Science and Regulation at the EPA Today. . .

The New York Times had an Op Ed piece this past week written by two former EPA officials discussing a new tactic being embraced by Scott Pruitt and they fear will be adopted by other regulatory agencies. 

Scott Pruitt’s Attack on Science Would Paralyze the E.P.A.

The new tactic in fighting or diminishing the EPA's regulatory regime is to challenge the science it is based upon. For Pruitt, the head of the EPA, (and also one of its biggest critics), and Republicans in Congress, transparency has become the rallying cry. You have to give them credit. Transparency. Has there ever been such an over-used word? Originally associated with the need for transparency in the halls of Congress and in financial transactions, Pruitt and the Republicans have now embraced and applied it to scientific research.

Actually it does seem like a reasonable request. Regulation should be based on publicly available science. It is not. Due primarily to two reasons: patient privacy rights, and intellectual property. In short we want to protect patients’ case histories being shared and discussed in public discussions. And the other is trade secrets, which in some cases businesses spent years and who knows how much on research to discover these drugs and chemical compounds. There is a reason they patent and protect such knowledge. Neither of these; neither patient details, nor patented products and copyrighted information should be shared and distributed publicly for obvious reasons.

Yet you do need to regulate these fields, these domains: the medical, the pharmaceutical and the chemical. The solution has been to engage in “secret science”, though peer reviewed, yet not publicly published, not publicly shared.

Pruitt and Republicans want to abandon this process of using non-published science. If it cannot be shared then it should not be the basis of regulation. There is a certain reasonableness to the request.

The consequence, however, is to simply abandon regulation. It basically forces regulators to use publicly available science. the challenge becomes with new research, new discoveries, there is little publicly available research. I don’t think any patients wants their medical records shared, though they might reconsider, considering the alternative, I.e. no or limited review of the research nor the resulting regulations to protect them from the new drugs and chemicals they are being offered.

Jump to the chemical industry which is regulated by Pruitt’s EPA. Due to their patents, the latest and greatest chemical compounds cannot be regulated. Insecticides, detergents, and the like, if they are new and we know little publicly, well the regulation will arrive in a few years, when we do have publicly available information. So out of a respect for the patent holder we must accept that we cannot have a regulatory regime. Not until we have publicly available research. What?

So in the the name of transparency pharma and the the chemical business have found an argument against not regulation, but the science that leads to it.

Ultimately, it comes down to trust. We traditionally and historically just trust science. We have up until now put our trust in the scientific method. In short, we have up  until now placed our faith in peer reviewed research or something close to it.

You have to give Pruitt and company credit. We boast about our peer reviewed research which typically entails journals. Yet we are compromising here.

Of course there must be some hypocrisy here also. Those same companies who developed those drugs and chemicals somehow developed them in secret. And yet the products are still considered the products of science.

At the root of this is an issue involving trust. Who do we trust? The pharma and chemical companies? Big government? Or the process we have created between the two? The later is an ongoing battle, between three parties. Those parties are pharma and chemical companies, the regulators, and the environmental groups. And the three of these will ultimately resolve this in court. So historically, we really have trusted that between these three, some good science, and a solid court system we would ultimately sort this out. and we acknowledge that project is never done. 

One does, however, pause when the validity of the science is questioned. And this is a common theme today. Yet perhaps a bit of skepticism is a good thing. To challenge and review the work done and considering how it is done, what is the actual process embraced by the scientists, is a good thing. The process we have in place will either stand and be reinforced by such a challenge or we will find the bugs and ultimately enhance the process. 

So despite my concerns about this assault on science and the issue of eliminating regulation based upon this attack, I do still have faith in the overall system and specifically our courts.I know that the environmental groups will not allow this without a court battle. So this will be sorted out, and I am pretty certain that science will continue to drive a proper regulatory regime. And I do see a certain legitimacy to the challenge of transparency and its lack in a secret science, That said, I am annoyed that they even try to challenge it. It being science. How could they(?) is my response.

