Increasingly, it seems as though those in power are rejecting the scalpel in favor of the hammer — entering their positions with preconceived notions and goals and then forcing the data to align with their worldviews.

For example, the current administration entered power with the belief that government cannot, or should not, fix the problems of its citizens.

That may be true.

However, that does not change the simple fact that there were parts of the government that did work, and that by removing or defunding those elements under the belief that the whole is not worth saving, they are bringing a self-fulfilling prophecy into being.

Consider programs like LIHEAP — a low-income heating assistance program that disproportionately benefits rural regions and those on fixed incomes — which have been added to the cuts pile at the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Everything we have heard from community members and people we encounter in our lives suggests that LIHEAP is a huge help and will be sorely missed. Admittedly, this is not something we have personal experience with — if you have experiences you would like to share, positive or negative, feel free to consider submitting a Letter to the Editor on the subject. If we are wrong and LIHEAP doesn’t actually help people, then, fair enough.

But in the meantime, consider us suspicious while we regard it as being part of the ever-growing pile of government services and agencies which actually did their jobs and helped people that are being caught up in the war on waste.

As we have said previously in various editorials — and will again — there is absolutely nothing wrong with reducing government waste and excess. At the same time, we need to recognize both:

— That there is such a thing as the common good, and

— That the common good is worth pursuing and enabling.

Helping senior citizens on fixed incomes afford ever-increasing energy bills for heating and cooling has to be on the list of things that are worth doing.

LIHEAP is just one example, of course.

Consider tariffs.

Tariffs are a tool. And like any craftsman or mechanic knows, you need different tools for different jobs.

There is a massively long history with tariffs in the United States. As a column by economist Veronique de Rugy mentioned in Monday’s edition of The Express, one of our previous bouts with protectionism involved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. But some quick research shows that there were a number of other tariff acts in the following years, such as the Chicken Tax in 1964 or the imported steel tariff put in place in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

We are not economists — in fact, as a newsroom comprised of writers, you could justifiably assume that numbers are not the strongest suit of anyone here. That said, we would find it difficult to believe that there are no scenarios where tariffs are effective and beneficial.

As stated previously, we see tariffs as a tool — and, like any tool, they have the job to do.

The problems start when you try to hammer in a screw.

Early in February, we wrote an editorial worrying about the dangers of simplicity:

“In our drive to keep our world simple, we must not lose sight of the fact that, on a basic level…the world isn’t simple,” we wrote, then.

This seems to us to be another outgrowth of the viewpoint of wanting the world to be simple.

The ongoing aggression towards people who are transgender or autistic is another example.

There was quite an uproar recently in response to comments made by HHS head, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., with regards to autism — how it’s an epidemic, how people with autism will never pay taxes or have families, and so forth.

The outrage to this was, in our view, well-justified. Many people with autism hold down good jobs, pay their taxes and have families and social lives.

If we are considering this an epidemic, then surely so too much be left-handedness.

The same is true for transgender people. Yes, they are more visible now — although still a vanishingly small percentage of the overall population. That isn’t a sign of a “social contagion,” as some say — a horrendous thing to declare about any group of living, breathing people, by the way — it’s a sign of increased understanding and acceptance.

That’s what humans do. We learn, we grow, and we do better.

Our government, in many ways, is creaking and groaning, if not outright broken. We don’t think that’s a controversial statement.

The house that our forefathers — and foremothers — built is a fixer-upper. And like any grand project, we must use the proper tools.

By all means, use tariffs when appropriate. Shutter government agencies that serve little to no purpose. Reduce wasteful spending. But use the right tool for the right job — and if something still works and helps a vulnerable population, try to keep it.

Conduct studies when appropriate. Enact legislation that makes sense and is respectful of the people it will affect. But use the right mindset for the right job — and believing the worst about an entire population is rarely helpful or effective.

None of this is to say that there aren’t problems in society’s messy corners, or that those problems aren’t worth trying to fix, regardless of how thorny and difficult they might be.

But when you declare a worldview involving a group of people and then fail to consult or include any of said group of people; or when you declare universal tariffs while simultaneously stripping away the few remaining functional parts of our nation’s social safety nets, you aren’t operating in good faith. You aren’t using the tool of “we are trying to help you.”

You are using the tool of “we are trying to dominate you.”