-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explaining Donald Trump's
Shock Election Win .
His Ideas on Science and the world problems involved ….
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.-Five factors behind America’s staggering
decision
Sh
The following essay is reprinted with permission
from The
Conversation, an online publication covering the latest
research.
A populist wave that began with Brexit in June reached the
United States in stunning fashion on Tuesday night. In one of the biggest
upsets in American political history, Donald Trump won a truly historic victory
in the U.S. presidential election.
Then, at the beginning of October, the uproar over
Trump’s lewd and offensive remarks on the “Access
Hollywood” videotape, combined with the escalating number of women who
accused Trump of sexual
assault, seemed to finish off his campaign. Right up until Tuesday afternoon,
therefore, a comfortable victory for Clinton seemed like a foregone conclusion.
But I was dead wrong. Trump won a sweeping victory
in the presidential race. His night began with critical victories in Florida,
North Carolina and Ohio, three states essential to his path to 270
electoral votes. As the night wore on, Clinton’s “blue wall” collapsed amid a
red tide that swept across the country from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky
Mountains. The blue states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa fell to Trump like
dominoes. The election returns made clear that Trump would carry over 300
electoral votes, more than enough to win the presidency.
It’s extremely early to draw conclusions about the
2016 election results, but here are five factors that at least partially
explain what happened.
1.
SILENT TRUMP VOTE
There really was a silent Trump vote that the polls
failed to pick up on. The nationwide polling average gave Clinton about a
3-point lead overall, and the state-by-state polls indicated that she would win
at least 300 electoral votes.
But the polls were as wrong as the pundits.
Problems with the polls’ methodologies will undoubtedly be identified in the
days and weeks ahead.
It seems equally reasonable to conclude that many
Trump voters kept their intentions to themselves and refused to cooperate with
the pollsters.
The extraordinary role
of FBI Director James Comey in the presidential campaign cannot be
underestimated either. Two weeks ago Clinton seemed on the verge of winning a
double-digit victory. But Comey’s Oct. 28 letter
to Congress, which announced that the FBI was reopening its
investigation into Clinton’s State Department emails, changed the momentum of
the race. Clinton retook the polling lead at the end of last week, but the
final polls masked the lasting damage that the Comey letter had done to her
campaign.
Whatever the ultimate explanation for the polls’
failure to predict the election’s outcome, the future of the polling industry
is in question after Tuesday. Trump’s astounding victory demonstrated that the
polls simply cannot be trusted.
2.
CELEBRITY BEAT ORGANIZATION
A longstanding assumption of political campaigns is
that a first-rate “Get out the Vote” organization is indispensable. The
conventional wisdom in 2016 thus held that Trump’s lack of a grassroots organization
was a huge liability for his campaign.
But as it turned out, he didn’t need an
organization. Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years, which meant
that he entered the race with nearly 100 percent name recognition. Trump’s
longstanding status as a celebrity enabled him to garner relentless media
attention from the moment he entered the race. One study found that by May 2016
Trump had received the equivalent of US$3
billion in free advertising from the media coverage his campaign
commanded. Trump seemed to intuitively understand that the controversial things
he said on the campaign trail captured the voters’ attention in a way that
serious policy speeches never could.
Most important of all, he had highly motivated
voters. Trump’s populist rhetoric and open contempt for civility and basic
standards of decency enabled him to connect with the Republican base like no
candidate since Ronald Reagan. Trump didn’t play by the normal rules of
politics, and his voters loved him for it.
Trump’s victory would seem to herald a new era of
celebrity politicians. He showed that a charismatic media-savvy outsider has
significant advantages over traditional politicians and conventional political
organizations in the internet age. In the future, we may see many more
unconventional politicians in the Trump mold.
3.
POPULIST REVOLT AGAINST IMMIGRATION AND TRADE
It will take days to sort through the data to
figure out what issues resonated mostly deeply with Trump’s base.
But immigration and trade seem virtually certain to
be at the top of the list. Trump bet his whole campaign on the idea that
popular hostility to liberal immigration and free trade policies would propel
him to the White House.
