Public Policies in Trump’s Rule
The election of Donald Trump as the president of the US brought about huge excitement not only in the US but also in the whole world. Several sectors of world economies respondent differently depending on the expectations associated with Trump’s win. American politics tend to be played differently with voters putting significant concern on the manifesto presented by the candidates. The most outspoken policy in Trump’s manifesto was the issue of immigration whereby the world appeared divided concerning the impact that such a policy would have on the people of America. Education and infrastructure were also issues that Trump had promised to give significant attention during his tenure. With the first term of Donald Trump in office approaching the end, Trump’s government has been vigilant in several policy areas as promised in the manifesto. Also, candidates for the coming general elections have already started building their manifestos basing their arguments on what Trump’s government has been able to offer to the American people so far. The most contentious policy issues during Trump’s tenure have been the issue of immigration, and education with social welfare programs receiving wide support among the Americans.
Trump’s presidential campaign left several controversies with most people creating theories about the future of America if Trump won the elections. Trump’s method of the campaign left many unbelieving when the results for the elections were announced. Although the issue of immigrants made sense to a section of Americans, nine those who believed that immigration was to blame for the challenges that Americans have to go through), the international community, as well as the immigrants in America, had a different point of view. In a bid to make his point clear, Donald Trump promised that his reign would oversee the building of a solid wall on the southern border to close the routes used by illegal immigrants. Several agencies viewed the move by Trump as one that would cause diplomatic feuds between the US and Mexico, which was to be affected directly by the said wall. Fear and uncertainty were also evident among several immigrants, both legal and illegal, who did not know the future that awaited them in the event. Trump was announced the winner. Also, several feared that Trump’s move would cause fresh conflicts between the white and black races since the blacks are mostly believed to be immigrants from Africa. The competitors to Trump’s presidential bid attempted to use the remarks by Trump for their advantage, but the electoral colleges appeared to have a different point of view, and eventually, Trump was announced the winner.
The real contention began when Trump was given the mandate to lead the nation from the Oval House. The whole world appeared to take a back seat in a bid to watch Trump make his promises come to pass amid protests from the parliament that was composed by majority opposition to Trump’s way of rule (Bakker, Rooduijn, & Schumacher, 2016). The initial bids to have the wall erected on the southern border were dealt a major blow when the parliament failed to approve the budget requested by the White House to build the wall. Although Trump specified the importance of having the wall in his desire to fulfill his earlier promise of protecting the interests of the Americans, the parliament viewed the larger picture that would be left for the international community by the selfish move of the government to have the wall. However, the contention for the funds to make the border-wall dream a reality had to wait until the wake of the year 2019.
The year 2019 started on a high political contest between the White House and the Congress. The US president Donald Trump called on the Congress concerning the need of an approximately 6 billion US dollars budget for the building of the southern border wall that was aimed at solving the immigrant’s problem (Waldinger, 2018). The call by Trump was coming on the 18th day of a government shutdown that had been caused by the debate concerning the need to build the border wall. Trump argued that the wall was essential for solving the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. Also, Trump was using the shutdown to force Congress into giving in to the demands of a budget approval if Trump was to sign legislation to end the partial shutdown. However, the Congress, led by the Congress speaker, rejected the call by Trump and instead argued that the President was holding the Americans hostage for individual benefits. Further to the failed strategy, Trump declared a state of emergency on the southern border and signed a spending budget that included approximately 2 billion dollars for the building of barriers on the southern border. The contention on the border issue, however, did not arise because the Democrats objected the President’s move but because the method that the President tried to employ in effecting the boundary case was not popular with the Democrats.
The education sector was not spared during Trump’s era. Several policies suffered contention between the White House and the Congress leading to tough legal battles. The US has recently been facing a significant increase in cases of school violence. Obama’s term ended at a time when America required serious attention to be given to the issue of school violence. Before the end of Obama’s term, various laws had been passed but were awaiting court approvals before taking effect to help in solving the tragedy of school violence and specifically mass school shootings. Trump’s government, therefore, came to the office to find an existing dilemma that required urgent intervention before progressing to alarming levels. The change in government brought the fear of a stalled attempt to end school violence since parents had lost trust in the government’s ability to provide security for the schooling children. The initial steps taken by Donald Trump in an attempt to revive the move that Barack Obama’s government had started concerning education included signing two bills into law. The bills that had been proposed during the Obama rule were the Borrower Defense law and the STOP violence rule of 2018.
The signing of the existing bills into laws and the proposal of several other bills was done to ensure a continuous process of dealing with school violence. The Borrower Defense rule, for example, was aimed and protecting the students from fraudulent schools that had been plotting to defraud students by closing down at the middle of studies or immediately after the completion of studies (Peters, 2018). The law specified that students who could legally proof cases of fraud by schools would be subjected to loan forgiveness by lenders. Also, the students would be allowed to sue schools that closed during students learning periods or immediately after completion of studies. The delay in the approval had been due to the attempts by various schools to appeal against the proposal by the government, but Trump’s rule began by ensuring that the bill was passed as a law. Also, the STOP school violence bill had been delayed awaiting court approval before being passed as a law. The specifications of the law included training on active shooting for self-defense owing to the rising cases of school shootings that had led to several deaths of school children. The bill was based on the argument that schools lacked crucial resources that would be useful in events of disasters and hence, the severity of the cases. The passing of the laws did not, however, escape the contention of various congress members who had different opinions concerning the cases of school violence.
