By Joe Lane
Abraham Maslow proposed in his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation” that human beings have a series of needs that must be fulfilled in a specific order, often referred to as “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” The order (physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization) has played an important role in psychology, business, and politics for more than 60 years.
This year, Maslow’s Hierarchy is proving itself valuable once again.
The recent budget proposal by the Trump administration stands in the face of Maslow’s hierarchy and, in no uncertain terms, aims to prove that the federal government exists to provide safety needs and very little else. While it is undeniable that the federal government exists first and foremost to provide protection for U.S. citizens, the most recent budget proposal raises the question of how we define protection. What needs must the federal government protect?
The Trump administration’s budget proposal, available on the White House website, include widespread cuts for government departments such as the EPA, Agriculture, Justice, HUD, Interior, and Energy. Trump’s plan also calls to “eliminate funding for [some] independent organizations,” including The National Endowment for the Arts, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and many others. In fact, only three federal government entities will experience an increase in Trump’s proposal: Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and Defense.
Given the widespread proposed changes, this budget proposal lies at the heart of a debate over how large the federal government should be, a debate that has raged in this country since its inception.
It is undeniable that Maslow himself would argue that physiological and safety needs trump (so to speak) all else because these are necessary for survival. However, Maslow also argues that a sense of purpose comes not from the lowest two levels of the hierarchy but rather the upper three. The debate, therefore, isn’t whether things such as education, the environment, the NEA, and others contribute to “protection” but rather, whether it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect these facets of life.
The Declaration of Independence guarantees all people the right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration does not guarantee that the U.S. federal government will provide the means to achieve these things. It is, I believe, not the job of the federal government to provide me with happiness or a sense of purpose — the upper levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.
However, there is more to life than that which supports it, and if the very idea of life is guaranteed to us all, then the federal government ought to play a role in that, too. I won’t argue that the budgets of the NEA or even the EPA should be switched with the Department of Defense, but Trump’s budget proposal cuts EPA funding, for example, by 31.4 percent while increasing the Defense Department budget by only 10 percent.
While 10 percent is no small figure — considering Defense would then have a 2018 budget of $574 billion — it pales in comparison to 31.4 percent and, more than anything, it’s a slap in the face to the EPA. To decrease a government agency’s budget by nearly a third, after all, is to say, “you do not matter to this administration.”
Maslow would likely argue that safety is the primary concern of the federal government, but he would also argue that the EPA plays a role in that safety. Furthermore, he would also probably argue that a life lived safely and nothing else is no life at all.