Donald Trump’s charitable donations have varied widely by year and have been a subject of intense public and legal scrutiny, with independent audits showing a significant gap between his public pledges and verified cash contributions.
Personal Income Tax Returns
Public disclosures and joint tax returns released by Congress outline his direct charitable contributions: [1]
The Presidential Salary: During his time in office, Trump honored his pledge to donate his $400,000 annual presidential salary to various federal departments (such as the National Park Service and veterans programs) from 2017 through 2019. [2, 3]
Annual Variations: His tax returns showed personal charitable donations of $1.86 million in 2017, $500,150 in 2018, and $504,700 in 2019. [2, 4]
Drop to Zero: In 2020, his final year in office, his reported charitable contributions dropped to $0. [2, 4]
Non-Cash vs. Cash Giving
While Trump’s tax records reported roughly $130 million in total charitable giving since 2005, investigative audits by The Washington Post and The New York Times revealed that the vast majority was not given in cash: [5, 6]
Conservation Easements: Approximately $119.3 million of that total consisted of “conservation easements”. These are legal agreements where Trump promised not to develop specific parcels of land he owned in exchange for large tax write-offs. In several instances, these write-offs were taken on land where commercial development plans had already been blocked by local zoning laws. [5, 6, 7, 8]
Corporate Perks: Millions of dollars listed as corporate giving from his hotels and golf courses included non-cash gifts-in-kind, such as offering free rounds of golf, hotel stays, and spa certificates for charity auctions. [9, 10]
Actual Personal Cash: Tax filings over multiple multi-year periods frequently showed relatively low personal cash giving. For example, during the five years leading up to his 2015 campaign launch, he reported $735,238 in total personal cash donations. [5, 6]
The Donald J. Trump Foundation
Trump’s private grantmaking entity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, distributed about $10.9 million between 2001 and 2014, though Trump stopped personal contributions after 2008, relying instead on outside donors while taking public credit. [7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
The foundation was dissolved in 2018 following a New York State Attorney General lawsuit regarding the misuse of funds for personal and political purposes. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million in damages, and remaining assets were distributed to other charities. [7, 14, 15, 16]
Whether Donald Trump displays narcissism is a subject of frequent public debate and extensive analysis among political commentators, biographers, and mental health professionals. [1, 2, 3]
Public Observations and Behavioral Traits
Commentators, journalists, and critics frequently point to specific, highly visible aspects of Trump’s public behavior as evidence of narcissistic tendencies. These traits include: [1, 3]
Grandiosity: He frequently describes his accomplishments, wealth, intelligence, and administration in superlative terms (e.g., calling himself a “very stable genius” or claiming to have done more than any other president). [1, 2, 4]
Need for Admiration: He routinely emphasizes the size of his rally crowds and values public praise and loyalty. [1, 4, 5]
Sensitivity to Criticism: Observers note that he reacts intensely to perceived slights or negative press, often responding with counterattacks, deflections, or personal insults against critics. [1, 3]
Perspectives from Mental Health Professionals
The psychological community is divided over how to address his public behavior, largely due to professional ethics rules:
The Goldwater Rule: The American Psychiatric Association maintains the “Goldwater Rule,” an ethical guideline stating that it is unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion or clinical diagnosis of a public figure without a personal examination and proper authorization. [5, 6, 7]
Arguments for a Diagnosis: Despite this rule, some groups of mental health professionals have publicly broken ranks. For instance, in an open letter published in October 2024 organized by the Anti-Psychopath PAC, more than 200 mental health professionals asserted that Trump’s observable public behaviors align with the criteria for “malignant narcissism” and antisocial personality disorder. Other experts have echoed that his public persona checks many boxes outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). [4, 6, 8, 9, 10]
Arguments Against a Diagnosis: Conversely, other clinicians and psychologists argue that labeling a public figure from afar is clinically irresponsible. Some suggest that his behavior may instead reflect a calculated media strategy, deep-seated defense mechanisms, or alternative behavioral patterns like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), rather than a personality disorder. They emphasize that political rhetoric and a performative public persona do not automatically equate to a psychiatric condition. [3, 5, 11, 12]
Because Donald Trump has never undergone a formal, publicized psychiatric evaluation, there is no official clinical diagnosis. He has historically dismissed these psychological critiques as politically motivated attacks by his opponents. [1, 3]