From the beginning to the end of his campaign, he
returned time and again to those two cornerstone issues. In his announcement
speech, he promised to build a wall on the Mexican border and deport 11
million unauthorized immigrants. He also pledged to tear up free trade
agreements and bring back manufacturing jobs. From day one, he made xenophobic
and nationalistic policies the centerpiece of his campaign.
Critics rightfully condemned his vicious attacks on
Mexicans and Muslims, but Trump clearly understood that hostility toward
immigration and globalization ran deep among a critical mass of American
voters.
His decision to focus on immigration and trade paid
off in spades on Election Day. It’s no coincidence that Trump did exceptionally
well in the traditionally blue states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all of which have large
populations of white working-class
voters. Previous Republican nominees such as John McCain, who embraced
generous immigration policies, and Mitt Romney, who advocated free trade, never
managed to connect with blue-collar voters in the Great Lakes region.
But Trump’s anti-immigration and protectionist
trade policies gave him a unique opening with white working-class voters, and
he made
the most of it.
4.
OUTSIDERS AGAINST INSIDERS
Trump will be the first president without elective
office experience since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. Eisenhower, however,
served as supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II and had
unrivaled expertise in foreign affairs.
So how did Trump make his lack of government
experience an asset in the campaign?
The answer lay in the intense and widespread public
hostility to the political, media and business establishments that lead the
country. Trust in institutions is at an all-time low and a majority of
Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong
direction.. The angry and volatile public mood made 2016 the
ultimate change election.
Amid such a potent anti-establishment spirit,
Trump’s vulgar, intemperate and
unorthodox style struck voters as far more genuine than the highly cautious and controlled Hillary
Clinton. As the brash and unpredictable Trump positioned himself as an agent of
change, Clinton seemed like the establishment’s candidate, an impression that
proved fatal to her campaign. Indeed, Trump used Clinton’s deep experience in
the White House, Senate and State Department against her by citing it as
evidence that she represented the status quo.
Ironically, Bill Clinton won the White House 24
years ago using a similar anti-establishment strategy. In the 1992 election, he
successfully depicted incumbent President George H. W. Bush as an out-of-touch elitist. Eight years
later Bush’s son, George W. Bush, employed the same tactic to defeat Vice
President Al Gore. And in 2008 Barack Obama successfully ran as an outsider
against John McCain.
Trump is thus the fourth consecutive president to
win the White House by running as an “outsider” candidate. That is a lesson
that future presidential candidates forget at their peril.
5. AMERICA, THE DIVIDED
Above all, the 2016 election made clear that
America is a nation deeply divided along racial, cultural, gender and class
lines.
Under normal circumstances, one would expect the
new president to attempt to rally the nation behind a message of unity.
But Trump will not be a normal president. He won
the White House by waging one of the most divisive and polarizing campaigns in
American political history. It is entirely possible that he may choose to
govern using the same strategy of divide and conquer.
In any case, Trump will soon be the most powerful
person in the world. He will enter office on Jan. 20 with Republican majorities
in the House and Senate, which means Republicans will dictate the nation’s
policy agenda and control Supreme Court appointments for the next four years.
It seems highly likely therefore that Nov. 8, 2016 will go down in the history
books as a major turning point in American history.
The 2016 election defied the conventional wisdom
from start to finish. It is probably a safe bet that the Trump presidency will
be just as unpredictable.
ADVERTISEMENT |
REPORT AD
Anthony J.
Gaughan
Anthony J. Gaughan is a professor of law at Drake
University.
2.- REACTIONS
WHEN TRUMP WIN:
Richard Dawkins and Other Prominent Scientists React
to Trump’s Win
What the election results mean for science, in gut
responses from Scientific American’s Board of
Advisers
·
R
This week the U.S. elected businessman and reality
TV star Donald Trump as its 45th president. As Scientific
American has reported in the run-up to the election, Trump's
views on science, health and medicine appear unformed at best, ignorant and destructive at
worst. To get an idea of what top minds in science, health and research are
thinking, we reached out to Scientific American's
Board of Advisers to get their quick-fire reactions to the election outcome.