The contention in the education came from the difference between the positions held by the White House and the Congress. The bill received a massive objection from Democrats who argued that the bill did not do enough to solve the school violence menace. For example, a weakness in the bill was spotted in the way the bill did not have any details concerning gun use. Several Congress members who were against the bill question the reason why the bill was not subjected to the due process. Also, the bill did not give any recognition for children with disabilities who were also affected by the increase in school violence cases. The bill, however, received support from the White House with President Donald Trump expressing his agreement to the bill that gave hope to the fight against school violence. Although the contentions delayed the process of passing the bills as laws, the government later emerged the winning side and established a four-pillar plan that was aimed at dealing with cases of school violence. The four pillar plan was composed of improving school security, supporting background checks, improving mental healthcare, as well as establishing the federal commission on school safety.
Another policy area that Trump’s government has been keen to give attention is the social welfare programs sector. The social welfare programs depend on tax-payer money to support individuals and groups that are unable to support themselves (Sherman, 2018). The government classifies social welfare programs as assistance programs, which do not contribute to the government. The nature of social welfare programs is that help is given according to need, and individuals or groups are not expected to pay any amount before benefiting from the help. Although the social welfare sector went through significant changes, few contentions were witnessed with the government putting a new mentality of work on individuals and groups that had initially depended on welfare programs for survival.
The journey to a different view of social welfare programs started with the rejection of a farm bill by the House in May 2018. The basis for the rejection of the bill was the weaknesses that were found in the way the social welfare programs were doing a disservice to the government and the US economy. However, the rejection on the bill came to appear to have been caused by the unresolved immigration crisis that was the benchmark for legislators before voting for the farm bill. The 5-year bill had proposed that able-bodied adults would qualify to social welfare benefits upon working for a minimum of 20 hours per week. The rejection of the bill came a few days after President Donald Trump issued a directive to cabinet secretaries requiring them to review the existing welfare programs.
The directive from President Donald Trump was a way of saving the US economy from the burden of a social welfare program. According to a report from the White House, social welfare programs were to blame for the lack of economic independence, inflated poverty status, as well as weak family bonds. Donald Trump argued that the American citizens needed to do a little more to move from excessive government dependence in a bid to improve economic stability. Although the order from the president received some criticism, the sense was later found in that non-disabled adults should work before receiving benefits and that only extreme cases of need should be considered while allocating social welfare benefits. Besides, the order by Trump was based on the belief that the Americans had the right to decide how their tax was spent and that he represented the views of the majority of the Americans. The final decision was that welfare benefits were to be attached to work and not proof of training as had been the case before.
The next presidential elections are set to happen in the year 2020. With one year to go, several candidates have declared their interest in the prime seat. However, the decision remains with the voters, and the most convincing candidate will carry the day (Elder, Frederick & Burrell, 2018). Among the several issues that might be in the manifestos for the different candidates is how effectively the issue of immigration will be dealt with by the candidates upon election. Candidates will be aiming at convincing the electorates why their manifestos are better than what Trump has already delivered. One of the possible candidates for the 2020 race is Pete Buttigieg who plans to run for presidency under Democratic candidature. Pete’s position is much different from that held by Trump since he feels that immigrants should be documented instead of being deported. The documentation of the immigrants will ensure that America regains its reputation of being a hospitable host for strangers, which may make immigrants more willing to use legal means of getting to America. Also, 2020 candidates have been keen to talk about education in their early preparations. However, candidates have not been coming out clearly concerning the issue of school violence and could be silent owing to strategic requirements since some time is available before active campaigns start.
The leadership of President Trump has so far been surrounded by controversy in terms of public policy making. The president has, in several occasions taken America for granted when it comes to policy. The decision to force policies on the citizens is not viewed as the right path to take where the public is involved. For example, the President has been blamed for the partial government shutdown that was aimed at forcing the Congress to approve the budget for building a border wall that does not appear to be a priority for the Americans. Using strategies such as partial shutdown by the government can only be compared to holding Americans hostage for issues that should not be bothering them. The president should instead look for ways that are acceptable by the Congress and his party to solve the border crisis. The current move by the president concerning the border issue can only be said to be worsening the immigrant issue instead of giving a feasible solution.
The leadership of Trump has revealed a two-sided work of Deborah Stone’s “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making.” The first meaning developed by Stones is that the government should not let its people grow lazy by killing their dreams or by providing what the people should be providing. In one of the policies, Trump directed that cabinet secretaries should review the social welfare programs since the programs were hindering economic independence. The move by Trump goes in line with the words of Deborah Stone, “People… will stop working hard at anything if they learn from experience that their effort makes no difference.” However, a different side of Deborah Stones works goes against Trumps and states that the government should aim at protecting the interests of the people while making policies: “most people believe that society should help individuals and families when they are in dire need…,” Stones.
In sum, President Trump’s leadership has seen America pass through controversies due to the way public policies are made. The issue of immigration, education, and social welfare programs has been contentious throughout Trump’s leadership, although Trump has been able to deliver most of the promises made in his manifesto. Most potential 2020 presidential candidates have been preparing to convince the voters concerning the alternatives that will see their new government perform better than the current government.
References
Bakker, B., Rooduijn, M., & Schumacher, G. (2016). Donald Trump’s support comes from two distinct groups: authoritarians who oppose immigration and anti-establishmentvoters. USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog.
Elder, L., Frederick, B., & Burrell, B. (2018). The Future of Public Opinion and Presidential Candidate Spouses. In American Presidential Candidate Spouses (pp. 135-154). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Peters, M. A. (2018). Education in a post-truth world. In Post-Truth, Fake News (pp. 145-150). Springer, Singapore.
Sherman, R. A. (2018). Personal values and support for Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential primary. Personality and Individual Differences, 128, 33-38.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W. W.
Waldinger, R. (2018). Immigration and the election of Donald Trump: why the sociology of migration left us unprepared… and why we should not have been surprised. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(8), 1411-1426.