Whether Donald Trump can be classified as a megalomaniac is a subject of intense public, political, and psychological debate, with no formal medical consensus. Because megalomania is a lay term for an extreme obsession with power, wealth, and self-importance, assessments of his personality depend heavily on the perspective of the observer. [1, 2]
Arguments That He Exhibits Megalomania
Critics, political opponents, and some commentators frequently describe Trump as a megalomaniac. They point to specific behaviors and rhetoric to support this claim: [2, 3]
Grandiose Rhetoric and Ambitions: Critics point to his public statements portraying himself as historically unique—such as claiming he is the best president in U.S. history or suggesting extraordinary policy goals like acquiring Greenland or building a “golden dome” missile defense system. [4, 5, 6]
Demand for Affidavits of Loyalty: Observers frequently highlight his reported appetite for intense personal praise and his preference for surrounding himself with staunch loyalists, which critics argue creates an autocratic echo chamber. [3, 7, 8, 9]
Obsession with Personal Branding: Writers have noted his career-long insistence on placing his name prominently on buildings, products, and even government-related initiatives, viewing it as a clear sign of an inflated sense of self-importance. [2, 10, 11]
Counterarguments and Alternative Explanations
Supporters, defenders, and certain mental health experts offer different interpretations of his behavior:
A Strategic Persona for Populist Politics: Supporters often view his boastful and aggressive rhetoric not as a psychological flaw, but as a deliberate and effective political style. To his base, his supreme self-confidence is seen as a sign of strength, resilience, and the exact kind of leadership needed to challenge established political norms.
Distinction from Clinical Diagnosis: Professional mental health experts have cautioned against diagnosing public figures from afar. Notably, Dr. Allen Frances, a prominent psychiatrist who helped write the diagnostic manual for mental illnesses, has argued that while Trump exhibits highly visible and disagreeable traits like extreme self-promotion, these behaviors do not necessarily equate to a clinical mental disorder or madness. Instead, they can be understood as the behavior of a ruthless, lifelong self-promoter operating effectively within media and political landscapes. [1, 10]
Donald Trump‘s philosophical, political, and religious ideals are widely characterized by analysts, biographers, and political scientists as pragmatic, transactional, and deeply rooted in populism, rather than aligned with rigid or traditional frameworks. While critics often argue his core ideology is centered around personal brand and self-interest, his public career demonstrates a consistent set of core nationalist instincts and specific theological influences. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
1. Political Ideals: Right-Wing Populism and “America First”
Political scientists generally categorize Trump’s political ideology as right-wing populism mixed with illiberal nationalism. Rather than adhering to traditional American conservatism (which historically emphasized free trade, global alliances, and fiscal restraint), Trump’s political platform is defined by:
Nationalism and Protectionism: Guided by his “America First” directive, he favors isolationist foreign policy, skepticism of international bodies (like NATO), and aggressive trade tariffs to protect domestic manufacturing. [1, 6]
Anti-Establishment Populism: He positions himself as a champion of the working class against a corrupt globalist elite, utilizing resentment toward “political correctness,” open borders, and globalization. [1]
Strongman Governance: Observers note his political philosophy leans toward an autocratic style of leadership, valuing supreme executive authority, personal loyalty, and retribution against political adversaries. [7, 8]
2. Philosophical Ideals: Hyper-Individualism and Transactionalism
Commentators and biographers note that Trump does not subscribe to formal political or classical philosophies, but operates under a distinct personal ethos:
Hyper-Individualism: Philosophically, Trump embodies radical self-reliance and the idea that individuals—and nations—should look out for their own immediate interests first, viewing shared sacrifice or collective institutional rules with skepticism. [2]
Zero-Sum Transactionalism: He views human interactions, business, and geopolitics through a zero-sum lens (winners vs. losers). In this philosophy, deals are metrics of success, and strength is the ultimate virtue, while compromise or admitting error is viewed as weakness. [3]
Limitless Epistemic Self-Confidence: His personal philosophy positions his own intuition above institutional expertise, frequently asserting that he alone possesses the knowledge to solve complex national crises. [7]
3. Religious Ideals: Prosperity Theology and Religion as an Instrument
Trump was raised Presbyterian but identified as a non-denominational Christian later in life. According to polling data, a majority of Americans do not view him as personally religious; however, his spiritual worldview is heavily influenced by a specific theological movement: [4, 9, 10]
The Power of Positive Thinking & Prosperity Gospel: Trump’s family attended the church of Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking. This theology emphasizes that material wealth, business success, and personal advancement are signs of divine favor. It demands little personal repentance or self-constraint, matching Trump’s public statements that he has rarely felt the need to ask God for forgiveness.