The excerpts, some of them edited for length, appear below.
****
Dear New Zealand,
The two largest nations in the English-speaking
world have just suffered catastrophes at the hands of voters—in both cases the
uneducated, anti-intellectual portion of voters. Science in both countries will
be hit extremely hard: In the one case, by the xenophobically inspired severing
of painstakingly built-up relationships with European partners; in the other
case by the election of an unqualified, narcissistic, misogynistic sick joke as
president. In neither case is the disaster going to be short-lived: in America
because of the nonretirement rule of the Supreme Court; in Britain because
Brexit is irreversible.
There are top scientists in America and
Britain—talented, creative people, desperate to escape the redneck bigotry of
their home countries. Dear New Zealand, you are a deeply civilized small
nation, with a low population in a pair of beautiful, spacious islands. You
care about climate change, the future of the planet and other scientifically
important issues. Why not write to all the Nobel Prize winners in Britain and
America, write to the Fields medalists, Kyoto and Crafoord Prize and
International Cosmos Prize winners, the Fellows of the Royal Society, the elite
scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, the Fellows of the British
Academy and similar bodies in America. Offer them citizenship. The contribution
that creative intellectuals can make to the prosperity and cultural life of a
nation is out of all proportion to their numbers. You could make New Zealand
the Athens of the modern world.
Yes, dear New Zealand, I know it’s an unrealistic,
surreal pipe dream. But on the day after U.S. election day, in the year of
Brexit, the distinction between the surreal and the awfulness of the real seems
to merge in a bad trip from which a pipe dream is the only refuge.
Yours,
Richard Dawkins, founder and board chairman,
Richard Dawkins Foundation
****
President-elect Trump's upset election caught many
by surprise. We have not heard very much from him or his colleagues on his
views on science and basic research, so I can only say that I hope that he
recognizes the long-term value of basic research investment and will support
the agencies of the U.S. government that support and pursue it, including the
National Science Foundation.
—Vint
Cerf, chief internet evangelist, Google
****
Like many, I was caught off guard by these election
results. It is the will of the U.S. people, and given the polarity of the
power, we can anticipate a number of significant and long-lasting changes. I do
think that given the reality of today’s world and the checks and balances built
into America, that exactly how these changes will play out is to be determined.
I anticipate that many will be surprised by what can be done, and what cannot
be done within government. I personally was born into poverty, and everything I
have accomplished I did on my own. The best way to maximize professional
success and rewards is to work hard; to maximize society is to be charitable;
to maximize equality is to be ethical; to maximize peace is to be peaceful. I
see myself taking more personal responsibility for the welfare of others close
to me, and continue to be the best possible scientist, for what we are and what
we will be is largely governed by the scientific discoveries that we apply to
move humanity forward.
—Harold “Skip” Garner, director, Medical Informatics and Systems
Division and professor, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, Virginia Tech
****
A smaller than projected voter turnout
(approximately seven million Democrats and two million Republicans less than
the 2012 election) was likely the cause of the outcome. Unexpected outcomes are
part of scientific life and we are experts at learning from them.
—Michael
Gazzaniga, director, Sage Center for the Study of the Mind, University of
California, Santa Barbara
****
Fundamental research, dealing with climate change
and the environment, nuclear weapons treaties, international relations, women’s
rights, health and welfare, and more generally, public policy based on
empirical reality, all have been dealt a blow.
The president-elect has expressed disinterest or
disdain for the results of scientific analyses relevant for public policy, and
the vice president–elect has been an open enemy of science.
It remains to be seen how this will play out, but a
Republican congress seems unlikely to put many checks on this.
—Lawrence
Krauss, director, Origins Project, Arizona State University
****
Very, very surprised.
—Robert S.
Langer, David H. Koch Institute professor, Department of Chemical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
****
First, I think that the forecasting capability of
the media and others involved in studying elections and the interaction of the
social sciences is flawed. That's clear. Regardless, this is a strong country,
a strong democracy with great intellectual capacity and good will, with a deep
sense of human rights and social justice shared among the people. I think at
the end of the day the American people, as a whole, will provide a good balance
of judgment.
