THE PARADOX OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

 

The “American Dream” is a timely topic to consider in this year of national celebration and reflection. On the surface the dream promises upward mobility and contentment for America’s citizens. However, as our history has unfolded, it is fair to ask whether the dream is a national creed worth celebrating or a disappointing mirage for millions of Americans.

The widespread use of the phrase is attributed to the historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author James Truslow Adams. In 1931, he published The Epic of America that solidified the phrase into our culture. He wrote, “There is an American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all of our citizens of every rank. A dream of a social order in which each man and women shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

The notion of an American dream was a novel idea in the development of western political philosophy and economic theory.  The concept emphasizes individualism, self-reliance, and social/economic advancement. Conversely, the European social-democratic model focuses on providing a generous baseline of needed benefits, independent of market forces. European nations seek to improve the collective “quality of life.” While America prioritizes personal success, Europe emphasizes universal security.

Journalist Hua Hsu has an interesting perspective in his recent New Yorker essay, Reflections: “The Curious Case of the American Dream.” Hsu finds that following the Civil War and again after WWII “the promise of a prosperous, socially mobile way of life unavailable elsewhere seemed to make sense. Gains were shared across socioeconomic strata, as people moved from farms to cities to suburbs.”

On the other hand, Hsu also points out that African Americans have long argued that they have been denied participation in the American dream. He also references a 2024 Pew Research Center report that “forty-seven per cent of Americans no longer trusted the American dreams’ promise of success through hard work and determination.” This negative position has provided an open door for MAGA populism to gain a foothold in our nation’s middle class.

The remainder of this commentary will consider two very different criticisms of the American dream as first expressed by minorities and, more recently, by the “left behind” middle class.

The abolitionist and former slave Fredrick Douglass provides an excellent starting point. In his famous 1852 keynote Independence Day speech he remarked, "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice; I must mourn." The message was that America's celebrations of liberty were a cruel mockery to enslaved people.

Following emancipation, the tone softened, but the opportunity to participate in the American dream remained elusive. In his historic 1965 Cambridge University debate against William F. Buckley Jr., James Baldwin argued that the American Dream “was built directly at the expense of Black Americans.” Baldwin asserted that the foundation of the nation's wealth and "dream" relied on the exploitation, enslavement, and continued degradation of Black people.

Martin Luther King Jr. viewed the American dream as a "dream as yet unfulfilled". He described it as a great, universal promise deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence. King argued America had defaulted on this promise for its Black citizens.

More recently, the late Black Congressman John Lewis weighed in on the American dream. Lewis viewed it not as a guaranteed reality, but as a “potential promise that must be continuously fought for.” The election of Barrack Obama as President was a hopeful sign, not an endpoint.

Lastly, my Cincinnati editor recently discussed this topic with his African American friend. She responded with her heartfelt observations. “I have never experienced America’s love—only its tolerance and even that had to be fought for. The current state of America is requiring me to fight a fight I have already fought. My sense of unity, hope, and shared responsibility is diminished.”

For members of the middle class that feel victimized by their inability to gain economic traction, the issue is a return to, not an initial participation in the American dream. The MAGA slogan and its policies promise a recapturing of lost economic opportunities. MAGA claims that the roadblocks to success are immigrants who take jobs, liberals who ignore the middle class, and our secular culture that removes Christianity from the complex brew that could revive the dream for middle class America.

While I agree that there are entrenched problems blocking middle class advancement, I disagree with both the reasoning and the harsh and vindictive solutions proposed by MAGA.

Is there a path forward that can eradicate racism and sexism, while repairing the declining middle class to make the American dream available to all? Can it be done without one faction attacking the other?

Thankfully, once the excesses of MAGA populism and progressive socialism are disregarded, there are fundamental points of agreement in establishing the American dream. All factions can work together to challenge the entrenched power of corporations, billionaires, and special interests. They can agree on an economic model that guarantees economic security for all Americans when “best efforts” fall on hard times. They can demand the removal of policies that exploit and replace them with ones that reward effort and good deeds.