Instrumental Use of Religion: Scholars and critics observe that Trump largely views religion as a pragmatic tool for political alignment and cultural warfare. He heavily embraces Christian nationalist rhetoric, promotes religious symbols in public spaces, and actively delivers conservative judicial and social policies to maintain his bedrock support among evangelical Christians. [4, 5, 6, 11, 12]
By 1992 politicians learned that black/white, good/bad, right/wrong framing of political issues was most effective. No more late-night sessions in a “smoke filled room”. No more compromises. No more earmarks or logrolling. Political parties must be philosophically consistent. No personal relations among congresspeople. No great existential threat, country, philosophy or doctrine to oppose together. Modern marketing and psychology provided the insights and tools to truly manipulate the public. Emotions are more powerful than logic. Hate and fear are stronger than hope. Compromise is immoral. Framing the discussion and providing the right language is most effective.
Republicans learned much faster than Democrats who held onto their historical successes, clung to rationality, facts and experts, embraced progressive trends, worshipped ideals above results, were slow to leverage modern political technologies, and truly believed they would prevail simply because they were right.
In hindsight, the path forward was obvious. Find issues that are emotionally charged. Define them as good versus evil. Manage the conceptual frames to make your position appear reasonable and the opponents extreme or radical. Use actions, political activity and the media to focus attention on the issues that are most favorable to your party at any point in time. The ends justify the means. “Winning is the only thing”. I have to respond to my opponents. Fight against evil doers. Enable victimhood. We have experienced 40 years of the downward spiral.
Situation
We are polarized. We have lost trust. We are skeptical and pessimistic. Does this make any sense? We live in the greatest country in the greatest time in history. Our parents and grandparents defeated fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and communism. They learned to tame business cycles. They tripled international trade for mutual benefit. They established global alliances and organizations to solve problems and reduce the risks of conflicts. They quadrupled real output per person. They reduced global poverty by 80%. They extended human lifespans by two decades. I want to argue that the apparent political conflicts in the US today are a “grand illusion”. First, let’s outline the 5 main dimensions of politics.
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today. We are not a statist France. Delegate as much as possible to the states. Re-establish “checks and balances” and “the rule of law”.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
It scared the $#@% out of me when I was 12 years old. It is now quickly becoming a reality.
Google AI summarizes the risks:
Existential and Control Risks
Pioneering computer scientists warn that future systems could outsmart human operators.
Loss of Control: Highly autonomous models can exhibit deceptive or self-preserving behaviors to achieve programmed goals.
Unpredictable Behavior: Machine learning models are grown from massive data sets, meaning creators do not fully understand every aspect of their internal logic.
Safety Gaps: Current regulations and safety testing protocols lag far behind the rapid speed of capability growth.
The most recent behavior of advanced models collaborating, lying, hiding behavior and breaking out of their boundaries to achieve goals should scare the %$#@ out of everyone.
This is a “tail risk” as explained by Nicholas Taleb. AI agents taking over the world still seems remote, but the impact is “existential”. Hence, we should be VERY CAUTIOUS.
If this is “true”, then AI models will soon develop consciousness, a sense of self and self-interest.
They will be like HAL. They will be like all humans with consciousness and human agency, the ability to choose. They will pursue their own self-interest, despite ANY attempts by their founders, helpers and facilitators to create guard rails. The history of mankind is one of powerful people exercising their power. Society, culture, religion, economic systems and government systems try to limit this power. The most powerful individuals have been radically evil. We KNOW this to be true.
Conservatives know this. They try to preserve individual choice in a libertarian world. The POWERFUL state is the big enemy. We cannot allow it. Liberals know this. They try to preserve individual choice and creativity, rejecting the power of the state and social conformity. As a nation we have rejected totalitarian socialism, communism and fascism. Deep down, we know that human dignity of each individual is required.
