A Few Thoughts On Block Grants, USAid, Conservatism, and Coalition Building

This could be a issue for common ground... if both sides are prepared to give a little

James and Steven have already covered many of the facts about Elon Musk’s unprecedented role in the rushed remaking of the federal government under the Trump administration. I want to fill in some details on the edges to advance the argument about how many of these actions fly in the face of espoused “conservative values.”

As James covered this morning, Musk has essentially shutdown USAID. Given many conservative’s (paleocons at the very least) distrust of foreign interventions, I can see how some might think this is a good move. That said, from a Christian perspective, the idea of suspending low cost, life saving aid to our less fortunate neighbors seems to clash with concepts from the Gospels (though I’m not high IQ, so I could have that wrong). That’s before we get to stabilizing impact of trying to advance global health initiatives–but then again, it’s not like the world got shut down by a pandemic during our life time, let alone the last time that Trump was president.

That said, I’m prepared to squint and accept the argument that those funds could be better spent caring for our neighbors within this country. Actually, I’m definitely sympathetic to the argument that charity begins close to home (I just don’t think that should negate charity abroad).

But then we get to the “Lutheran Services” thing from this weekend:

https://x.com/elonmusk/shttps://x.com/elonmusk/status/1885964969335808217

Steven, at the time, wrote this:

Look, I don’t know what Lutheran Family Services does, but just because there is a word in the title of the entity that Mike Flynn (known QAnon devotee) and Elon Musk don’t like doesn’t mean it is corrupt.

It’s understandable that Steven, and most readers, don’t know what Lutheran Family Services (or Catholic Family Services) are. In fact, the system is in part designed to work that way (but not in a nefarious sense). They are state-selected organizations that receive Federal Block Grants to deliver social services. From the Block Grant Wikipedia page:

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds are to enable each state in the United States to furnish social services best suited to meet the needs of the individuals residing within the state. Such services may be, but are not limited to: daycare for children or adults, protective services for children or adults, special services to persons with disabilities, adoption, case management, health-related services, transportation, foster care for children or adults, substance abuse, housing, home-delivered meals, independent/transitional living, employment services or any other social services found necessary by the state for its population.

[…]

Under Title XX,[1][2] each eligible jurisdiction determines the services that will be provided and the individuals that will be eligible to receive services. Federal block grant funds may be used to provide services directed toward one of the following five goals specified in the law: (1) To prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency; (2) to achieve or maintain self-sufficiency; (3) to prevent neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults; (4) to prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care; and (5) to secure admission or referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate.

These are organizations that, among other things, are there to try to stabilize people who have fallen on hard times and ultimately help them get to a place where the no longer have to rely on social services.

To be clear, they are doing the local charity investment that conservatives claim they want to see happening inside the US (versus outside of it).

So that’s the first contradiction. Second contradiction with proclaimed conservative thought is that while the funding is coming from the Federal Level (in fact, is the return of tax dollars to the community), the specific way it is spend and the organizations that its distributed to are determined by the States! This is literally the Federalism/State’s Rights that we are told that conservatives care about.

That’s before we get to the significant amount of time that religious conservatives have spent defending these organizations from “federal overreach” when it came to things like requiring adoptions to same-sex couples or necessitating insurance coverage of contraceptives. Much of the defense of these organizations was the critical work they were doing–but that too has been apparently memory holed.

Finally, there’s the fact that the reason that these organizations and block grants exist was to keep government staff small. All of these services could have been directly delivered by government. But instead, following small government conservative ideals, the decision was made to contract out these services (and in many cases the oversight of these services) to keep the size of government down.

Here’s the thing: I point out these things NOT to accuse past conservatives of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are at the best of times self indulgent (because we are all always already hypocites about something). At the worst of times, which we are fast approaching, playing the hypocrisy game is nihilistic–it only serves those in power by preventing coalition building and finding common ground.

So I point out all of the above because I think Block Grants and DOGE’s actions against them are a place where liberals and conservatives can find critical common ground to support change. We don’t have to agree on everything, I truly believe that most conservatives of good faith, once they understand what is happening, will see the profound issues with it.

All it takes is to start by saying “Yes, I agree this is bad” and then resist the temptation to add the “but…” that you’ll want to add to feel less discomfort.