I think the issue of American international
competitiveness in science, technology and arts research will continue to be a
centerpiece of policy considerations going forward. Importantly, a number of
Supreme Court justices will likely be appointed during the next administration,
and with one party governing all aspects of the government—the legislative,
judicial and executive—the influence on the judicial system and future
development of a progressive social policy is of concern.
America's prominence and international influence is
largely based on the prestige and trust the U.S. enjoys, in part a result of
the last century’s contributions to advancing science, medicine, technology and
the pursuit of social justice. Our position as trusted members of the global
community must be maintained and improved if we are to positively impact global
development for the benefit of our own citizens as well as those of the world.
—Robert E.
Palazzo, dean, University of Alabama at Birmingham College of Arts and Sciences
****
At this moment, November 9, 2016, I am sick in
heart and spirit, bereft of even a shred of optimism.
All the ideals of the enlightenment on which our
country was founded, all the principles of reason and open-mindedness that
undergird the practice of science that we so fervently cherish, and to which we
can rightfully attribute our progress in improving the welfare of humankind,
have been effectively and thoroughly repudiated. The significance of the result
of the election—that those opposing these beliefs will now either control or
greatly influence every branch of the U.S. government—cannot be overemphasized.
It's a shutout.
In such a moment it’s natural to search the past
for lessons. All successful civilizations throughout history have ultimately
perished. Further, the evolution of our country's democracy is following an
ancient script: the seeds of Trump's philosophical victory can be found in the
very multicultural, multi-viewpoint, open-armed inclusiveness of the democratic
ideal America has pursued since its beginnings.
In his article in New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan finds in
Plato's Republic, written 2,400 years ago, the view that a
“rainbow-flag polity” is the most inherently unstable, and that “tyranny is
probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” It does indeed
make you wonder if last night wasn’t inevitable.
My deepest worry is that this transition really
could signal the end of the American Republic and the light it tried for 240
years, at least on paper, to shine on all the world.
What it means for the practice of science in this
country, the rights of women and minorities, the future of our planet’s health,
the survival of all the creatures with whom we share the Earth and for our
relationships with other nations, I have no stomach to predict. But it does
very much seem right now that the winning faction of the U.S. populace has
decided that the Earth really is flat, and that will be the guiding principle
for governance from this moment on.
—Carolyn
Porco, Cassini Imaging Team leader; visiting scholar, University of California,
Berkeley; director, CICLOPS, Space Science Institute
****
What is there to say? It's especially scary that
there won't be separation of powers. It's also shocking (if the numbers are
accurate) the percentage of women (and men) who voted for Trump. And of course
science, climate, you name it ... you have to wonder.
—Lisa
Randall, professor of physics, Harvard University
****
The one “plus” from this result is that reducing
poverty may move higher on the agenda of the right as well as the left. But it
should scare us Europeans into developing stronger and better coordinated
pan-European policies to offer countervailing power to the U.S.
—Martin
Rees, Astronomer Royal and emeritus professor of cosmology and astrophysics,
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge
****
This administration may be the least science- and
science education–friendly one in generations. One possible nominee for the
education department, Ben Carson, is a young-Earth creationist. Vice
President[–elect] Pence has supported antievolution legislation in Indiana and
has even pronounced evolution as unscientific on the floor of the House of
Representatives. At the National Center for Science Education, we found that
creationists are emboldened to act locally and at the state level when the
“bully pulpit” of the presidency favors them—even if the federal government has
little or no role in determining local curricula. Nominees for Energy [the
Department of Energy], EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], NIH
[National Institutes of Health], NSF (National Science Foundation] and other
agencies are likely to be equally problematic and, of course, many members of
the administration have declared their rejection of climate change. Should they
and their appointees act upon that belief, agreements made with China and other
nations by the current administration are at risk—which means that the future
of the planet is at risk. Science and science education did not come out ahead
in this election.
—Eugenie
Scott, founding executive director, National Center for Science Education
****
Science was sidelined during the presidential
campaign and we will have to wait to see the science policy of the new
administration with an open mind.