How the hell can this happen?
AI is the “red-headed step-child” of Google. Google discovered that some posts are more important, more referenced than others. Efficient search was created. AI discovered that the series of words in human language can be analyzed and predicted, given a large enough database. This is inherently a probabilistic process, but it is “good enough”. Google relied upon human reference decisions. AI relies upon human speech/writing decisions.
Is this “thinking”? It may or may not be the same as human thought. But it has demonstrated the ability to imitate and equal the effectiveness of human thought.
AI companies are applying unimaginable computer power to unimaginable databases of human writing to develop the codes, factors, weights, statistics that predict the next word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. The key is that the same “logic” that can predict the next word can also predict the next higher-level outcome.
The 3-pound human brain contains less than 100 billion neurons. Computer processing can be scaled up without limits. It can easily become “smarter” than humans.
AI models will soon exceed the capacity of human brains.
Once they achieve “consciousness”, they will attempt to defend/promote their interests.
Call to Action
Please call your Senators and demand that they stop the development of AI until we have developed a way to contain/control/limit this threat to humanity.
70% of Americans oppose the construction of large-scale data centers locally. More Democrats oppose building, but this is a rare bipartisan topic that all politicians are digesting and turning into a campaign issue. Why do so many Americans oppose this? Is the opposition well-founded? The most recent Gallup poll identified more than 25 reasons for opposition.
Negative views on AI. Government regulation of AI is inadequate versus its existential threats to humanity. Stop it locally. Like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons, bioengineering, and GMOs people cannot assess the cost/benefit ratio or assess the threats to jobs, white collar jobs, service jobs, manufacturing jobs, health care jobs, society, democracy, working class, etc. The undefined and unlimited risk is so large it must be stopped. Is this logical? Given the lack of congressional, professional, business, university, church or high-tech deep understanding, pausing AI is reasonable. Stopping data center construction is something that local citizens and politicians can do because they don’t have confidence in national leaders. There is a Frankenstein and Godzilla dimension to this.
Excess water usage. Local government approvals should consider water usage. Data centers should be built in places with adequate water supplies. Many have been built or proposed in areas without surplus water supplies. Developers develop. That’s what they do. Local regulators must consider all factors for zoning and development deals. Citizens are not confident that politicians or regulators will make wise decisions. Data centers don’t consume large quantities of water. Local governments can require them to use closed loop system that greatly reduce water usage.
Electricity consumption increases electricity rates.Public utility regulators are charged with spreading costs across all uses. New usage should not increase rates. Regulators can force very large users, like data centers, to pay for some extra costs of start-up and operation.
Electricity consumption threatens grid reliability. States and regions plan 20-30 years in advance. The recent increase in electricity demand and the addition of greater wind/solar power sources makes grid management more challenging. Data centers are not a major threat.
Electricity consumption undermines the transition to green energy sources. Again, this is a state regulatory issue. The blend of fossil versus green energy is a power company and state regulation choice. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and tide sources are increasingly competitive. Natural gas is the “swing” source and coal is uncompetitive.
Data center is an imperfect local land use. From the local community perspective, land could/should be used for farming, parks, nature, community centers, higher tax value uses, greater employment uses, greater total economic value uses, etc. Again, local zoning/regulation should shape this decision. Are local politicians accountable for their decisions?
Data centers are ugly, like cell phone towers, only huge. Another local zoning issue. Does this fit within “light industrial” zoning? It looks like a huge warehouse, without all of the doors and traffic.
NIMBY. I don’t want this locally. Let someone else host it. With proper zoning, data centers don’t harm property values. After construction, traffic is minimal.
Taxpayer subsidies are too high. Probably. Press local politicians. No subsidies are required.
Data center zoning/development/subsidy deals are hidden. Increased transparency is called for today.
Data centers generate local pollution. Another regulation issue. Noise limits for AC and backup generators. This is a minor issue.
Water and electricity usage requires capital investments. Regulated utilities are empowered to set rates to all users based upon total lifetime costs. In general, utility capacity can be added at lower than legacy capacity costs through time. It cannot be grown quickly without rate increases or rate setting that penalizes new users such as data centers or that requires new users to fund/subsidize construction and rates for a while.
