President Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp in 2016. But despite numerous first term policy successes, the “Deep State” proved resilient, and reducing unelected bureaucrats’ control today will prove challenging.
Potential swamp draining actions can be arrayed on levels, from narrow policy changes to the cultural forces behind bureaucratic tyranny. We can start with policy changes possible through executive order, many of which have already been issued. This includes President Biden’s “whole of government” DEI and ESG executive orders, EPA electric vehicle regulations, and auctions for drilling rights on federal land.
A second level involves getting responses to these policies. Trump can enact “Drill, Baby, Drill,” energy policies, but cannot make companies drill. Other companies may choose not to manufacture legalized high flow showerheads.
Why would businesses not embrace such opportunities? The prospect of future bans. Oil and gas production involves enormous capital investment and years of development, thus, investing in energy projects which will be prematurely shut down is a losing proposition.
Litigation could also prevent response. Blue state attorneys general will challenge Trump administration actions, just as Alabama’s Steve Marshall and others challenged Biden’s actions. Environmental groups could sue to block energy projects. While some might decry such efforts, people must be free to exercise their legal rights; laws fueling prosperity-crushing litigation must be changed, not just ignored.
A third level of action involves ensuring that the next Democratic president does not reverse the policy changes. We must be careful here, though. Policies not subject to reversal can prevent government from reflecting the will of the people.
Legislation can accomplish this. Democrats must control the White House and both chambers of Congress to reverse legislative measures. Policy changes also persist by altering the economic landscape. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act, for example, proved difficult because we cannot restore the 2010 healthcare market.
Federalism and returning policy to the states offers great promise here. Elitist, progressive intellectuals drive regulatory policy, even in red states like Alabama. But controlling liberal bureaucrats is more likely in the states than in Washington. Education policy made in Montgomery, for example, is more likely to reflect Alabama’s values.
Renewed federalism will require states to raise tax revenue to pay for schools, roads and Medicaid. If the federal government collects the taxes, it will direct spending of the dollars. State dependence on federal grants empowers denizens of the Washington swamp.
This does not mean higher taxes overall. Federal taxes could be slashed as states raise taxes. Such a shift will burden states like Alabama, which receive more money from Washington than they pay in federal taxes. This money comes at a high cost.
Returning policy to states and cities should also reduce wasteful spending yielding benefits less than costs. When federal grants pay 80% of local projects, the community benefits if the value exceeds 20 cents on the dollar. Federal dollars are often viewed as costless, driving wasteful spending across the nation.
Politics is downstream from culture, and thus a fourth level of swamp draining would address societal forces enabling control by progressive intellectuals.
School choice represents a watershed event here. Competition delivers what consumers want, so an education market will deliver instruction supportive of America’s foundational values. Expanding school choice eliminates progressives’ ability to shape culture through indoctrinating children.
Dismantling the censorship-industrial complex is also crucial. If communications and public discourse can be controlled, progressive values will advance.
As we understand from the Twitter Files, the Murthy v. Missouri litigation, and various House investigations, there are mechanisms being used to control discourse, and thus federal funding for censorship infrastructure must end. This will not be easy given the numerous funding sources within government and the ability to disguise funding. We must also resist other governments or progressive philanthropy taking over the funding of censorship.
Trump is far more ready to drain the swamp today than he was in 2017. The Deep State might regret that Trump’s second term did not begin in 2021, but taking power back from unelected bureaucrats will still prove challenging.
Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University or 1819 News.
To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to Commentary@1819news.com.
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