Finally, with some common sense and compromise, the American dream can become more than a slogan and unite all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PA MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD CONSIDER MERGING

 

Pennsylvania is divided into 67 counties and features a remarkably high number of local governments. Each parcel of land within the commonwealth falls into a specific city (57), borough (956), incorporated town (1), or township (1546).

The large number of municipalities resulted from early settlement patterns that were fragmented by challenging mountain terrain and rivers. For centuries, under Pennsylvania law, small groups of residents could petition to split off and form their own localized government.

The time has come for financially distressed municipalities to consider reversing this historical trend. The small size of many Pennsylvania local governments presents major structural and taxpayer challenges. According to the last census, half of our municipalities are home to fewer than 1,893 people, and about 22% have fewer than 800 residents. Neighboring communities duplicate administrative services and public works.

Because municipalities rely heavily on local property and earned income taxes, wealthier suburbs thrive while neighboring “rustbelt” boroughs and cities (Pittsburgh, Washington) experience declining tax bases.  In much of Pennsylvania, small borough and township governments operate with part-time elected officials or a one-person administrative staff to oversee complex audit, legal, environmental, and financial regulations.

As a result of declining tax bases and unforeseen financial setbacks, at least twenty-seven municipalities have sought relief under Act 47, The Municipal Financial Recoveries Act. While the Act has kept distressed municipalities from completely melting down, it has rarely placed them back on solid financial footing.

There is another alternative that is now being considered and adopted across the commonwealth.

On June 23, the Post Gazette announced that “Adams Township and Mars Borough (Butler County) are one step closer to becoming one municipality. Township supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a joint merger agreement.” In the November election, voters will decide via referendum whether the proposal will merge the two municipalities.

In early 2026, the City of DuBois and Sandy Township (both in Clearfield County) officially combined to form a single, unified City of DuBois. This was the largest consolidation of its kind in the state.

What is the legal authority for these actions?  Municipal mergers and consolidations in Pennsylvania are governed by the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act. The process requires municipal boundaries to be contiguous. It must be approved by a majority of voters in each affected municipality. Mergers are more common. Under this model one or more municipalities are absorbed into an existing entity. With consolidations, two or more communities dissolve and create a new municipality.

What are the challenges to merging?  The potential loss of local identity and local government jobs, often dissuades residents and public officials from backing these proposals. The debate reminds me of the similar mindset when a public school district seeks to close underused campuses.

The remainder of this commentary will consider the question of whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County should merge into one entity. On a smaller scale, much of the discussion would also apply to the City of Washington and Washington County.

Over the years, the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Pennsylvania Economy League (and others) have supported efforts to combine the two entities. Allegheny County is a region with more local governments per capita than any other metropolitan area in America with one million or more people. Allegheny County’s poorer municipalities, including Pittsburgh, are confined to tax bases with limited prospects for growth. They struggle to pay for public safety, road maintenance, and other basic services with little hope of improving their financial standing.

What can be done? A report by the RAND Corporation found that with a city-county merger, “the region would gain unified leadership, more focused policy, and better coordination, which could have ‘a generally positive effect’ on economic development.”

One result of a city-county merger is that the city’s population would balloon overnight, catapulting it up national rankings. Pittsburgh would trade its 67th ranking for a spot among the 10 largest American cities without having to add a single person. Dennis Unkovic, an international corporate attorney was quoted on the topic, “Being four times bigger would be an enormous change in how we are perceived. And perception is the essence of what it is to be seen as a bigger, more powerful city.”

In reviewing all of the literature, my conclusion is that the largest obstacle to a city-county merger are the wealthy suburbs which are disinclined to allow their well-endowed tax bases to absorb all the legacy costs (city pensions, large non-profits who are not taxed) found in Pittsburgh (and Washington). These voters will not support a merger, notwithstanding all of the employment opportunities, cultural events, entertainment and sports venues, health care facilities, and social service organizations they rely on, located within underfunded city limits.