So I wonder in the end if I am perhaps a bit dogmatic in my acceptance of science? It is perhaps a blind spot? It is possible that the EPA is doing shitty secret science? It would not be the first time, And Pruitt, the environmentalists, and the courts will sort through that and proceed. That is the hope. So yes I have little little use for Pruitt, and I do believe he is basically attempting to destroy and sabotage the very agency he supposedly directs and manages. 

That said, this exercise of looking at various processes and procedures might actually be a good thing. We might just find some issues, and will get to find out how resilient the system is, even with or especially with people on the inside trying to blow it up. 

This might truly be a case of that which does not kill us or the EPA, will make us or the EPA stronger. Maybe.

Tariffs, Markets and States

The President's reintroduction of tariffs betrays a larger theme. We are, whether he is aware of it or not, dealing not just with the issue of whether China is getting the best of us. His Presidency along with Brexit, and the nationalists in countries such as Poland and Hungary, in Turkey and India point to something more regarding how we view the nation-state, or countries, today. In this essay, focusing on the relation between nations-states and trade I try to flush out the issues at a very high level, in the process, eliminating the smoke and haze of the local politics. At least that is what I attempt.

The Menu or Basic Options

Tariffs focus us on what is happening inside a country. The question becomes what is important: the market or the people? Are we to focus on constituents who are being hurt in the marketplace or do we focus on the market. Obviously, any good politician, any good political leader, must have a concern for their constituents. So what does one do in this situation? Does one focus on the pain inflicted, or does one trust the market?

Now there are traditionally three ways to deal with this: tariffs on the abusive import, subsidies for the domestic producer-the victim, or take the offending nation, where the products are originating from, to court.

Tariffs basically impose a tax on the products being imported into the country and that are causing the economic pain. You are basically forcing the imports to compete at the price point that your domestic companies are able or willing to compete at. It should be noted that this only helps your domestic producers domestically. They still cannot compete outside of the domestic markets.

The second option is to subsidize those being harmed-your constituents. to give a subsidy to them allows them to now offer their products at the same price or lower than those being imported. They can now compete with the import. Unlike the tariff, the subsidy allows the the domestic producer to not only compete domestically with the import, but also allows the domestic producer to export the product and compete abroad. Of course, the state or government is paying for this.

Lastly, you could take the offending nation to court. Basically, you take your case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and prove that they are engaging in unfair trade practices, or at least discuss the issue with the nation(s) that are causing the problem. To embrace these solutions is to reveal a reliance upon diplomacy at the least, and more importantly non-state and non-market players.

A fourth option, which is often done, is to ignore the issue. To select this option is to either stick one's head in the sand, or to simply trust the market. Obviously to stick your head in the sand is silly. The other, however, is almost radical. It simply assumes that there are winners and losers and that in this case the losers happen to be constituents. In short, to trust the market is to accept the fact that the role of a government is largely not to pick winners and losers at the market place. There is a dash of idealism here, as no state or government can afford to not pick winners and losers. A state, in its normal functioning, must pick winners and losers. In its taxation policy it decides such. In its selection of government contracts, it does such. Yet, regarding markets, and who will survive in the market, and being aware of and concerned about constituents harmed by such, the fourth option is common.

To go back to my opening, these four approaches betray a larger theme or themes. You can infer, assuming that a state is acting rationally, what their intent is, what their values are by their selection of the above four. Let us assume that states are rational actors. What is revealed in such a process is their attitudes towards markets, both domestic and international, the role of nation-states, and the role of what I described above as non-market non-state actors.

Tariffs and Subsidies

Both tariffs and subsidies involve the power of the state or nation-state. In both, the nation-state protects the domestic industry being challenged. With the tariff it not only protects the domestic industry, but punishes the perceived challenger to that industry. What it does not do is encourage the domestic industry to go beyond the borders of the nation-state. Tariffs focus on only the domestic market. They offer nothing aside from perhaps the capital, to explore the world beyond its borders, and that is, in this case, a decision made by the leaders of the various firms in this sector.

