What to Say and Who to Say It to

This week I’ve struggled with how to speak in the new American order. It started when I set out to revise a policy paper on financial inclusion  I prepared for the Hillary campaign so it would be relevant for the new administration. There must be a lot of people in the same boat, trying to figure out messages and audiences for their work. I’m not talking about the Muslim ban protestors, but about the many people whose issue isn’t at the top of the headlines. It’s easy to know what to say when you are protesting on the street, but what about when you come indoors and want to get things done?

One person advised me to “Trumpify” my piece and sent me an essay (on a different topic) from a politically progressive woman who crafted her pitch to push the new administration’s buttons. Hmmm….

In a normal transition year, it would be easy to adjust my piece to a new Administration. Financial inclusion isn’t controversial. Democrats and Republicans usually support it as a small part of American foreign assistance. That support has rested on a foundation of agreement by every administration for the past 50 years about America’s active participation in the world community and about poverty alleviation as one (among several) legitimate purposes of America’s work in international development. But this administration doesn’t buy these premises.

I couldn’t find even a small patch of common ground to stand on to make the pitch. This president has said nothing to indicate that he believes the U.S. should act in the world to reduce poverty or help countries build more inclusive societies. He cries “America First!” and threatens to reduce funding for U.N. agencies and foreign assistance by 40 percent, also possibly doing away with USAID and OPIC.

The only way I can think of to pitch financial inclusion to this administration is to appeal to its desire to control the financing of terrorism. Even emphasizing the role of U.S. businesses, which normally appeals to Republicans, doesn’t work because Trump is anti-globalization and fights with Silicon Valley – where a lot of financial inclusion innovation comes from. And it’s a laugh even to think about arguing for my personal obsession – financial consumer protection. This week the president directed the Treasury to find ways to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I imagine a similar dilemma is facing many people who work in Washington on hundreds of topics that usually aren’t – and shouldn’t be – political hot potatoes. Some of them say they’ll just keep their heads down and hope for experienced sub-cabinet appointees they can work with. But look what happened when Secretary Tillerson proposed Elliott Abrams, a highly-credentialed neocon, for Undersecretary of State. Trump gave his nomination the boot.

I think I’ll put out my piece more or less as it is and without any hope of swaying the ostensible audience. Maybe it will be helpful to other folks who work in this field, possibly even some people on the Hill. It’s not a satisfactory solution. But I’ve decided that  Trumpification is unthinkable.