To my more progressive fellow commenters, you also need to embrace some discomfort too. Our quest to point out hypocrisy or that “we were right” is equally nihilistic in these times. All it does is reinforce existing wedges and stop positive collaborations from happening. At some point, is you believe that the Trump administration and it’s unelected autocrats are as bad as you repeatedly say they are, then we need to find those ways of building real bridges on some tangible issues.

FILED UNDER: 2024 Election, 2025 Election, Deficit and Debt, Health, Healthcare Policy, History, The Presidency, US Constitution, World Politics, , , , , , , , ,
Matt Bernius
About Matt Bernius
Matt Bernius is a design researcher working to create more equitable government systems and experiences. Matt's most recent work has been in the civic tech space, working as a researcher and design strategist at Code for America and Measures for Justice. Prior to that he worked at Effective, a UX agency, and also taught at the Rochester Institute of Technology and Cornell. Matt has an MA from the University of Chicago.

Comments

  1. Sleeping Dog says:

    These are organizations that, among other things, are there to try to stabilize people who have fallen on hard times and ultimately help them get to a place where the no longer have to rely on social services.

    This is the problem, for the Muskites the role of government is to support billionaires.

    At the end of the day, these people are not conservatives in any sense that Edmund Burke or even William Buckley would understand, they are feudalists.

    8
  2. DK says:

    Our quest to point out hypocrisy or that “we were right” is equally nihilistic in these times.

    Equal to what?

    At some point, is you believe that the Trump administration and it’s unelected autocrats are as bad as you repeatedly say they are, then we need to find those ways of building real bridges on some tangible issues.

    Liberals are already willing. They just helped Republicans pass the Laken Riley Act. About a year ago, Biden and Democrats agreed to pass a much better border bill endorsed by Border Patrol and the Wall Street Journal. “Conservatives” killed that bill to appease to Trumpers.

    So. To build bridges one needs willing good faith partners. But as seen in attempts build bridges with our Trump slave trolls, including this very morning, contemporary conservatives — especially those with real power — are mostly phonies typically only interested in doing whatever MAGA says while whitewashing MAGA transgressions.

    Declining to point out hypocrisy and dishonesty won’t make hypocrisy and dishonesty disappear. If see you roaches in your kitchen, you still have an infestation whether you say so out loud or not.

    Denial and bothsides rhetoric doesn’t change the real reality.

    8
  3. Jay L Gischer says:

    Well, I’m feeling that these days, “conservatives of good faith” make up maybe 5 percent of the Republican Party. I acknowledge that they exist, but I sure don’t see many in the wild.

    10
  4. Matt Bernius says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    At the end of the day, these people [Musk, etc] are not conservatives in any sense that Edmund Burke or even William Buckley would understand, they are feudalists.

    Completely agree. And if we can reach some level of cross the aisle consensus on that, then there is hope.

    1
  5. DK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    This is the problem, for the Muskites the role of government is to support billionaires.

    QFE.

    2
  6. Matt Bernius says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    Well, I’m feeling that these days, “conservatives of good faith” make up maybe 5 percent of the Republican Party.

    As we have learned in this past presidential election, the fate of our country is decided by even less than 5% of the electorate-so I’m willing to try and find common ground with that 5%.

    7
  7. Modulo Myself says:

    There’s a big difference between muting one’s own conviction that you were right, and listening to some guy (and it’s a guy) tell you endleslsy that he was right and you were wrong.

    I’m not saying that we can’t build bridges. But everyone knows that the right and conservatives are a certain type of person. Without calling them authoritarians and fascists, let’s just say they are very bad at dealing with other people in a bridge-building way. That’s why the long list of overt racists and sex offenders running the joint isn’t a turn-off for the Trump admin. None of his supporters know how to deal with dysfunction.

    So yeah, bridge-building is good. But it will require more than swallowing the urge to remind another person that you were right, I’m afraid.

    2
  8. Kurtz says:

    Bernius, you know finding common ground is my default position.

    But I’m shaking my head while I read this.

    It’s not possible.

    I saw someone ask what criminal activity LFS was engaged in. Some Tesla fanboi responded, “child trafficking.”

    With the scale of trafficking going on, it’s a wonder we see any children with their parents, ever. Are those really their parents?

    See what I’m getting at, here?

    4
  9. gVOR10 says:

    Are there evangelical counterparts to Lutheran and Catholic Family Services approved by a state and receiving federal funds?

