Trump’s Government Reform Is All Muscle, No Message

With President Trump’s re-election, champions of limited government saw a rare opportunity for real, sustained government reform. After years of federal expansion, voters handed the administration an opportunity to right-size Washington, improve its efficiency, and create the conditions for innovation, competition and economic growth.

The administration understands this and recognizes the power it has. The New York Times reports that the administration has cut more than 58,000 federal jobs, with 76,000 workers choosing to take the “buyout.” Still planned are 145,000 cuts across departments and agencies. Now, limited-government policy experts are expressing concerns about executive overreach, waning congressional power and a slash-and-burn mentality.

The sense of possibility that marked the start of Trump’s second term is giving way to concern as a golden opportunity to streamline government risks becoming a missed opportunity. Years of work by policy experts to craft credible, strategic reforms aimed at downsizing government are being replaced by the blunt elimination of workers, activities, spending and programs with no clear strategy or cohesive message.

Thoughtfully tailoring the federal workforce requires a policy roadmap — and there are no shortage of routes to follow. Advocacy groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, think tanks and lawmakers, like the former Speaker Paul Ryan, have been producing plans for decades. Even the most well-conceived design needs to reflect the will and experiences of the public.

Policies must be framed in a way that resonates with individuals on a personal level and do not seem reckless or indiscriminate, let alone vindictive. Meaningful policy reform relies on an effective story to help define and address the problem. In his pivotal work, “The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion” (1992), political scientist John Zaller argues public opinion is shaped by elite discourse. What people hear, who they hear it from, and how they receive it affects their understanding of, and ultimately support for, an issue.

The right message clearly explains the policy strategy and connects the tactics to the values and experiences of Americans. This is the administration’s Achilles’ heel. Not only is there no apparent policy roadmap, but there’s no guiding narrative, no emotional or philosophical throughline, to explain how these reforms will benefit the public. Without a compelling story that resonates with voters, even the most principled policies risk being misunderstood or rejected outright.

Contemporary political leaders from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama understood the relationship between public opinion and successful governing. They didn’t present policies — let alone execute on them —without first building a compelling frame for their policy ideas. They connected sweeping reform to Americans’ beliefs, shared history and experiences. Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” excelled at this, famously explaining that “all must share in the productive work of this ‘new beginning,’ and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy” that would be the result of  “supply-side economics.” Reagan understood that voters respond most powerfully when policies connect to their familiarities and aspirations.

There’s no doubt, Trump understands how to connect with voters. Yet, now that he’s back in power, he’s treating public opinion as a non-issue, rather than a vital part of the process. There are compelling reasons to shrink the size and scope of the federal government — to root out “waste, fraud and abuse,” to roll back excessive regulations and barriers to innovation, competition and individual freedom. However, Americans want to know that change is being made for them, not to them.

There are signs that the administration understands the need to course correct on messaging. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently conducted an interview explaining the rationale and approach to reorganizing the State Department. It was a critical first step.  The administration is right to focus on right-sizing and reprioritizing the federal government to allow for a freer, healthier nation. However, the long-term success of limited, effective government, like the one our founders envisioned 250 years ago, will be achieved only if the public understands the what and the why.

As Jonathan Madison recently wrote, “Liberty does not preserve itself; it requires constant vigilance, principled leadership and a government that reflects the will of the people.”