In his passion to make America “great” again, Trump chooses to ignore science, which has been one of the basic sources of American ingenuity, progress, and economic growth. His idea of “greatness” seems to be firmly rooted in the 1920s, if not earlier.
In this article in the New York Times, two prominent scientists describe Trump’s atavistic disdain for science.
“After almost a year in office, President Trump has yet to name a science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Since World War II, no American president has shown greater disdain for science — or more lack of awareness of its likely costs.
“The O.S.T.P. was authorized by Congress in May 1976 to give the president “independent, expert judgment and assistance on policy matters which require accurate assessments of the complex scientific and technological features involved.” It has played an important role in coordinating national science and technology activities and policies among federal agencies.
“The director of the office, who is nominated by the president and requires Senate approval, typically serves as the president’s science adviser, providing him with confidential, unbiased counsel. Much of what the federal government does and the many policy changes the president and his appointees are now making or hope to make have scientific and technological underpinnings.
“The science adviser is the one individual who can quickly pull all the relevant information together for the president, cut through conflicting advice coming from other senior advisers and Cabinet secretaries, and get evidence-based options in front of him. Especially important has been the adviser’s role in helping the president deal with crises — Sept. 11, the subsequent anthrax attacks, the Fukushima nuclear nightmare in 2011, the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, hurricane devastation and cyberattacks.
“The previous O.S.T.P. director, John Holdren, a physicist and energy-policy expert from Harvard, was named to the position hardly a month after the 2008 elections and was then quickly approved by the Senate. He served throughout President Barack Obama’s two terms. In June 2001, five months into his first term, George W. Bush nominated the physicist John Marburger, then director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, to the post; he served until Dr. Holdren stepped in.
“Today, the O.S.T.P. maintains only a skeleton staff led by the deputy chief technology officer, Michael Kratsios, a technologically inexperienced Silicon Valley financier holding just a bachelor’s degree in political science. The posts of deputy director and four congressionally mandated associate directors remain vacant.
“It’s difficult to know what Mr. Trump really thinks about scientific issues of public concern, but he has rejected the scientific arguments for human-caused climate change and questioned the public-health case for vaccinations. And he has ignored the negative impacts of his immigration bans on American science and technology.”
We are cursed to have a president who is an ignoramus and proud of it.

Thank you, Diane.
Drumph is proud of his ignorance, because he has to be. He has no excuse for being an ignoramus.
Marley Dias should be president. (Scholastic Press, 2018).
LikeLike
The US constitution does not explicitly state for the federal government to be involved in science at all. This office is Unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 8
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This talks about copyright laws only.
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This section goes on to list these general welfare duties:
Postal Roads
General defense – create armies (not have a standing army) but to have standing navy.
Etc.
Education not one of them. This was an Alexander Hamilton desire (to have the federal government pay for things like education). Neither is Science.
Also. The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
These two parts of the US Constitution prohibit the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the US department of Education as well.
LikeLike
Most of what the Federal Government Does is not enumerated in the Constitution. Social Security. Medicare. Air control. The FAA. The FCC. The SEC. The NLRB. Certainly the founders never envisioned a permanent military force of one million people. They envisioned citizen-soldiers. Now can we bring home all the troops?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLike
The constitution is a brief document. The specific functions of the federal government in 2018, could not be imagined in 1789. Nevertheless, the powers exercised by the FAA, can be derived from the interstate commerce clause. The power to establish an Air Force, is derived from the war powers/common defense powers.
In 1789, no one imagined intercontinental ballistic missiles. The concept of an Army composed of reservists and citizen-soldiers is as obsolete as buggy whips.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the commerce clause, has enabled the feds to assume powers, unimagined by the framers. See Wickard v. Filburn
LikeLike
You derive what you like, exclude what you don’t like.
How do you feel about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person?
The Founders liked it.
LikeLike
The Founders also only gave the vote to only white men that owned property as long as they weren’t Jewish.
LikeLike
There is so much the founders could not imagine in 1789.
For instance, that the population would grow from 3.9 million to more than 325 million or that the U.S. would have the largest prison population in the world after President Nixon declared war on drugs listed as illegal like smoking marijuana.
Trump’s attacks on the free press, Russian interference with our elections through the internet. Could they have even imagined an internet or an old-fashioned telephone?
How about Americans walking on the Moon?
I don’t think they could imagine that the population would shift from a rural one to an urban one. In 1790, 94.9 percent of that 3.9 million population lived in remote rural areas and needed, NEEDED, firearms to protect them from the native Americans they were invading and slaughtering.
By 2016, 82 percent lived in urban areas — in the cities and their suburbs and there was no longer any danger from native American tribes but from tribal street gangs that lived in barrios and ghettoes filled with poverty, drugs and violence.