The second option is to respond to the trade opponent with subsidies. Typically, unfair trade practices occur due to another nation-state subsidizing an industry. With subsidies, we are fighting fire with fire. Regardless, this subsidy allows the businesses in the sector to offer lower price points, below what was the normal market ranges previously. The subsidy allows the domestic sector to cover cost and compete against the exports being sold below costs. Subsidies, unlike tariffs, allow for the domestic industry or producer to sell abroad. The domestic industry, with a subsidy, is now able to compete in both the domestic market and the international market.

Both subsidy and tariff are the tools of nation-states, but each involves its own domain and history. The tariff is based upon the ability of the state to tax. It takes that ability and uses it to protect domestic producers and industries. It focuses these industries on the domestic markets. The tariff says nothing about the market beyond the nation-state's borders. The state is encouraging industry to look no further than the domestic market. In fact, it is basically insuring that the domestic industry cannot compete outside its borders, as it facilitates and encourages prices and practices that cannot be afforded in the global market.

The subsidy is the opposite. It is preparing the domestic industry or company(s) to dominate not only  the domestic market, but also the global market. It is a step beyond the tariff in that it can be done through a national bank, a set of tax breaks and tax incentives, or an outright joint venture between the state and business. With an eye towards global markets, and the willingness to actually invest in a business or sector, the subsidy is a higher risk to a nation-state. The nation-state is here providing capital in some form and betting on certain businesses or sectors to thrive. There is no guarantee that will happen, regardless of a state's actions. Not only is there a business risk here, but also there are risks inherent to a nation-state.

So, in short, the tariff insures that the domestic producers continue to dominate in the local domestic market. It really no assistance regarding the export of goods outside the nation-state. The subsidy on the other hand encourages business to take their product abroad. it facilitates the domination of global markets. A nation-state that wants to see their industry thrive in the international markets, will subsidize them. And a nation-state that values their domestic market, will simply impose tariffs.

Diplomacy, the WTO, and doing nothing. . . 

Now we move onto the second set of options. Diplomacy, appeals to the WTO or the World Trade Organization, and doing nothing, all defer to trade. In each of the three is an acknowledgement that trade is of value and wherever possible should be left alone. Further, nations-states embracing the above three, and that value trade, see trade as different from and separate from the state. Here it is simply not the function of the state to engage in or manipulate trade. Those who subscribe to the above three, largely accept that nation-states, countries, though they will facilitate trade, will ideally not limit or support, or partner in trade. Such negotiations or actions to limit or enhance trade are the exceptions. Even going to the WTO is an exception. Doing nothing is the norm.

And just to qualify, doing nothing is in reference to trade. It is not in regard to what is traded, and likewise trading partners like to be known. Nation-states reserve the right to determine if slaves can be bought or sold. Likewise, military weaponry is largely not freely traded. Banking and healthcare are highly regulated. Each nation-state will have regulations and procedures, laws protecting property, the transfer of property, copyrights, patents and so forth, but again, they will not themselves actively engage in the trade of such items. In short, the goal of these countries is to embrace the rule of law and with that insure that transactions are fair and equitable. Nothing more.

It should be noted that typically a contemporary successful nation-state will also offer a solid infrastructure, access to high-speed internet, solid educational options and healthcare. All of these lead to success as a nation-state and in trade. Trade beyond one's borders again tries to insure merely that trade is fair and equitable.

What I describe is perhaps the ideal of those countries that embrace this second set of options regarding trade. They will negotiate trade agreements, they will if there are issues work through diplomatic channels, they will go to the World Trade Organization, but in general, they do not dirty their hands with trade. There are plenty of exceptions. Agriculture in the US is such a case. Steel and solar panels are one of many cases for China. Rice in Japan is another common example.