Suburban voters are happy to work and play within the city. They like to complain about the cost of parking, homeless people, and deplorable road conditions and then return to the country club. The Pennsylvania Economy League has noted it does not matter to suburban voters that, “municipal borders in the region often no longer reflect actual economic needs or the residents' ability to pay for services.” The League concluded that, “these boundaries restrict tax bases while concentrating poverty in a cage."

Urban mergers are a difficult sell and are complex to implement. This should not stop smaller, struggling communities from exploring the merger option to achieve cost savings and tax relief.

 

 

 

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM IN 2026?

 

What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250^th year of our nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today, with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot? How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future generations?

According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its principles, its people, and the betterment of society…It fosters a sense of unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”

Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence hover around 40 per cent. About twenty per cent remained loyal to the crown, and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped the cause.

Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.

America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism, and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and America is a winner.”  The Constitution was never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.

In my view, the better approach was advanced by the journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, How Problematic is Patriotism? Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the nation that one is trying to protect… Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”

As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”

A recent op-ed article in this newspaper had me scratching my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”

Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.

As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge. Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, meanspirited leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.

Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are the true patriots.

To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident, Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladamir Putin, the recent book, Patriot: A Memoir, describes patriotism very well, indeed.

Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist died at age 47, in a Siberian prison, under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition. The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native country.”)

Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine which he termed “criminal and immoral.”  Instead, he was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.

I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic, forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early twentieth century. If he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.

Our President has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial, authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no dignity, and patriotism is diminished.

 

 

 

 

 

SOME THOUGHTS ON FAMILY GATHERINGS

 

I would much rather pen a travelogue or an essay on an everyday, personal event than research and write a political commentary. Journalism is overburdened with too many of the latter and too few of the former. The truth is, personal essays are more fun to write.

For those familiar with the timeless works of Mark Twain, he appears to agree with me. In addition to his famous novels and political criticisms, Twain was a prolific essayist that covered his travel adventures, philosophy, literature, and humor, all based on observations.

Our recent family sojourn to Chincoteague, Virginia provided some new material for an essay on family gatherings. In anticipation of this task, I made notes during the week (excellent accommodations, weather, and seafood) and sought advice from two of my editors who were part of our assembly, (my spouse and her first cousin) to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.

Family gatherings have always provided a fertile platform on which to write a book, play, or movie script. One of my favorite novels, The Corrections, written by fellow Swarthmore graduate, Jonathan Franzen is a great example. This award-winning novel is a perceptive and darkly humorous look at an aging Midwestern couple. They desperately attempt to gather their dysfunctional adult children for one last holiday meal.

In the live action play and movie categories featuring family gatherings, it is hard to top August Osage County, by Tracey Letts. We saw the original on Broadway and enjoyed the movie version featuring Meryl Streep as the Weston family matriarch. Her brood, scattered across the country, is forced to reunite at the old Oklahoma homestead after a family crisis. What follows is a tragicomedy that showcases three generations of dark family secrets.

There are many other examples. Home for The Holidays, directed by Jodie Foster is a fun, chaotic movie involving the clash of personalities at a family Thanksgiving reunion. Knives Out, starring Daniel Craig as the impeccably dressed detective, solves a murder mystery following a tense family gathering to read the will of a wealthy mystery novelist.

Our coming together on Chincoteague Island did not involve any of the intense tragedy or comedy of the above paradigms. It did provide a week of insight on aging, relationships, and the open trading of information, based on our pre-retirement careers.

Unlike gatherings in previous decades, each year we come together now reveals signs of aging. All of us are over 70. The phrase “please repeat that” seemed to be uttered in every discussion. The group went to bed earlier, woke up later, took more naps, and scheduled fewer hikes than ever before. Our beach sitting was accommodated by high director’s chairs rather than the low-slung variety. Pill bottles were everywhere. Each time we left the condo, someone forgot something.

There was a new member of our party that added an upbeat element to the week. We were eager to show him our favorite eateries and activities on the island, which now felt rediscovered. His first close-up view of the famous wild Chincoteague ponies was a joy to behold. Eagles, ospreys, and oyster-catchers completed the experience for him. The jury is still out on his first raw oyster.