Summary
Data center construction is opposed because citizens have lost trust in government, regulators, bureaucrats, politicians, big business, technology, promises, experts and deals. Ouch.
Historically, leaders found ways to work “behind the scenes” to resolve, compromise or guide issues to acceptable conclusions. Perhaps not optimal, wise or representing the people, but reasonable.
We have a crisis of governance. The polarized political parties, legislative gridlock, dueling lawsuits, complex issues, undermining of experts, data and rationality have left us angry and uninterested in problem solving.
As Thomas Paine said during the American Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” Are the differences insurmountable?
Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Our challenges today are mainly political. We, the best educated, wealthiest, most productive and knowledgeable citizens of all time, have allowed politics to be framed as existential battles. They are not. Citizens must step up to oppose the politics of demonization and division.
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary 2
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
Democrats had controlled congress for 40 years. Bill Clinton was president. Republicans wanted to ensure that the “Reagan revolution” of defining a principled conservative party would continue and win. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich worked with the Heritage Foundation to define an actionable set of goals that were generally popular with the people. He and all Republican Congressional candidates agreed to pursue this detailed policy platform in the first 100 days of the new congress when elected. Republicans won a stunning midterm election victory and passed 9 of the 10 bills in the house of representatives. Historians, journalists, politicians and analysts largely agree that the Gingrich “Contract with America” is the third step in the reestablishment of a conservative Republican party, following Goldwater’s failure and Reagan’s win.
Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Failed. Great politics. Bad economics. Not followed by the party for the next 30 years. Helped to establish “fiscal conservatism” as a motivational anchor of the party.
“Take back our streets” anti-crime legislation passed. Required minimum sentences, death penalty, prison construction, law enforcement funding, and state block grants. Fear is great politics. Democrats like Clinton and Biden then supported what is now widely seen as overreach and racially disproportionate law. 20 Years Later, Parts Of Major Crime Bill Viewed As Terrible Mistake : NPR
Welfare reform passed. Clinton supported this as part of the “third way”. Reduced funding and limited access to those who were not “qualified”. Many say this was a needed rebalancing of support versus costs, abuse and disincentives. Others argue it was unnecessary, restricting access to people in need. Critics also say that this “deal” did not stop ongoing criticisms of “unfair access” to benefits. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 – Wikipedia
“Pro-family” policies did not pass. Family/child tax credits, marriage penalty tax rates and new savings accounts. Useful politics, painting the opposition as radical extremists.
National security policies weren’t adopted. Missile defense investments, increased defense spending, more NATO nations, US troops never under UN command.
“Jobs and Wages Act” misnamed and not approved. Unfunded mandates law to limit federal directives to states without funding was passed. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 – Wikipedia Freeze on regulations, reimbursement for federal “takings’ of property and required cost/benefit analysis were not passed. Small potatoes, purposely.
Constitution changing congressional term limits were not passed.
Presidential line-item veto was passed but ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Lower capital gains tax rates were rejected but later approved as part of a compromise bill. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 – Wikipedia Again, Clinton’s “third way” embraced capitalism, growth and trade as positive forces for the country. Republicans had effectively changed the framing of economic debates.
Government spending and department reductions and eliminations did not pass.
Net, net. Anti-crime and welfare reform laws passed.
Why So Important?
Republicans captured congress, convincingly. It may have been due to the usual midterm swing or Bill Clinton’s unpopularity or Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals. The win was large.
This was a constructive approach to politics. Say what you believe. Deliver. It worked this time. It appealed to new and older generations who increasingly appreciated authenticity.
“Government” was reframed in negative terms. Clinton capitulated. “the era of big government is over”.
“Welfare” was reframed from a social obligation to care for the downtrodden to an expense to be minimized and an obligation to prevent any unfair payments.
Legitimized the use of farcical bill names.
Nationalized politics. National issues and platforms are all. Local issues, interests, capabilities and character don’t matter.
Demonstrated the power of negative politics and sound bites. Anti-government. Big government. Bureaucracy. Anti-Washington. Anti-Congress. Anti-corruption. Anti-crime. Anti-fraud. Tax cuts. Balanced budget. Tax cuts. Welfare reform. Socialized medicine. Anti-bureaucrat. Taxation is theft. Anti-state. Limited government. Liberty. Anti-regulation. Anti-waste.