Consequences

The result of these actions, the use of diplomacy, the appeal to the WTO and the like, can be seen, however, as simply limited actions. They really are limited actions, a small step away from doing nothing. Further, they lead inevitably to the diminishment of the nation-state that embraces such. If what you can offer in response to trade abuses is a series of diplomatic responses, and an appeal to the World Trade Organization, which is often seen as itself ineffective, you do not have much to offer.Your rule of law does not protect domestic industries, nor does it enable those same industries to get a step up in the international markets.

Not only is the nation-state which embraces only diplomacy and the like unable to compete with foreign competitors, foreign traders, it creates its own problems. The international conglomerates or corporations, which grew out of free trade, now have little or no obligation to any one nation-state. A corporation is not a citizens of any country. Their employees flow between countries continuously, and its business is global and follows the sun, 24 7. Its only loyalties are to its shareholders and senior management.

Worse is that the contemporary nation state, seeing itself as a rational actor has created multiple institutions which usurp the nation-states' authority. We have in this category, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organisation itself. In Europe you have the European Union. Entities which are neither states nor corporations, yet make decisions on trade and other matters, which will effect all of us, and yet we have no direct representation in these institutions.

Considering the above, the choice becomes do you subsidize and go the way of China, or do you embrace tariffs and bolster your domestic markets, basically attempting to return to the nineteenth century?. Is there a third option?

The EPA, and the application of the Joshua Principle. . .

On my first readings of various articles detailing the EPA's Pruitt and his decision regarding researchers on advisory panels, I basically arrived at asking WTF? Scott Pruitt at the EPA several weeks ago announced that Scientists must now decide if they want to serve on an advisory board or do grant driven research, much of those grants from the EPA. They can no longer do both. Historically, they have been able to do both. Their removal from these panels will most likely allow for industry representatives to fill those roles. Pruitt wants industry and local groups to participate, but scientists and researchers have no seat at that table. Most articles point to the idea that a scientist or researcher's offerings are tainted as their funding is often coming from the EPA. It is interesting that the other groups are perceived as having no dog in this race. Local representatives and industry representatives seem to have no interest, no conflicts. So we have industry folks having a greater say on how the EPA proceeds. It appears that there is no conflict of interest in their case, despite the fact that it is industry which is typically regulated by the EPA. Strange. Now I have some strong opinions on the above. I may also actually believe industry reps do deserve a seat at the table along with researchers and local folks, but lets hold that thought. Pruitt uses a bible verse to introduce this subject. A bible verse, what is referenced as the Joshua Principle, which involves the Israelites being asked to choose between the true God or the idols they had come to embrace. Pruitt is demanding that scientists choose between grant funded research or advisory panel. Which is your god? Is it science or advisory panel? One is the true God and one is a false idol? And this is part crazy, but also part interesting. We do put scientific researchers in a privileged class. We do. They know the science. They know the truth. Are scientific researchers entitled to this privileged place. Is it appropriate that they be perceived as without bias? Or forget bias for the moment. Is it the case that their knowledge actually does grant them access to the table? They have no personal interest in this matter. They have neither a horse nor a dog in this race. They have no stake in this game. They only have a rational offering - their research. The industry rep wants his industry to thrive, and the local representatives wants their region to likewise thrive. The researcher is not interested in either of these. He or she can only offer the conclusions of his research. He has knowledge, and the others have goals and intentions. Perhaps it is not bias that is at issue, but rather that science is a false idol. It distracts us from what is in front of us. Its truths do not allow us to move or improve our lives, but only consume us with further research. Science has imposed itself between the local and industry reps who desire to push and advance their causes, the groups and the people in those groups. To remove scientific researchers from the table seems a mistake. If they are not there, how is their research introduced? Obviously, all want to make an informed decision, which entails the latest research on the matter at hand. And to simply replace them with industry representatives is craven. Now, this piece really requires more knowledge of these panels. Much of this is speculative, but at first blush we not only have the issue of bias to consider, but also the nexus of knowledge, policy, and life. How does the later work? It is possible that we are focused too much on knowledge, science and research? Yet, to totally deny a place at the table for science is just as problematic.