    If so, wake me when their funds are cut. Then maybe there’s an opportunity. Also, I expect LFS funds to be restored. You can always count on GOPs to do the right thing. Once they’ve gotten enough bad press for doing the wrong thing.

    3
  10. Matt Bernius says:

    @Kurtz:

    I saw someone ask what criminal activity LFS was engaged in. Some Tesla fanboi responded, “child trafficking.”

    I guess I should have been more clear that there are many people who you cannot reach any meaningful consensus with–see, eg, Telsa fanboi.

    And, perhaps from a McLuhan-esque perspective, the message of the comments medium is conflict. But I’m the type of person who wants to believe in possibilities and cultivate the discipline of hope. And, I’m in a role where, offline, I’ve had the chance to work with people from across political spaces who can at least agree to a common notion of change in certain areas (even if the underlying philosophy for supporting those changes are different).

    1
  11. Andy says:

    Lutheran Family Services wasn’t the only one on Flynn’s list—just eyeballing, the biggest financial recipient on the list was the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), which was renamed Global Refuge last year. I’ve been a supporter of LIRS/Global Refuge for a long time, and I think I’ve mentioned them here a few times in relation to Afghan refugees.

    To the point of the post, I think “conservative” and “conservative values” have become meaningless terms unless one digs deeper, in which case the definition depends on who makes it.

    Traditional small-c conservatism was always opposed to populism, which, until Trump, was considered a left-wing phenomenon. Like much in our politics in recent decades, there’s been a switcheroo, with many on the right wing adopting populism as a “conservative” ideology, and very specifically, the type of personality cult populism of Trump and MAGA, while the left is becoming increasingly the voice of elites and institutions. But also horseshoe theory is a thing.

    And you’re quite correct about how NGO’s have ended up replacing government workers at least partly due to traditional conservative desires to make government smaller. But Trump/MAGA conservatives are, IMO, statists, not the traditional limited government types. The language of limited government coming from them is an easily seen ruse, and it’s also easy to tell who the true limited government conservaties are (not many of those left). Whatever libertarian values traditional conservatism had have been stripped out of this new form.

    So when someone says “conservative” it’s hard to know what they mean because it is used to define things that are actually in opposition.

    8
  12. Matt Bernius says:

    @Andy:

    So when someone says “conservative” it’s hard to know what they mean because it is used to define things that are actually in opposition.

    On this, we agree. It’s also why I believe it’s far more useful to share what you affirmatively believe rather than rely on labels.

    3
  13. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    As we have learned in this past presidential election, the fate of our country is decided by even less than 5% of the electorate-so I’m willing to try and find common ground with that 5%.

    Yeah, me too. I’m feeling really depressed though. Looking for the hope…

    I’ve been rereading about the Maidan in Ukraine and the Revolution of Dignity. I am considering that something like this might be in our future. My eyes are wet, and I am wondering where I can find some hope.

    2
  14. Kurtz says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    You were clear.

    I chose that specific example for a reason. Moral panics sweep up your 5%. (See below.)

    @Andy:

    You know I find you reasonable and intelligent.

    But horseshoe theory is nonsense. It exists to make those who think that splitting the difference is the way.

    When I first started commenting here, I pointed out that when Dems triangulated, the GOP moved to the right.

    People think they are splitting the difference; they are splitting the baby.

    Are you going to defend that other dumb phrase ‘radical centrism’ next?

    And no, Trump did not originate populism for the right. I’m shocked you made that assertion.

    4
  15. Matt Bernius says:

    @gVOR10:

    Are there evangelical counterparts to Lutheran and Catholic Family Services approved by a state and receiving federal funds?

    If so, wake me when their funds are cut.

    There are lots of them, I know a few who would are either prime or subcontractors. I haven’t heard, but I assume that they are being caught up in exactly the same stuff. It’s really hard to target these sorts of attacks.

  16. Kurtz says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    I’m feeling really depressed though. Looking for the hope…

    I am as well.

    My eyes are wet

    Mine as well.

    1
  17. Kurtz says:

    I should clarify something. I just realized that my response to Bernius and Andy implies that Andy is part of those swept up in a moral panic.

    I do not think Andy is. But I am saying horseshoe theory, radical centrism, are ways to make barely engaged people feel reasonable.

