Assumption Adjustment

In ninth grade I was in the inaugural class for Earth Science at my high school. As the inaugural class we had supposedly been selected as brighter than average (true enough, thinking back) and our teacher was a seasoned (if not pickled) educator albeit with some notable character quirks. All of these factors resulted in a memorable year and the profusion of running jokes, catchphrases and genuine lore.

One section of the class covered the interpretation of astronomical observations to explain the movement of the sun and planets, to wit, the geocentric vs. heliocentric interpretation of the solar system. Geocentrism, of course, had the religious stamp of approval and the simplest observation, reinforced by human nature, appeared to show everything revolving around us in circular orbits. However, representing the precise apparent* movement of the planets in a geocentric interpretation eventually required a series of epicycles and exceptions, whereas the heliocentric model could represent the same motions in essentially circular orbits.

We are seeing a similar clash of interpretations as we labor to make sense of the actions of the Trump Administration. (I am temporarily letting the rest of the GOP off the hook here because of their passivity in the face of the administration's activity.) The traditional approach to executive branch analysis over the last half-century or so looks at policy preferences, constituencies and the various players when interpreting executive action. It makes a lot of assumptions, as it turns out, but those hadn't been viewed as such since they had by and large been followed. One of the biggest of these is that executive branch actions, whether we agree with them or not, are intended by the President and his Administration to advance the power and status of the United States of America.

We are seeing that the "geocentric" model of executive analysis is struggling mightily to rationalize the following (unfortunately not a complete list):

• America's heel turn regarding Ukraine and NATO in general
• Destruction of US soft power
• Destruction of US scientific and medical research infrastructure
• Economic chaos via tariff wars etc.
• RFK Jr.

None of this makes sense from the traditional approach. I'm not sure if I have seen any actual epicycle diagrams yet but they may not be far behind. How, traditional interpreters ask, does any of this advance US national interests?

******

There is another approach, one where we take the same data and infer** a different model. Here it is:

The goal of the Trump Administration is the de facto destruction of the United States of America and the reduction of its population to an impoverished, disease-prone, poorly-educated lumpenproletariat, the better to be ruled and cowed by an expansive surveillance state.

Trump himself doesn't give a shit about any of that; his sole project is his self-enrichment. Hell, he'd be fine with a second (big, beautiful, cherished) Marshall Plan as long as he got a cut. However, he has unsurprisingly gathered about himself the Worst and the Dimmest who are taking this second chance and are running with it.

There is no action taken by this administration that does not align with that statement. Even the retraction of policy from pushback reinforces the point that the word of the government means nothing.

I get that this is a really hard adjustment to make for a political and media class comfortable with norms and certainties, but the sooner they adjust, the sooner we can stop it.

Just look at the data, is all I'm saying.

*"Apparent" was emphasized by the teacher as part of the scientific method of measurement, observation and inference. We of course ran with that to the extent that anything like "I did my homework" would be countered with "Apparently!" Oh to be young and a jerk again.

**We could not state; we had to infer from the data