The Disease of Breitbart or Logic is not Everything. . .

For the past year or two we have heard references to Breitbart, the home of the alt-right or something along those lines. I largely ignored it. It probably was around longer, no doubt. They have made a name for themselves. They helped get a President elected. Today, they aim to do the same with the Congress, all the while basically offering up their take on what is happening in the world. They are basically a news site.

That said, they are not like any other news site. They offer an interesting perspective. They are supposedly the home of the alt right, right? Except they do not look like the alt right. There are no men in hoods, no swastikas. Again, they look like a news site. And that is the interesting thing. They have it is said repackaged some of the things offered by such groups. They have, it is said, taken the ideas and themes of the far or extreme right palatable without the odor or aftertaste of neo-Nazism and the Klan.

I have gone there at various moments and honestly I have not known what to think. They confuse me. I would read that they are the continuation or extension of the alt-right and I would arrive on their pages looking for attacks on Jews and blacks and so forth. It is not there. That stuff is not to be found.

I would read articles on the site, however, and just wonder where is this going? As I said, they puzzled me. Not because they were racist or anti-Semitic. No, the site simply puzzled me. I saw they were critical of the Obama administration and the like, but to what point? They were critical of social trends and cultural leaders and mores. So their site is not only a news, but social and cultural criticism. They look at various leaders and movements, initiatives and ask why? And it is a mix. There are news articles and there is commentary, like any newspaper or news site. They have a tone. They have a style, as does any paper or news site. This style, this tone, however, does make me pause.

So, I have largely chosen to ignore them. Just not my cup of tea. A few nights ago, however, courtesy of Facebook, I was given an article that allows some access. It took some time reading it to figure out the mechanics of it. And it is an older article or essay, written by one of their senior editors, Milo Yiannopoulos, who has since been fired earlier this year. He went too far, I guess. In this article he is provocative and insightful.

Milo has today risen perhaps to the notoriety of an Ann Coulter, but is much more interesting. He is gay, and he routinely acknowledges it. I like that he does. One of the best ways to disarm a critic is to just own it, put it out there. And he does. That said, though, to own being gay in conservative circles, is especially interesting. It seems to counter much of what conservatism is about. Again, I have this feeling of puzzlement, even in regard it seems to their writers.

Anyway, back to our story. Where are we going? Someone on Facebook shared one of Milo's essays with me. An essay, which can still be found on Breitbart. The title is,"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy". It basically argues that there are consequences to women using birth control.

Those consequences range from cellulite to the damage done to the institution of marriage. In short, he argues that the side effects are not worth it. It reminded me of one of those commercials you see today for various drugs, where it lists all the side effects and you are left asking yourself, who would take this junk? The basic point is that birth control does not make one sexy and in fact does harm.

The interesting thing is how he argues here. He tells his audience at the start he is arguing for traditional values. How he argues this point though is not at all traditional. He takes our fascination for sex, and is able to turn it upon itself. He illustrates that birth control damages those things that make us sexually appealing. He takes our desire or need for sex and shows that birth control, the pill and all the rest, really do not lead to satisfaction. A woman might be able to have sex freely, but she wont be able to get laid. She will have become too ugly and too crazy for any man to consider as a partner.

He has taken our desire and our science and turned them against themselves. The conclusion is that we might be better off without them, to perhaps be chaste and unknowing.

And here in the case of this essay it is not only the  use of new arguments, new premises, to arrive at his conclusions, but the fact that he uses science itself to arrive at the conclusion. It is kind of neat; the fact that he uses science to argue against birth control. This has the effect of not only challenging birth control but science. Science led to birth control, birth control is not good; therefore science is also flawed. It is an invalid argument, but still sufficient to raise doubts. You find a rotten apple, it raises concerns about the rest of the apples in the basket. And at the very least you look, you inspect the other apples. And he does not just imply this, he says as much in the beginning. Science is biased.