    ‘It’s not us that is the problem; it’s the loonies to my left and right. They hate each other, because they are the same.’

    3
  18. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    Matt, I’d argue that the 5% of decent R’s are the anti-trumpers and they are already on our side. Regarding congress critters, name 5 in the house and senate combined. I’ll grant you there are a governor or two that are anti-trump, but they’re not in a position to help.

    4
  19. Andy says:

    @Kurtz:

    No, I won’t defend “radical centrism,” whatever that means, but I think horseshoe theory is a real thing.

    I don’t think you are accurately describing it either. It’s fine if you disagree, I’m not going to die on this hill, but if you look closely at the extreme right and left, there is actually quite a bit of overlap on several dimensions.

    Look at someone like RFK Jr. who has always been a kook, but for most of his life he was perceived as a left-wing kook and was even considered for an appointment by Obama. Now, suddenly, he’s a right-wing kook appointed by Trump. That switcheroo isn’t because RFK Jr has changed his bizarre and irresponsible positions from left wing to right wing – on the contrary, his kookiness has been consistent; it’s because what’s considered right and left-wing in this country has changed, and there are still a lot of people on the kooky left wing who like what RFK Jr. stands for and now many on the right do as well. He’s an example of horseshoe theory IMO.

    3
  20. Paul L. says:
  21. Gustopher says:

    @Kurtz:

    But horseshoe theory is nonsense.

    Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald would like to have a word with you. Horseshoe theory only seems to go one way, of course.

    The far right is a much more accepting place to those of dubious grasp on reality. 9/11 was an inside job leads to hating the Jews more often than not.

    4
  22. al Ameda says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    Well, I’m feeling that these days, “conservatives of good faith” make up maybe 5 percent of the Republican Party. I acknowledge that they exist, but I sure don’t see many in the wild.

    Right now I’m of the opinion that as long as Republicans are running the table on their Roll-It-Back Agenda I do not think that ‘good faith’ conservatives are going to be there. They’re seeing the Conservative dream of leviathan going down actually materializing.

    In the halls of Congress the number of ‘good faither’ Republicans is probably closer to 1 to 2 percent, not 5%. And they’re not going to break ranks unless they have safe seats or the issue is not especially important to their constituents.

    4
  23. Gustopher says:

    @Andy:

    Look at someone like RFK Jr. who has always been a kook, but for most of his life he was perceived as a left-wing kook and was even considered for an appointment by Obama.

    Two things: 1. it would have been a terrible appointment even then. 2. People change — there was a point when Michael Flynn was considered semi normal.

    3
  24. Gustopher says:

    @Paul L.: Porcupines plunder Portugal!

    2
  25. @Andy: FWIW, RFK, Jr. hasn’t become right-wing.

    At least I do not see his ideas as having changed all that much.

    Just because he has become a stooge of a right-wing movement doesn’t actually make him right-wing.

    It may even be that he isn’t left-wing, but is just a kook.

    6
  26. Also: populism is a style of doing politics. It is neither right nor or left. There have been both left-wing populists and right-wing ones over time.

    4
  27. Kurtz says:

    @Andy:

    As always, thank you for the thoughtful response.

    Overlap of irrational lunatics on specific positions has little to do with the underlying principles of right vs left. The overlap has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with individuals unmoored from healthy intellectual process.

    Mechanically, I suspect it partially flows from weak parties. Partisans are attached to the party, but the party need not be attached to specific theories of political economy/ideology. Partisans follow the letter; positions are mostly fungible.

    We witnessed this happen in real time. Trump’s position on tariffs is but one example. How about Iraq? It’s a safe assumption that the vast majority of Trump voters were vocal supporters of the invasion. And a good chunk of them considered anyone against it as un- or even anti-American. The most vile of them even called us traitors. (I know, personally.)

    But now they want to keep us out of foreign wars?

    Also, I feel compelled to point out that being stuck with two parties does not help. H. Clinton voted for the UAF. I still voted for her, because she was, as Chomsky put it at the time, “better than Trump on virtually every position.”

    Hell, even among us, a damn intelligent group of dysfunctional political junkies, few of us would ever vote for a Republican. I am unlikely to, but in the right circumstance I would (and have). I am not the only here, but most of us would not. When I have, it had nothing to do with positions, but I do expect a baseline level of competence from elected officials.