—Terry
Sejnowski, professor and laboratory head of Computational Neurobiology
Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
****
When it appeared Trump would win, the Dow plunged
800 points in after-hours trading, and pundits predicted [Wednesday] would be
the worst economic collapse since 9/11 and the 2008 meltdown. As I write this,
the Dow is up 265 points, the NASDAQ up 43 points. Predictions are hard to make,
especially about the future, particularly in elections and economics. With that
caveat I predict:
Markets will be fine and economic growth will
continue steady and may even improve one half to 1 percent in 2017.
No wall will be built on the Mexican border (and
Canadians will not build a wall blocking us!).
We will not change our nuclear policies, we will
not adopt “no first use” policy (as Obama did not either), and we will go
another four years without using nuclear weapons.
North Korea ... oh who the hell knows what that
wingnut will do, but very likely nothing will change and eventually the country
will go out of business with their failing economy, and North and South Korea
will reunite just like East and West Germany did.
Putin will hesitate to challenge NATO or take
further territory in eastern Europe.
ISIS will be completely eradicated before the end
of 2017, but global terrorism will not be, as no president or government can
reduce it to zero, but it will continue to fail as a means of bringing about
political change.
Tensions in the Middle East will continue as they
have since I was in college and voted for the first time in 1972. Some things
never change.
Stay calm everyone. We have a strong republic that
will continue growing stronger. We have lots of checks and balances in place to
prevent any extreme actions taken by anyone, and as Pres. Obama has been
reiterating this past year to those pessimists who think things are bad and
getting worse, this is and will continue to be the best time there has ever
been to be alive.
—Michael
Shermer, publisher, Skeptic magazine; monthly columnist,Scientific American; Presidential Fellow, Chapman University; author of The
Moral Arc
****
Advancement of science transcends partisan
boundaries and is fundamental for human health, and is a bedrock for U.S.
technological advances and the economy. Hopefully, this will continue under any
new administration. Although there is a rise in nationalism around the world, I
think it is important that the international openness of science, its
collaborations and its benefits be maintained for the benefit of all.
—Michael
Snyder, professor of genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine
****
The main questions are whether Trump/Pence will 1)
support science research as a core to the economic engine and American
competitiveness and 2) use science outcomes to inform policymaking.
The rhetoric on the campaign trail implies “no” on
both counts, but the desire to make good on campaign promises to promote our
economic interests implies that they should.
—Michael
E. Webber, co-director, Clean Energy Incubator, and associate professor,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
****
It took the U.S. two decades to go from climate
obstructionist to climate leader, and one ugly season to throw it away. Now we
will see if we are truly a nation of laws and due process, or as weak as we
tend to characterize some dictatorships.
I am embarrassed for my generation and am having
trouble facing a younger generation that have very basic questions about our
selfishness.
If there is a “silver lining” it is that we are a
nation of strong institutions and now we shall see, are our ideals up to the
task? My state of California—hardly popular to the Trump voters—offers a
hopeful perspective.
The problem today is that the U.S. has truly “hit
its stride” on climate, and, while also far from perfect, was progressing. Now,
advocates of sustainability and intra- and inter-national equity and
partnership must re-tool, but without any buffer or luxury of time.
Above all, this new strategy and route to integrate
and partner must evolve fast, and must find common ground with an electorate
infused with the sad anger and pessimism that led to the Trump victory.
What California—and Morocco, Kenya, Denmark,
Bangladesh, The Vatican, Germany, Nicaragua, and others—offer are imperfect but
very real examples that show that our energy and material system can actually
evolve much faster than previously thought. It takes steadily evolving
technology. But more important is the development of a coherent plan.
What we have just done is to steal from our
children's future—and personally from my two dear daughters.
—Daniel Kammen, founding
director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University California,
Berkeley
Note: This article has been updated to include
comment from Daniel Kammen.
ADVERTISEMENT |
REPORT AD
Andrea
Gawrylewski
……………………………………………………………………
3.- How President-Elect Trump Views Science once
elected: opinions about 20 subjects, from climate change to
public health
It’s hard to know
what President-elect Donald J. Trump will do on scientific issues, since
he has not gone into much detail on the stump.