It became obvious as the week progressed that a gathering of older adults involves more story telling than a typical family gathering involving younger adults and children. My spouse and her first cousins re-lived their elementary and high school experiences. My best friend from high school (now married to my wife’s first cousin) and I did the same with our many childhood misadventures. The tales from New Jersey tended to be spicier than the ones from Washington County.

My friend from New Jersey is a retired engineer. I was able to review with him our upcoming home improvement projects. He had many excellent suggestions. We brought our new, baffling telescope, and he carefully explained how to reassemble and operate it.

The same friend had a number of estate issues involving his child and former wife that needed immediate attention. My knowledge was helpful in working through each of the legal matters.

Meals are the heart of family gatherings. Our dinners at the condo and around the island provided ample opportunities to further reminisce and to celebrate a birthday. I have rarely laughed so hard or as often. During the day, each of us felt free to go off on our own for some self-reflection.

Compromise was essential. I like to plan each hour of activities while most of the others were more spontaneous. I learned to step back, stop thinking, and to start enjoying. Making the most of the moments and “going with the flow” were important “mental medicine” for me. I compelled myself to let two cousins plan our boat excursion around the island. They took personal ownership and provided our best memories of the week.

Of course, not everything went according to plan. As we loaded into the bigger, brand-new vehicle for the beach, the battery had died. After an hour of researching dealerships, repair shops, and possible reasons a new battery would go dead, a good Samaritan on vacation saved the day. He had a portable starter that worked when our jumper cables failed.

New stories were created for next year—if we can only remember them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PENNSYLVANIA COAL MAKES A COMEBACK

Pennsylvania has experienced a long and varied relationship with coal. Bituminous (soft) coal was first mined in Pennsylvania at "Coal Hill" (Mount Washington), across the Monongahela River from the city of Pittsburgh.  By 1830, Pittsburgh consumed more than 400 tons of bituminous coal per day for domestic and light industrial use. As the industrial revolution gained momentum, the anthracite coalfields, or “hard coal” of eastern Pennsylvania, captured new markets.

Bituminous coal contains more volatile matter and moisture than anthracite. It generates more smoke and ash when burned. In recent years, bituminous has been used primarily as fuel for electric power generation and in industrial manufacturing. Today, bituminous mining operations remain active in 21 counties in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Because it is nearly pure carbon, anthracite is hard to ignite. It burns slowly, longer, and cleaner than bituminous coal. Historically, anthracite was used for residential and commercial heating.  Its modern usages focus on metallurgy, and water filtration as activated carbon. It is most often the type exported to other countries. Pennsylvania’s anthracite region is located in six counties in Northeastern Pennsylvania. This area contains the only reserves of anthracite coal in the United States.

As recently as 2022, Pennsylvania remained the third largest coal-producing state in the nation. According to COAL.ORG, in Pennsylvania the coal industry supported over 17,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributed billions of dollars to the state’s economy. The coal industry’s slogan was “Coal Powers Pennsylvania.” The claim was that “coal’s ability to provide baseload power was unmatched by any other fuel source.”  

Since 1938, we have known that there was a dark side to using coal. When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause global warming.  Global temperatures passed the critical 1.5°C milestone for the first time in 2024. Warming above 1.5°C risks further sea level rise, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, species extinction, and food scarcity. Scientists believe that continued warming will result in worsening health and poverty for millions.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel of them all. It is responsible for over 0.3°C of the 1°C increase in global average temperatures. This makes it the single largest source of global temperature rise. Pound for pound, coal emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel—generating roughly forty percent of global emissions from fossil fuel use.

 

In an effort to clean up the environment and combat global warming, federal regulations have consistently reduced coal use by enforcing stricter limits on pollution. For decades, these rules, combined with market shifts toward cheaper natural gas and renewable energy, accelerated the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants.

EPA standards under the Clean Air Act require existing coal-fired power plants that operate after 2039 to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent. Retrofitting with carbon capture and storage is extremely expensive. Many utilities planned to retire these plants rather than comply.