I don’t think they could imagine that one day most Americans would have to buy their food at corporate supermarket chains instead of farming and/or hunting.
I don’t think they could imagine what carbon-based polluted air and water is like to breathe and drink.
And what about the growth of corporate America until corporations are as wealthy and powerful as many countries and the U.S. Supreme Court gave those corporations the status of a human citizen, climate change and/or global warming caused by the industrial revolution and the oil and coal industry where greed rules supreme?
This list could go on, and on, and on …
LikeLike
There is so much that is wrong with this simplistic interpretation that it’s really not worth responding to, so I won’t. But for my friends who are openminded, once again I was motivated to look back at an observation Isaiah Berlin had about Vico, who conceived of the concept of culture and the idea of “the study of the human past as a form of collective self-understanding”. Berlin noted that Vico was a stern critic of “natural law” and any any static view of human affairs, writing, “They had a love to speak of ‘the matchless wisdom of the ancients’, as if early men could conceivably have known more than their descendants, who have inherited all the discoveries and inventions of the past and improved upon them; or, more absurdly still, as if these early men were fully rational beings, or lived (or could have lived) in a world similar to our own, or faced the kind of problems that necessarily belong to our our own unique phase of historical growth. If we do not study origins, we shall never know to what problems the thought or behavior of our ancestors was a continuous response; and since their response shaped ultimately not only them but us, too, we shall not understand ourselves unless we trace our own growth to its roots.”
What people like schlitz3 do not—or will not—understand is that history is a continuous, irregular and changing process. To put one’s head in the sand and claim that the Constitution is infallible and perpetually immovable ignores the amendment process (which is explicitly defined in the Constitution), constitutional law, history and the very nature of change. To claim that the Framers had eternal wisdom that applied to all future generations is something they themselves would never have asserted. All you so-called “constitutionalists” should quit trying to put false, lying words into their dead mouths.
LikeLike
Meant in response to schlitz3 above and meant to write “…so I won’t respond to each point.”
LikeLike
GregB,
Thanks, as always, for your wisdom and learning.
The literalist interpretation of the Constitution is akin to the literalist interpretation of the Bible.
If those men living 230 years ago or two millennia ago didn’t write it on paper, it cannot be. Could they have even imagined the challenges of our time?
LikeLike
Well said, GregB!
LikeLike
Libertarians love to play this “it’s-not-in-the-Constitution” game ad nauseam. There’s no right to marry or travel in the Constitution, nothing about an air force, etc. Article one, section 8: “…provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” Providing for the general welfare would allow for all the social programs and allowing for the government to promote science and technology.
I wish Trump were as lazy and lackadaisical when it comes to the judiciary. It’s full steam ahead with deplorable right winger appointments to the courts.
LikeLike
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/americas-first-post-text-president/549794/
LikeLike
and here https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141384/trumps-budget-middle-finger-science
LikeLike
Aie yie yie. Welcome to the idiocracy.
LikeLike
This new book out describes the President well. In the meantime our country is in turmoil.
LikeLike
“It’s difficult to know what Mr. Trump really thinks”
Ha, he doesn’t think. He reacts without thought. The sum total of his intelligence could be stuffed in one tweet.
He just claimed he is a “very stable genius”, but that isn’t true because he is clearly a very unstable criminal alleged mastermind.
Instead of mastermind, he is closer to “dumb and dumber” all in one rancid fast food stuffed brain. If someone cut off the top of his skull and looked inside, they’d probably find a garbage can full of molding rot.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
Great comment. You make so much sense. Thanks.
This is for Drumph…
Mucro Pondera Divinus Aug 2014
Stupidity: A How-To
Talk incessantly.
Dwell on temporal affairs.
Ask friends for advice; ignore it.
Air out perceived problems constantly.
Respond defensively.
Never take criticism at face value.
Write off whoever won’t humor you.
Accuse others of misunderstanding you.
Build your lifestyle on whims.
Presume entitlement to sex for “being nice”.
Choose an inappropriate diet for your body.
Avoid personal responsibility.
Refuse to own your failures and errors.
Justify behaviors that create conflict.
Rationalize unfruitful thought and action at all cost.
Dismiss what contradicts your prejudices.
Compare yourself to Jesus.
Insist on your specialness.
Insist that others acknowledge it.
Don’t communicate your expectations.
Blame others for your bad choices.
Fish for compliments.
Use sentiment to ply others.
Use sentiment to ply yourself.
Subject anyone to yourself
while the above applies to you.
LikeLike
Could it be because “science” has been shown to be so untruthful and unscientific on subjects like (a) global climate “warming,” “cooling,” now “crisis” and (b) creation?
LikeLike
BP,
That’s a very stupid comment. You probably learned “science” in Bible classes.
LikeLike