And as I said, it is not only science that is challenged here, but our obsession with casual sex, sex with no costs nor strings. How can you not question such as it led to birth control, and its consequences, including the sexual revolution. A revolution that largely destroyed the institution of marriage.

These are the wonders of this essay. This cute little essay talking bout cellulite and a woman's gate when she is fertile, ultimately is a challenge to sex and science. Cellulite and a neutered gate are the consequence of our sexual revolution, birth control, and ultimately our obsession for casual sex, and science. And how does he argue this? He argues against all of this with the results of scientific studies focused on cellulite and women's gates. As I said above a problematic argument. If the studies illustrate the problems of birth control, and birth control is a product of science, then both birth control and science have issues. However, if we grant that science is biased, then how can rely upon these scientific studies?

So the way in which Milo argues here is interesting. Perhaps this is what I was sensing in prior reads - a loose approach to fact and basic logic. Perhaps this explains my basic sense of disease or discomfort when reading Breitbart. There is, as I said, more going on here then an article challenging birth control. We have a site that claims to be a news and commentary site, which at least here in this essay suggests that science is biased. And does so using a series of what appear to be flawed and invalid arguments.

One last question and this again goes to my discomfort with the site. If not this world, then what? What is next? If your doubts regarding science are true, then what? Milo acknowledges in this essay he wants a return to the traditional family, but is that possible, even if desirable in today's world? And the family provides no remedy for the doubts he has cast regarding science.

There are other issues. The fact that he is gay. How do we return to the traditional family considering we have accepted and embraced those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and the like  in today's world? Traditionally, members of the traditional family or those who have encouraged such have perceived such as a threat. No more?

The challenge, however, is bigger than that. If science is flawed, if it is in fact biased and not truthful, then what do we believe? Family, as I said, is not up to the task. Religion? There is a great deal to be found in both family, and religion, but regardless neither family nor religion do what science does nor vice-versa, a point that is often ignored or neglected. In the end, I have to conclude that a series of like essays hinting at or poking at these subjects will most likely not provide an answer to my questions and concerns, much less my disease and discomfort.

Below is my initial response to the essay, which I originally wrote in a post on Facebook:

"Yeah there is a lot of truth in that article. He is an observant little fag. He, like all of us, has seen those commercials. The ones listing all those side effects of drugs. Those side effects do make me wonder why we even take those drugs, but we do. He does the same thing regarding birth control.

Why do we take all those drugs, birth control pills and all the rest? He raises a good point. Why do we? Regarding birth control, so we can just get laid without consequence? That was the sexual revolution. And it did destroy the institution of marriage. Why did we embrace such things? 

He takes our fascination for sex, and uses it here. If you really want to be sexy and hot, and to be bred again and again, well then skip the birth control. He wants women pregnant, married, and raising a family. That is what women do. That is what women do. 

He is not sure how men really deal with women, but he does acknowledge that women are needed for such. He says all of that in the article. 

And he arrives here not with bible parables, but with the use of science, and our fascination with sex. He uses science and sex to argue against birth control. If you really want good sex, forget the sexual revolution, forget birth control. They always said those Christian women were sweet."

A New Conspiracy Theory

Tonight we play conspiracy theorist. Just this once. . .

Imagine we have a President who is shrewd, who appreciates science, and does put America first. Perhaps more like Francis Underwood. Although Francis does not put America first, but that is a different story. . .

For now focus on the shrewdness, the believe in science, and is a nationalist. He believes that his first priority is to protect America,

What does that mean regarding global warming? What does it mean when you watch shows like Bill Weir's Wonder List on CNN? A show where tonight the host spoke with  the Egyptian Secretary of the Environment regarding the fact that Alexandria, an ancient port city in Egypt, it is predicted will be devastated as the seas rise. The Secretary basically said to Weir he can do little. He has neither the resources nor budget. Further, neither he nor his country caused what will most likely happen in Alexandria. What is happening in Alexandria was caused by others he said, and they should be held responsible, they should come and assist in such projects.