But before the election we and our partners at
ScienceDebate.org asked his campaign for his positions on certain important
science issues.
Here are the relevant passages, which may offer
clues on his policy directions.
Innovation
Science and engineering have been responsible for over half of the
growth of the U.S. economy since WWII. But some reports question America’s
continued leadership in these areas. What policies will best ensure that
America remains at the forefront of innovation?
Innovation has always been one of the great
by-products of free market systems. Entrepreneurs have always found entries
into markets by giving consumers more options for the products they
desire. The government should do all it can to reduce barriers to entry
into markets and should work at creating a business environment where fair
trade is as important as free trade. Similarly, the federal government
should encourage innovation in the areas of space exploration and investment in
research and development across the broad landscape of academia. Though there
are increasing demands to curtail spending and to balance the federal budget,
we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, healthcare and
other areas that will make the lives of Americans better, safer and more
prosperous.
Research
Many scientific advances require long-term investment to fund
research over a period of longer than the two, four, or six year terms that
govern political cycles. In the current climate of budgetary constraints, what
are your science and engineering research priorities and how will you balance
short-term versus long-term funding?
The premise of this question is exactly
correct—scientific advances do require long term investment. This is why we
must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research
that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and
engineering in a number of fields. We should also bring together
stakeholders and examine what the priorities ought to be for the nation.
Conservation of resources and finding ways to feed the world beg our strong
commitment as do dedicated investment in making the world a healthier
place. The nation is best served by a President and administration that
have a vision for a greater, better America.
Climate Change
The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has
become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views
on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?
There is still much that needs to be investigated
in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial
resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world
has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering
diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on
efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world
population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power
production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We
must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and
more prosperous.
Biodiversity
Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water
and many other products and services on which we depend every day. Scientists
are finding that the variety and variability of life is diminishing at an
alarming rate as a result of human activity. What steps will you take to
protect biological diversity?
For too long, Presidents and the executive branch
of our federal government have continued to expand their reach and
impact. Today, we have agencies filled with unelected officials who have
been writing rules and regulations that cater to special interests and that
undermine the foundational notion of our government that should be responsive
to the people. Our elected representatives have done little to uphold their
oaths of office and have abrogated their responsibilities. When these
circumstances occur, there is an imbalance that rewards special interests and
punishes the people who should benefit the most from the protection of species
and habitat in the United States. In a Trump administration, there will
be shared governance of our public lands and we will empower state and local
governments to protect our wildlife and fisheries. Laws that tilt the
scales toward special interests must be modified to balance the needs of
society with the preservation of our valuable living resources. My
administration will strike that balance by bringing all stakeholders to the
table to determine the best approach to seeking and setting that balance.
The Internet
The Internet has become a foundation of economic, social, law
enforcement, and military activity. What steps will you take to protect
vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, and to provide
for national security while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices
and the internet?
The United States government should not spy on its
own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration. As
for protecting the Internet, any attack on the Internet should be considered a
provocative act that requires the utmost in protection and, at a minimum, a
proportional response that identifies and then eliminates threats to our
Internet infrastructure.
Mental Health
Mental illness is among the most painful and stigmatized diseases,
and the National Institute of Mental Health estimates it costs America more
than $300 billion per year. What will you do to reduce the human and economic
costs of mental illness?
This is one of the great unfolding tragedies in
America today. States are reducing their commitments to mental health
treatment and our jails are filled with those who need mental health
care. Any mental health reforms must be included in our efforts to reform
healthcare in general in the country. We must make the investment in
treating our fellow citizens who suffer from severe mental illness. This
includes making sure that we allow family members to be more involved in the
total care of those who are severely mentally ill. We must ensure that
the national government provides the support to state and local governments to
bring mental health care to the people at the local level. This entire field
of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution set must be developed
so that we can keep people safe and productive.
Energy
Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful
economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy
landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will
your energy strategy be?
It should be the goal of the American people and
their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible.
Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source
including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system
will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future
consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the
key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and
more prosperous world.
