What’s New at the EPA? Actually, It’s Impossible To Know.
What do we know about what’s happening in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the leadership of Scott Pruitt? Well, the whole thing started when Pruitt was appointed to the position purely because of his tenacious and lifelong opposition to the organization; that should provide a clue. But as to what is specifically going on at any moment in time is held in near-absolute secrecy, according to this article in the (failing? lol) New York Times.
One thing that’s not a secret, however. Pruitt couldn’t possibly be unaware that most Americans are strongly opposed to his anti-public health, anti-kids, and anti-science agenda. Given the bold steps Pruitt is taking to roll back decades of progress on drinking water and air quality, toxic chemicals in consumer products, and environmental justice, it’s hardly a wonder that he does everything he can to hide his activities from the public whose health he’s working so hard to ruin.
When wrecking balls go through the sides of buildings, it’s a public spectacle for all to see. When the Trump EPA’s metaphorical wrecking ball rips apart our environment, it happens in utter darkness.
Craig,
I wouldn’t be too alarmed by articles like this from the NYT , Washington Post etc.
The article is based largely on gossip, scaremongering, disgruntled employees, union leaders and combative journalism.
Times change and so do administrations. Naturally some employees, especially those with strong political or ideological convictions, will find change difficult. Others, just hate doing change of any sort, that’s the nature of bureaucracy.
Scott Pruitt’s downsizing agenda was never going to be popular.
What seems to have changed over recent decades is the breakdown of old conventions. From government employee giving themselves permission to participate in political activism against elected officials, to a highly combative press desperate for readership.
This development is a symptom of not just the Trump administration, it’s common in all major Western democracies.
I believe it started with the paparazzi and the confusion of what’s “in the public interest” with “what’s interesting to the public”.
Where once news outlets included small, titillating gossip columsn occupying less than two percent of space and written by recognized “gossip” specialist’, gossip now dominates and has become indistinguishable from news items.
The advent of social media has further deteriorated the standard of journalism and code of public conduct.
Trivial issues in public life are sensationalized,long standing conventions are attacked or destroyed, not because they’re obsolete or harmful, but simply to feed a need for sensation.
Even polite, well meaning advocates get caught up in the excitement of frenzied outrage and indignation. Like revolutionaries drunk with the excitement of revolution, the modern media and activists never get time to consolidate or accept responsibility.
Democratic institutions all over the world are in a state of turbulence not due to corruption, but due to a lack of responsibility and respect for the results and legitimacy of the ballot box.
Once public servants took pride in long years of non political service to their departments. Accepting a career in public service meant forfeiting political activism and remaining impartial.
The media once had a clear distinction for reporting the news, as impartially and fairly as possible, leaving activism to clearly designated opinion columnists or editorial opinion.
The keyword was responsibility.
‘Cometh the hour cometh the man’. President Trump is is a product, but not the cause of this public dilemma.
The frenzied outrage from the left, allows for, and legitimizes, a counter-reaction for all kinds of extremists.
President trump is a creation of the media. The media portrays a President with Cartoon like persona. There’s no attempt to understand or analyze policy. Crude Stereotypes have become the journalists stock in trade. Mainstream media and a large part of the bureaucracy believe they now have a right to use any means to denigrate the administration.
In turn the administration retaliates by attacking the media, using social media to rally support. This unedifying spectacle is not reserved to just the US.
In the end, the people get the government they deserve. When a civil servant, for political or personal reasons breaks the law to embarrass or denigrate elected officials, they damage democracy and the institution of representative government.
When we as citizens support such actions because it aids our political persuasion, we are also guilty of attacking not just our political opponents, but the institutions of our society.
We, the citizens are responsible for our institutions.
If you carefully examine the content of the NYT article what does it amount to ?
The NYT claims ” Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret ”
Why? Because as the head of a 15,000 employee organization, odd employees can’t wander in and out of his office when they feel like !
Pruitt ” makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office “. What business is it of any employee where the boss makes phone calls ? Are the phones being spied on ?
The NYT further complains,” Scott Pruitt traveled to Chicago to visit an E.P.A. designated hazardous waste site, without informing
“employees” at the agency’s Chicago office or meet with the Chicago branch of the agency or meet with staff members”.
Exactly, why he should isn’t explained.
It’s quite obvious EPA employees has become accustomed to doing things their way. The have obviously forgotten they are an agency of the Federal Government and serve the decisions and policies set by elected officials and appointees confirmed by Congress.
I know how they feel. As a young army lawyer and 3 tour veteran, I was dismayed by the election of a leftist government that had actively campaigned against everything we believed.
The new government was inexperienced, incompetent and vindictive, yet it had been duly elected.
A friend of mine, older and senior in rank, a highly decorated career officer, decided to embarrass the new government by informing a sympathetic journalist of not only the personal indiscretions of a new government minister, but the contents of a conversation between the minister and a very senior general, in which the minister displayed his incompetence.
Regrettably, I was assigned investigation of the matter and it fell to me to decide what action should be taken.
(Naturally, my junior rank meant if my decision became a scandal it could be put down to a bad judgment by a junior officer lacking experience).
Despite my sympathy for my friend, I recommended a Court Martial, however in view of his distinguished prior service, he should be allowed to resign his commission and immediately leave the service.
This was a very unpopular decision, but upheld. In the end, all public servants, including the military, must be subject to elected authority.
It’s simply not their job to decide policy and must implement legally constituted instructions.
If a public servant feels so strongly they should resign, and stand for public office.