I paraphrase. I was napping on my sofa, but I think I heard enough. If you have people in the world with such beliefs and you believe in organizations such as the United Nations, and you believe in validity of global treaties and agreements. If you believe in international courts that make decisions on trade agreements, and national disputes, and you accept the basic idea of an international court that can bring a country, a nation state before it, then a country that could be accused of being largely responsible for global warming is in legal jeopardy.

In short, if you believe that global warming is real and that it is a man-made phenomena, and you believe that there are international organizations and courts that can bring a legitimate nation-state before it, then a leader of a country that could be responsible for such better prepare for such situations - they better have a defense.

President Donald Trump may or may not personally believe in global warming. He may or may not personally believe in international organizations, courts and agreements. On the record and in his ten months as President, however. he has illustrated that he largely does not believe in global warming, he does not trust international organizations nor treaties. And, he does routinely make the claim that he wants to make America great again, put America first. Lastly, he does believe in legal suits and counter-suits.

Perhaps he is putting America first. Perhaps his whole position regarding Global warming, the United Nations, and various international agreements stems from his fear of potential suits related to global warming against the United States. Perhaps, his principle of America First also stems in part from such liabilities. His case is already out there. Global warming is a hoax, and there is no international organization or treaty that can bind a country. Further, we better get use to the concept of America First, because we will be an international pariah.

"Defacto" White Supremacist?

The more I think about it the more I conclude that the President's administration is "defacto" white supremacist. Forget all the nonsense about the Klan support, the mess at Charlottesville, all the supposed "dog whistles" at his rallies or the rallies themselves. I would argue their policies make it obvious. 

Their policy on immigration, both legal and illegal. they simply want to limit immigration, and when you look at who is immigrating it is mostly non-whites. Their desire for English speaking immigrants is also interesting. It points not to a racial bias but I would argue a cultural bias. Which goes hand in hand with the racial bias. If you are not white, at least speak English. Keep in mind that historically many first generation populations of immigrants did not speak English upon arrival. 

These were the easy ones above. The bigger fish, which I am really after, are trade and diplomacy. Both international trade and diplomacy are deemphasized in this administration. Let us start with trade. The first thing he did was tear up the TPP.  He has and continues to question NAFTA. Before he even took office he rescued several hundred jobs at Carrier, keeping them from crossing the border into Mexico. His tax reform is in part motivated by the desire to bring American companies and their bank accounts home. These are idea and goals expressed routinely by this administration. Each has its motivations, its reasons, but I would suggest that ultimately such rationales are garnish, the condiments or trimmings. I would argue he is far more interested in building a market in the United States as opposed to trading with other nations. 

Likewise regarding diplomacy. I listed the trade agreements under trade, but they do go under this category too. Further, look at the massive cuts to the State Department. How many senior State Department officials have left? How many State Department positions have not and probably will not be filled? Further, there is North Korea. The President has largely asserted that there is no diplomatic solution there. Likewise, he questions the Iran nuclear deal and of course recently chose not to certify it this past week, leaving its fate in question. He has previously questioned our involvement with both the UN, and NATO. Time and again this administration has asserted in its first nine months in power that it does not believe in diplomacy. 

Now of course he does preach America First. and he believes this is good not only for America but the UK and others. He fully endorsed Br-exit. Countries, of course, do have their interests and of course must act on them, must protect and defend them. He goes beyond that. No, regarding international trade in most cases he is found commenting routinely that America is getting the raw end of the deal, whether it be regarding China and the steel business, or Germany and autos. 

I suggest that the underlying premise regarding his attitudes toward international trade and foreign relations is that they, those abroad, foreign powers, foreign leaders, and foreign companies cannot be trusted. They do not share our beliefs, our hopes, our aspirations. They desire to see their cultures, their families and their nations thrive and dominate. They do not wish the United States well. Their goals and agendas challenge and compete against us on the world stage. Two things are happening here. 