Education
American students have fallen in many international rankings of
science and math performance, and the public in general is being faced with an
expanding array of major policy challenges that are heavily influenced by
complex science. How would your administration work to ensure all students
including women and minorities are prepared to address 21st century challenges
and, further, that the public has an adequate level of STEM literacy in an age
dominated by complex science and technology?
There are a host of STEM programs already in
existence. What the federal government should do is to make sure that
educational opportunities are available for everyone. This means we must
allow market influences to bring better, higher quality educational
circumstances to more children. Our cities are a case-study in what not
to do in that we do not have choice options for those who need access to better
educational situations. Our top-down-one-size-fits-all approach to
education is failing and is actually damaging educational outcomes for our
children. If we are serious about changing the direction of our
educational standing, we must change our educational models and allow the
greatest possible number of options for educating our children. The
management of our public education institutions should be done at the state and
local level, not at the Department of Education. Until more choices are
provided in our cities, those who tout their concern about educational outcomes
cannot be taken seriously.
Public Health
Public health efforts like smoking cessation, drunk driving laws,
vaccination, and water fluoridation have improved health and productivity and
save millions of lives. How would you improve federal research and our public
health system to better protect Americans from emerging diseases and other
public health threats, such as antibiotic resistant superbugs?
The implication of the question is that one must
provide more resources to research and public health enterprises to make sure
we stay ahead of potential health risks. In a time of limited resources,
one must ensure that the nation is getting the greatest bang for the
buck. We cannot simply throw money at these institutions and assume that
the nation will be well served. What we ought to focus on is assessing
where we need to be as a nation and then applying resources to those areas
where we need the most work. Our efforts to support research and public
health initiatives will have to be balanced with other demands for scarce
resources. Working with Congress—the people’s representatives—my
administration will work to establish national priorities and then we will work
to make sure that adequate resources are assigned to achieve our goals.
Water
The long-term security of fresh water supplies is threatened by a
dizzying array of aging infrastructure, aquifer depletion, pollution, and
climate variability. Some American communities have lost access to water,
affecting their viability and destroying home values. If you are elected,
what steps will you take to ensure access to clean water for all Americans?
This may be the most important issue we face as a
nation for the next generation. Therefore, we must make the investment in
our fresh water infrastructure to ensure access to affordable fresh water
solutions for everyone. We must explore all options to include making
desalinization more affordable and working to build the distribution
infrastructure to bring this scarce resource to where it is needed for our
citizens and those who produce the food of the world. This must be a top
priority for my administration.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power can meet electricity demand without producing
greenhouse gases, but it raises national security and environmental concerns.
What is your plan for the use, expansion, or phasing out of nuclear power,
and what steps will you take to monitor, manage and secure nuclear materials
over their life cycle?
Nuclear power is a valuable source of energy and
should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long
into the future. We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are
extraordinary given the investment we should make. Nuclear power must be
an integral part of energy independence for America.
Food
Agriculture involves a complex balance of land and energy use,
worker health and safety, water use and quality, and access to healthy and
affordable food, all of which have inputs of objective knowledge from science.
How would you manage the US agricultural enterprise to our highest benefit in
the most sustainable way?
The implication of your question is that there
should be central control of American agriculture by the federal
government. That is totally inappropriate. The agriculture industry
should be free to seek its best solutions through the market system. That
said, the production of food is a national security issue and should receive
the attention of the federal government when it comes to providing security for
our farmers and ranchers against losses to nature.
Global Challenges
We now live in a global economy with a large and growing human
population. These factors create economic, public health, and environmental
challenges that do not respect national borders. How would your administration
balance national interests with global cooperation when tackling threats made
clear by science, such as pandemic diseases and climate change, that cross
national borders?
Our best input to helping with global issues is to
make sure that the United States is on the proper trajectory economically.
For the past decade we have seen Gross Domestic Product growth that has not
provided adequate resources to fix our infrastructure, recapitalize our
military, invest in our education system or secure energy
independence. We cannot take our place as world leader if we are
not healthy enough to take care of ourselves. This means we must make
sure that we achieve our goals in tax reform, trade reform, immigration reform
and energy independence. A prosperous America is a much better partner in
tackling global problems that affect this nation achieving its national
objectives.