In addition to the environmental concerns, until recently, several other factors hastened the death knell of the coal industry in Southwestern Pennsylvania. First, plentiful natural gas became the dominant energy source. Hydraulic fracking in the Marcellus Shale made natural gas far cheaper and easier to access. Second, for those utilities that still required coal, bituminous supply in the Western States was far cheaper to mine.

Within the last 18 months, the prospects for coal have dramatically changed for the better.  It started when Trump returned to office. By executive order in April 2025, Trump implemented several aggressive administrative and regulatory actions to revive the coal industry. He cited national security and rising energy demand.

The Trump administration's core actions since 2025 have included (1) using “emergency authority” to prevent coal fired power plants from shutting down, (2) designating coal as a critical mineral and reversing mining restrictions, (3) providing federally backed financial subsidies to support the coal industry, and (4) reestablishing The National Coal Council to lobby for the industry.

Two current events have helped to support the President’s initiatives and have lowered opposition. Energy demand from AI and cloud data centers provided a lifeline to the coal industry. By overwhelming regional power grids, these energy “hogs” have compelled utilities to delay the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants to maintain reliable electricity.

More recently, the war in Iran has triggered a massive supply shock. Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz choked off vital Middle Eastern gas exports. Vulnerable nations were forced to restart mothballed plants and burn coal to keep their electricity grids operating.

In light of the power supply crisis, Governor Shapiro has also taken action to keep Pennsylvania coal operations alive. He has supported an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. This policy balances the concerns of environmentalists with energy grid reliability and economic growth. For the immediate future, he has taken steps to keep coal-fired power plants online.

Following the Trump presidency and the abatement of the factors that have increased the need for fossil fuels, what does the future of coal look like?

According to the think tank Energy Innovation, “Coal-fired power cannot compete economically with clean energy and will continue to lose market share across the United States.

Most energy experts agree that the probable long-term future for coal is a steady, structural decline in power generation, driven by the rollout of cheaper renewables and stricter emissions policies.

FROM POSITIVE “RECONSTRUCTION” TO NEGATIVE “REDEMPTION”

 

When it comes to racism and civil rights in America, hard fought victories have often taken a turn for the worse.  This backsliding has produced policies that hamper the equal rights of African Americans. In 2026, the pattern has been repeated, this time initiated by the Supreme Court.

First, some background on Reconstruction followed by the period known as “Southern Redemption.” Redemption erased much of the civil rights progress achieved after the Civil War.

Britannica summarizes the Reconstruction era (1865–1877) as groundbreaking because “it redefined U.S. citizenship, rebuilt the fractured Union after the Civil War, and attempted to create an interracial democracy. Reconstruction permanently transformed the Constitution and the federal government's role in protecting civil rights.”

 

The National Endowment for The Humanities tells us that, “by 1873, many white Southerners were calling for ‘Redemption’ – the return of white supremacy and the removal of rights for Blacks – and the end of Reconstruction. This political pressure to return to the old order was often backed up by mob and paramilitary violence… The South slipped back toward many of the patterns of the antebellum era.”

 

The Jim Crow era in the South did not formally end until the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 (making segregation in public schools unconstitutional), the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Together, these legal and legislative victories enforced the 14th and 15th Amendments, stripping state and local governments of the legal authority to enforce segregation. For the first time since 1865, the federal government renewed its dedication to Reconstruction.

The Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation in public accommodations (like theaters, restaurants, and hotels). It also banned employment discrimination based on race.

The Voting Rights Act struck down discriminatory voting practices—such as literacy tests and poll taxes. These practices had historically been used to disenfranchise Black citizens. Section 2 of the Act permitted individuals to sue states for practices like drawing up unfair voting districts.

On April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais, the six Republican-appointed members to the Supreme Court rewrote the Voting Rights Act to eliminate protections it has long secured for minority voters. The opinion makes it almost impossible for minorities to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps.