One is that the world, including world trade and diplomacy are viewed as winner take all, or a zero-sum game. Meaning, there is only one winner. This administration does not believe that at the end of a negotiation both parties or both countries can be happy with the results. They do not subscribe to the idea that there can be two winners. With that, the winner will either be the US or not. Either we will win or we lose.

The second point and the one I am focused on is a distrust of the other. In this case this is anyone that is not an American. He routinely comments regarding domestic situations that we are all Americans. We should be able to recognize each other as Americans. That said, he did bring up at one point during his campaign that a US Federal Judge should not be allowed to preside over his case as the judge was of Mexican descent. Again the clash of culture, of race. 

I would argue that this administration's positions on trade and diplomatic relations, treaties are driven by similar concerns. We are unable to communicate nor work with others countries and peoples. they do not understand us, now we them, and further we in fact are competing, This is not a cooperative project at all. It is purely a competitive venture.  And when we do engage another nation, these are the assumptions this administration arrives with. If and when we do go abroad, we put ourselves at risk. And ultimately it is best to just stay home. 

This is what America first translates to I am afraid. I hope that the next three years or perhaps seven prove me wrong, but based on my observations this is what I see. Is the Trump administration "defacto" white supremacists? To answer that one properly probably does require digging into domestic policy. Next time. . . Regardless, I would say that they seem xenophobic and have a sad view of business and foreign relations, which is disappointing considering their business background and history. 

One Take on Mr Bannon's 60 Minutes Interview

What or who exactly is Mr Bannon? As he described it, he ran a little website. Oh, he is a street fighter. He wants to return America to the policies of 1840? And his take on immigrants - they have done nothing for the US. Nothing. 
He sees not the 20th century but the 19th century as the century to look to. He mentioned Henry Clay - the great compromiser. I actually like that, we could use some of that. Clay is also the author of the American Plan - High Tariffs limiting competition from abroad, a strong central bank, and large investments on infrastructure. Aside from the tariffs, the other two sound reasonable, palatable. That is my quick take on Henry Clay. It does not sound at all like Mr Bannon. My initial impression of this history lesson is that it unthoughtful and mainly a smoke screen. It is certainly not what Breitbart is about. 
The interview continues and Mr Bannon is certainly angry that Clinton, Bush, and Obama allowed China into the WTO. This is what Breitbart is about. These administrations facilitated NAFTA, and world trade in general. And keep in mind that immigration jumped during these administrations. Trade and immigration are their cardinal sins as per Breitbart. And the deep state? The Deep State is the state, the government agencies and people that implemented and perpetuates those policies. The 19th century comes into focus here. Limited immigration, especially pre-Civil War, (though the Irish were starting to arrive even then!), and a very controlled and regulated trade policy. 
And then he could not say anything against his man in the White House. He knows, I guess that his man is the only man he has a chance with. He still sticks to the story that there is no Russian conspiracy or collusion. Though in online "Overtime" he did say that firing Comey was the biggest mistake in recent political history. In the network / tv interview he says several times that either you are with him or not. He is still all in regarding his support of this President, even though he is not there anymore. On these matters during the TV interview he was sending a message to one man. 
His acknowledgment that his man is focused on personalities versus institutions was interesting. He says that is changing. We will see. His man did do that deal with the Democrats. His speech in MO and his comments regarding Claire McCaskill could have been another case of that turn. We will see on that one. Considering how he is man attacks the judiciary and urges that the Senate just go nuclear, and the way in which he pardoned Sheriff Joe, etc. . . I do not think he understands the institutions that make up the US Government sufficiently to function in that way. It simply is all personalities for him. 
Bannon claimed in another interview in 2016 that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt Right. What he was and is offering in Breitbart, courtesy of his vision of American history, is a sanitized presentable version of what the Alt Right is largely after. He dreams of something that what Breitbart offers could consume the Republican Party. It is the the return of something, he wants to argue, that the Republican Party once was. Mr Bannon, though, is not a Whig and this is not 1840.