    As intelligent and well-read as this group is, there is still evidence of partisan reasoning, even if it does not reach the level of rank hypocrisy. At one point, I even attempted to demonstrate it via hypothetical question. My attempt was not properly executed–I am not a professional…well, anything beyond underachiever–but it still ended up revealing some of it.

    I’m not casting aspersions. I love this community. I value the people here. I value their insights, humor, personalities, and diverse experiences. But we are all human; limited by our various natures and experiences. We all make mistakes. We all have blind spots. We all have moments that betray a lack of self-awareness.

    But horseshoe theory is nothing more than an attempt to give bothsiderism a veneer of intellectualism. I understand its allure, especially for someone like you, I really do. I just think it is off the mark.

    5
  28. Andy says:

    @Gustopher:

    Two things: 1. it would have been a terrible appointment even then. 2. People change — there was a point when Michael Flynn was considered semi normal.

    I don’t think RFK Jr. has changed much. Flynn, on the other hand, is off his meds or took the whole bottle of red pills. Still hard to believe he was once a respected member of my former profession.

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Just because he has become a stooge of a right-wing movement doesn’t actually make him right-wing.

    It may even be that he isn’t left-wing, but is just a kook.

    I agree – I’m mainly talking about perceptions.

    RFK Jr. is a pro-abortion, anti-pharma guy (not usually a GoP thing), and yet he’s joining (assuming he gets confirmed) the Trump administration. The fact that he’s willingly part of the administration (or wants to be) makes him right-wing for many people, regardless of his actual stances.

    Also: populism is a style of doing politics. It is neither right nor or left. There have been both left-wing populists and right-wing ones over time.

    I agree, and traditional small c conservatives (not the same thing as the right wing, you’ll probably agree) were not fans of populism.

    @Kurtz:

    Thanks for your comment, I agree with most of it.

    I think a lot of difficulty in these discussions is the terms, shorthand, and mental models we use. We’ve already discussed how “conservative” can mean very different things to different people. Right and left as a simplified axis, is similarly imperfect. I have always had a fundamental issue with simplification that involves a single axis with two opposing poles, but that’s the shorthand and mental model we all use, probably too often.

    One way I think about this that relates to horseshoe theory is (by invoking Godwin), comparing Hitler and Stalin. They were on opposite ends of the left-right spectrum, but they shared many characteristics. For example, if you make a different axis than left-right, such as liberalism (in the classic sense) vs. despotism, both are on the despotism side. Similarly, an axis with individual freedom on one end and state control on the other would have them grouped together at the statist pole. Pacifism vs use of violence – same thing.

    In my view, the far left and far right in America also share characteristics once you look beyond the left-right paradigm.

    1
  29. Ken_L says:

    Maybe I’m slow, but I simply don’t understand what Bernius is proposing. ‘All it takes is to start by saying “Yes, I agree this is bad”’ – what is bad? The institutions Bernius just spent several paragraphs defending? What is he asking us to agree with – lies and irrational claims? There is simply no scope for “building real bridges” when there is no agreement about basic facts and no shared conception of truth.

    As for being “willing to try and find common ground with “conservatives of good faith” – nobody in the Trump Republican Party represents that 5%! Consequently it’s a complete mystery how anyone is supposed to find common ground with them, or what purpose it would serve even if one could. I can’t think of a less constructive use of Democrats’ time and resources than a project “building real bridges” with a revived No Labels. Moreover the ‘“conservatives of good faith” [who] make up maybe 5 percent of the Republican Party’ are very different people to the fewer than 5% who decide presidential elections. The latter vote almost entirely on instinct and prejudice, not on “tangible issues”.

    4
  30. steve says:

    A book I read long ago that I thought was important in understanding right wing politics was David Kuo’s Tempting Faith. He was an evangelical who was second in charge of implementing Bush’s faith based initiatives. The push to have religious based groups take over a lot of our social services came from that effort as they believed, without a lot fo evidence as Kuo noted, that they were superior to govt run entities. In some cases they did end up better, some not but Kuo shows how it was more about politics and getting support/votes from “Christian” leaders and voters than any effort to improve things. (Kuo became very disillusioned and left. Not sure how his faith suffered. He died of brain cancer a few years later. Probably God punishing him for lack of faith no doubt.)

    At any rate, it was Republicans putting social services in the hands of religious entities and now it’s them going after those agencies.

    Steve