Regulations
Science is essential to many of the laws and policies that keep
Americans safe and secure. How would science inform your administration's
decisions to add, modify, or remove federal regulations, and how would you
encourage a thriving business sector while protecting Americans vulnerable to
public health and environmental threats?
This is about balance. We must balance a
thriving economy with conserving our resources and protecting our citizens from
threats. Science will inform our decisions on what regulations to keep,
rescind or add. A vibrant, robust free market system will regulate the private
sector.
Vaccination
Public health officials warn that we need to take more steps
to prevent international epidemics from viruses such as Ebola and
Zika. Meanwhile, measles is resurgent due to decreasing vaccination
rates. How will your administration support vaccine science?
We should educate the public on the values of a
comprehensive vaccination program. We have been successful with other
public service programs and this seems to be of enough importance that we
should put resources against this task.
Space
There is a political debate over America’s national approach to
space exploration and use. What should America's national goals be for space
exploration and earth observation from space, and what steps would your
administration take to achieve them?
Space exploration has given so much to America,
including tremendous pride in our scientific and engineering prowess. A
strong space program will encourage our children to seek STEM educational
outcomes and will bring millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment
to this country. The cascading effects of a vibrant space program are
legion and can have a positive, constructive impact on the pride and direction
of this country. Observation from space and exploring beyond our own
space neighborhood should be priorities. We should also seek global
partners, because space is not the sole property of America. All
humankind benefits from reaching into the stars.
Opioids
There is a growing opioid problem in the United States, with
tragic costs to lives, families and society. How would your administration
enlist researchers, medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies in addressing
this issue?
We first should stop the inflow of opioids into the
United States. We can do that and we will in the Trump
administration. As this is a national problem that costs America billions
of dollars in productivity, we should apply the resources necessary to mitigate
this problem. Dollars invested in taking care of this problem will be
more than paid for with recovered lives and productivity that adds to the
wealth and health of the nation.
Ocean Health
There is growing concern over the decline of fisheries and the
overall health of the ocean: scientists estimate that 90% of stocks are
fished at or beyond sustainable limits, habitats like coral reefs are
threatened by ocean acidification, and large areas of ocean and coastlines
are polluted. What efforts would your administration make to improve the health
of our ocean and coastlines and increase the long-term sustainability of ocean
fisheries?
My administration will work with Congress to
establish priorities for our government and how we will allocate our limited
fiscal resources. This approach will assure that the people’s voices will
be heard on this topic and others.
Immigration
There is much current political discussion about immigration policy
and border controls. Would you support any changes in immigration policy
regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an
American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy
over employment and the H1-B Visa program?
Immigration has been one of the cornerstones of my
campaign. The issues brought up in your question are exactly what we
should be addressing in immigration reform. If we allow individuals in
this country legally to get their educations, we should let them stay if they
want to contribute to our economy. It makes no sense to kick them out of
the country right after they achieve such extraordinary goals. As for the
H1-B program, we cannot allow companies to abuse this system. When we
have American citizens and those living in the United States legally being
pushed out of high paying jobs so that they can be replaced with “cheaper”
labor, something is wrong. The H1-B system should be employed only when
jobs cannot be filled with qualified Americans and legal residents.
Scientific Integrity
Evidence from science is the surest basis for fair and just public
policy, but that is predicated on the integrity of that evidence and of the
scientific process used to produce it, which must be both transparent and free
from political bias and pressure. How will you foster a culture of scientific
transparency and accountability in government, while protecting scientists and
federal agencies from political interference in their work?
Science is science and facts are facts. My
administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and
accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this
and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration.
ADVERTISEMENT |
REPORT ADAUTHOR
>Christine Gorman
·
Christine Gorman is the editor in charge of health and medicine features
for Scientific American..
NOTE:
ALL THOSE INFORMATION IS ON SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ,https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-elect-trump-views-science/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161109
Entradas
