employees can either accept their relocation or find a new position within the department. 

“Our desire is to not lose a single employee,” Pendley said. He added, however, that BLM has conducted no analysis to determine how many employees will actually leave, aside from a “rough estimate” based on historical data suggesting 25% of impacted employees would retire or separate from the agency. 

He said in his time at BLM he has been “mightily impressed” with the agency’s career staff. 

“I could not be more pleased with their work or their performance,” Pendley said. “I do not want to lose a single one of them. I’m not trying to drain the swamp, I’m trying to make it more possible for them to do their job.” 

Pendley said the exact positions designated for relocation will be unveiled next week, with employees receiving notifications “promptly.” BLM will make Employee Assistance Program counselors available to staff and their families, and both EAP experts and human resources personnel will meet one-on-one with impacted workers to “be responsive to their needs.” Those who do move, he said, will benefit from a lower cost of living, shorter commutes, better access to recreational areas and “more fulfilling jobs.”

The Interior Department is planning to relocate about 250 Washington-based Bureau of Land Management employees to western states, including 27 who will serve at the agency’s new headquarters in Grand Junction, Colorado. Sixty-one employees will remain in D.C., moving from the current BLM building in Southeast D.C. to the Interior headquarters. 

Every Democratic member who spoke at the hearing voiced reservations about the move, with several suggesting the relocation was in reality an effort to shed federal workers and ultimately dismantle BLM. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., cited acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who said last month that relocating offices was a good way to shed federal employees. 

“It’s hard to consider anything this administration does in good faith when they are so transparent about what their true motivations are,” Grijalva said. “What better way to eliminate the BLM than to drive out its staff.” 

In defending the move, Pendley reiterated the benefits previously laid out by administration officials: the relocation will place decision-makers closer to the lands they manage, lower lease payments, reduce travel costs and generate savings by paying employees lower cost-of-living locality rates. He noted that half of BLM’s Senior Executive Service employees work in Washington, in addition to 70% of the General Schedule-15 workers. Moving career leaders west would benefit those workforces and enable BLM to address local issues more quickly, he said. 

“The ones giving advice to our secretary, should they be here in these hallways or should they be out in the field?” Pendley said. “We can solve problems earlier in the process if we see them earlier.”

He also suggested the move would help recruit new employees going forward. 

“I think we’re going to have an easier time hiring employees,” Pendley said. “It’s going to be better for the bureau.”

Several Republican members of the committee praised the decision for reducing power in Washington, D.C., saying they would applaud any effort to move federal workers outside of the nation’s capital. They agreed the relocations would better serve the needs of local communities in western states. 

The Interior Department is still feuding with Congress over its authority to move forward with the relocation. Democratic appropriators have accused the administration of circumventing congressional intent and its prerequisites to justify the move. Interior has countered Congress missed its deadline to object and it will move forward using already appropriated funds.

“Congress gave us $5.6 million [for reorganization],” Pendley said. “The secretary decided to utilize that to move and we’re on the march.” He added he was appearing before lawmakers in part to convince them to meet BLM’s future funding needs for the relocation.  

BLM also faced criticism for failing to consult stakeholders before the move, including Indian tribes. Tony Small, vice chairman of the Ute Indian Business Committee, who appeared at the hearing on behalf of 20 additional tribes located across six western states, said BLM’s claim that Interior held 11 consultations with stakeholders was misleading because those meetings did not involve the relocation specifically and no BLM employees were present. 

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., called the relocation an “extreme proposal,” noting the Agriculture Department’s recent relocation of two bureaus to Kansas City led to 71% of employees declining to relocate. Ed Shepard, president of the Public Lands Foundation, a group composed largely of former BLM employees, said “many” bureau employees have indicated they will leave the agency. Some will seek jobs at other agencies, he said, while others will leave government altogether.