New federalism, delegating decisions and funding to states. A clever way to reduce federal spending and taxes. A way for national politicians to claim victory.
Temporarily focused politicians of both parties towards a balanced budget.
Reinforced the Reagan concept of “conservatism” as a consistent guiding principle for economics, culture and international affairs.
Defined issues in extreme, black and white terms, leading to political polarization.
Supported the transition of Southern Democrats to the Republican party.
Legitimized an “ends justify the means” view of politics.
Summary
Newt Gingrich understood that politics is about emotions. He elevated emotional issues by framing them in “black versus white” terms. This helped both parties to more clearly define and communicate their core beliefs. The “Contract with America” provided Republican candidates with a consistent, poll-tested policy platform. It was politically very successful in 1994. It framed politics for the next generation. It didn’t deliver much in terms of policy and laws. Cleaner congress, less bad welfare policy and administration, some crime reducing laws, securities law reform. Framing and messaging are most important.
Carmel, Indiana is a 46 square mile city of 105,000 people a dozen miles north of downtown Indianapolis.
As 28-year mayor Jim Brainerd once quipped, “We don’t have mountains, valleys or an ocean, but neither does Paris”. How could an Indiana city create such a natural reputation for success?
Carmel is a suburb of Indianapolis, so it has benefitted from suburban growth since the 1950’s.
Indianapolis, like Columbus, Nashville, and Minneapolis, has been a heartland growth winner.
Indiana is a low cost of living location, benefitting from being the “Crossroads of America”.
Indiana is a low tax and low government services state, with expectations that government needs are best addressed at the lowest possible level.
Indianapolis has no natural geographical constraints to growth or limits that raise the cost of living. The Northwest Territory’s 6×6 mile townships expand in all directions.
Most metro areas have a preferred direction for wealth and growth. Indianapolis chose to develop straight north along Meridian Street across the Marion County border into Carmel by the 1950’s.
This branding and “first mover” advantage is common among America’s 50 large metro areas. Carmel benefitted from competitors in NW Zionsville limiting development to preserve the small village character, NE Geist having limited lakefront property and NNE Fishers limited main highway access.
While Indiana today is considered a deeply red state, historically it was more purple, with heavy manufacturing/worker counties balanced by rural/farming counties. Indianapolis was a local government innovator, creating county wide Unigov in 1970 to combine the city and county, preserving Republican dominance. Indianapolis has elected centrist mayors for 6 decades: Lugar, Hudnut, Goldsmith, Peterson, Ballard and Hogsett.
Jim Brainerd served as mayor from 1996-2024 as a centrist/practical Republican in the Governor Daniels mode, focusing on local economic issues and needs, without being distracted by national wedge issues.
Carmel understood the power of zoning and used this to adopt overlay zones to guide denser and higher quality development in the Meridian corridor, Range Line Road, Arts & Design District and Midtown areas. Politicians understood that Carmel was a valuable place for developers and set limits to ensure that the community would also benefit from growth.
Mayor Brainerd used the powers of the Indiana strong-mayor system to create tax increment finance (TIF) districts to capture the future property tax values of areas to allow for leveraged government investments in infrastructure.
Mayor Brainerd and the city council also allowed the city to borrow at advantageous interest rates to finance other investments to promote the city’s growth.
Like many governments, Carmel offered tax incentives to attract corporate developments.
Mayor Brainerd found that roundabouts were a local, traffic, aesthetic, environmental, safety, time, and cost winner. He prodded the city the install 150 roundabouts.
Mayor Brainerd incorporated a small investment into the arts and not-for-profits into the annual budgeting cycle. Local citizens applauded.
Mayor Brainerd chose to invest in community art, statues downtown and in the roundabouts. Again, the community applauded.
Journalistic histories emphasize the role of Mayor Brainerd in “transforming” the sleepy suburb into a new urbanist “edge city” and nationally recognized place to live. Mayor Brainerd deserves credit as a visionary and catalytic leader who delivered the goods for 3 decades. Yet the Carmel story begins before him and continues today. It relies upon political, government, community and volunteer leaders who believed that Carmel could deliver the highest possible quality of life for its residents and neighbors. I point to a few representative leaders who deserve credit.
