POLITICAL BLUNDERS

In 2025, President Trump issued an executive order terminating federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) on the grounds that "neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens."

                  U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss a couple of weeks ago issued an injunction after NPR and PBS sued.  The Judge's ruling is informative:  "The First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power--including the power of the purse--to punish or suppress disfavored expression by others."

                  To be sure, this is rich considering the ongoing censorship by the Biden administration regarding dissenting COVID opinions, but let's let that lie for now.  While the judge may be right, the thing that I want to point out is how this whole debacle illustrates political blundering.

                  Because Trump chose to make this about politics rather than constitutional authority, the whole case has devolved into a name-calling fight rather than a clarifying position on the role of government.  Does the Constitution allow the existence of a Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the umbrella that funds NPR and PBS?  That is a much more noble question, and speaks to the American brand.

                  The whole idea of America was small government and individual opportunity.  You can't encourage individual opportunity when you have a meddlesome and interventionist government.  Privatizing everything possible, including philanthropic obligations to the poor and disabled, is what made America distinctive among civilizations. Low taxes, high entrepreneurial freedom, and high philanthropy propelled American exceptionalism.

                  A debate about the role of government is far more important than whether a particular agency is being politically prejudicial.  Going to the core idea means exploring whether the agency under discussion should even exist.  Instead, we get this childish "I don't like what you say" approach and what could be a societally valuable discussion turns into a tantrum exchange.

                  That is highly unfortunate because at this juncture of Americanism we desperately need honest and deep core debate about the role of government and responsibility of citizens.  A good example is foreign aid.  Every time some foreign government does something U.S. leadership doesn't like, we threaten to "cut off your aid."  Why should the U.S. give any aid to any foreign government?  Wasn't this one of George Washington's major contentions, to avoid "entanglements" with foreign powers?

                  But instead, U.S. leaders assume foreign aid is a given and just argue over whether it's more or less beneficial to this outfit or that one.  The notion that we should keep our money at home to tend our own garden never even sees the light of day.  That's unfortunate because it cheapens the discussion.  What could be a substantive exchange becomes simply a decision about which bucket gets the money.  

                  The result of all this theater is that as a society we never deal with the convictional and over-arching philosophical foundations that underly policy.  We don't ask whether there should be agricultural subsidies.  The only question is who should get them and how much.  

                  The fact that Trump issued his executive order on the basis of political disenchantment rather than on the basis of restoring constitutional government is a political blunder.  We the people deserve, desire, and should demand that these issues be discussed substantively rather than like a schoolyard tantrum. To deny deep debate in the public square indicates cowardice among our leaders and lack of accountability among the citizenry.  Both bode ill for America's future.

                  Is Public Broadcasting constitutional?

PS:  If you like my blog, please forward it to others.  Thank you.