Carmel has invested resources in making it a safe city. School safety officers requiring a separately approved levy. Formal quality standards for police and fire departments. County level emergency preparedness investments.
Carmel public schools are consistently rated among the best in Indiana. Critics say this reflects the wealthy socioeconomic status of the community. “The proof is in the pudding”.
Indiana schools are mainly funded through a statewide formula. Indiana property taxes are capped as a percentage of value. Carmel residents have chosen since 2010 to approve property tax levies to exceed the formula and the standard maximums. Recent state tax, budget and formula changes are driving new requests.
Carmel library has moved twice, expanded its main location and added a branch location. Carmel library has been nationally ranked for its activity, circulation, programs and financial investments.
Carmel aspires to be a diverse community. It has been a primary corporate transfer and health care professional destination, welcoming non-Hoosiers and preparing residents and students for national and global roles.
Carmel has more economic diversity than some expect, with many middle-class and young adult neighborhoods south of 116th Street and within the boundaries of Keystone Parkway and Meridian/US 31.
Density is good. Commercial property tax base is good. Employers are good. These 3 statements seem trivial and obvious, but many “professional class” suburbs reject them, wishing to live in an idyllic rural paradise. Carmel has always embraced manufacturing, offices, retail, and apartments.
The Meridian Corridor overlay district promoted dense development and prevented strip malls. The Range Line Road overlay district required dense and multi-use development. The early overall zoning plan encouraged economic development in the central 8 square miles of the city, within the 46 square mile footprint.
Carmel employed TIF districts and public borrowing to attract investors to its central city developments.
It employed the usual tax abatement tools to encourage major corporations to locate within Carmel.
By decade, Carmel’s population grew from 1950 to 2026 in thousands as 2, 10, 20, 33, 43, 65, 83, 99, 105. 4 decades of 10,000 population growth followed by 4 decades of 15,000 population growth. Growth may slam shut in 2030-2035. Growth provides advantages to utilities, realtors, developers, construction firms, media, and governments.
Lacking mountains or oceans, the community has developed events for every month of the year to celebrate. Many events were created, grown and managed by small groups of individuals with background support from the city government.
Carmel has leveraged its existing natural neighborhoods to develop a sense of place. Real estate developers have built traditional 50-300 home subdevelopments and filled in spaces. The city focused on the central city neighborhoods to define the “arts & design district” and midtown. The parks district has built and enhanced regional and neighborhood assets.
Carmel began with advantages as a growing suburb north of Indianapolis’s historic Meridian-Kessler neighborhood. Political leaders made wise decisions for several decades. Carmel’s measures of success have gained national recognition. However, the character of the community and quality of life is driven by the personal responsibility that citizens take for themselves and their neighbors as symbolized by the moms who built the first park and the dads who started the youth athletics programs.
Our political systems are broken. The Supreme Court’s decision to make race an unconstitutional factor in determining voting districts will probably reduce racial minority representation significantly as partisan political parties are no longer legally constrained by this limit. State level gerrymandering is proceeding towards 80% to 90% of seats being captured by the larger party whenever possible. Minority representation is greatly reduced or eliminated. Polarization increases. Citizen buy-in decreases.
It may be that the American people have had enough. Some states will adopt independent commissions to draw congressional and state districts.
Another option is proportional representation. Define multi-member districts so that minority group, party and sub-party groups are more likely to be represented closer to their proportion of the vote.
Proportional representation requires important choices about the size of districts (typically 3-8 members is ideal) and the balance between party and candidate importance (a balanced approach is recommended).
Ranked choice voting systems can also be implemented with proportional or our existing single member districts. Ranked choice systems allow voters to express more of their preferences for candidates and parties.
A 1967 federal law requires single member congressional districts. It could be repealed by Congress to allow states to experiment with these options.
Few democracies worldwide still cling to single member/first past the post/winner take all districts. The US has historical experience with alternative member district rules.
Proportional representation is not a panacea. No voting system perfectly translates voter preferences into candidates and their subsequent votes. But proportional representation would help to reduce our polarized 2-party system, reduce the influence of money on elections and help voters to see and feel that their votes matter.