To understand the history of complicated constitutional issues and the importance of Supreme Court rulings, my “go-to” source is often David Cole. Cole is a prominent legal scholar, author, and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). His works primarily focus on constitutional law, civil liberties, and criminal justice. Cole writes often for the New Yorker and The New York Review of Books.

In a recent article in the latter publication, Cole argues that “the Supreme Court’s decision dealt a fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act.” He believes that the court “adopted reasoning that Congress rejected more than forty years ago.” The title of his article is The Second Redemption.

Cole gives us an excellent example of what the Voting Rights Act was intended to avoid. “Imagine a state in which 20 percent of voters are Black and there are ten congressional seats. If the legislature divides the pie so that Black voters make up 20 percent of the voters in each district, none of the candidates preferred by black voters would make it to Congress. White voters would effectively choose 100 percent of the delegation.”

Cole is especially distressed because Congress had no role in crippling this landmark legislation. There was no debate to determine whether these voting rights should be repealed. In fact, Congress has reauthorized the Act four times since its passage and only expanded, not narrowed its scope.

The recent Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Alito, all but killed Reconstruction for a second time and supported a second Southern Redemption. One third of Louisiana’s population is African American. Under the 2022 redistricting map, following the census, they were only able to elect one sixth of the state’s congressional delegation. A federal court found that the plaintiffs had a right to create a second Black-majority district, and the state complied.

Justice Alito effectively overturned the interpretation the Supreme Court has given the Voting Rights Act in nearly a dozen precedential decisions over forty years. He has set up a new “test” in striking down the second African American friendly voting district. Cole believes that “no one will be able to satisfy the test.” According to Cole, our Supreme Court majority apparently believes “Congress would be a better place with no Black representation from the south, even from states with substantial Black populations.”

What have been the ramifications of the Alito decision? Already, four Southern States are rushing to redraw their maps to eliminate districts with Black majorities before this year’s midterm elections. More will no doubt do so before the 2028 presidential election.

Cole points out that “In the past, the Court has regularly declined to grant last minute voting rights relief. It did not want to create uncertainty too close to election day. But now the majority seems remarkably willing to cause late-breaking confusion.”

Cole concludes “the future is bleak for both minority voters and for democracy itself. The United States going forward will become even more polarized than it is today.”

When it comes to civil rights in America, the battle is far from over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME TO BE MORE REASONABLE AND LESS RATIONAL

 

There may be a simple,but ultimately satisfying way of reconciling our deeply held opinions and those annoying opinions of others with whom we disagree. This commentary will explore the use of a positive approach for holding a discussion involving partisan political views. It will provide a method for seeing through the vitriol of tribal politics that are constantly fed by social media’s confirmation bias. To help save our sanity, our relationships, and perhaps even to save our democratic constitutional republic, it is time to be more reasonable and less rational.

In everyday speech we use the words reasonable and rational as though they are closely related or at least pointing in the same direction. In fact, the two words are opposites in many respects. Once we consider the different meanings that are presented by a machine learning chat box, psychologists, and philosophers, we can use the two concepts to measure how we think about our own opinions and the opinions of others.

Google’s Gemini chat box describes reasonable as “The Fair Mediator.” The definition is “Being open minded, flexible, and taking into account the nuances of a situation.” The focus is on “ensuring fairness for all parties.” Its characteristics include “empathy, flexibility, and being sensible.”

On the other hand, Gemini terms rational as “The Logical Optimizer.” The definition is ‘adhering to logical consistency and facts.” The focus is on “prioritizing self-interest and finding the absolute correct answer.” It is characterized by being “cold, detached, structured, and consistent.”

Gemini concludes that “rationality can be cold and unethical while reasonableness forces us to consider the human, moral, and ethical dimensions of a situation. Reasonableness is crucial in social, legal, and everyday human context where rigidity can lead to unfair outcomes.”

Now that the machines have weighed in, what do human researchers tell us about the differences between being rational and reasonable? While investigating this question, studies involving the “dictator’s game” (DG) came up repeatedly among behavioral psychologists.  The classic DG is a task in which one party, the dictator, is provided with a monetary endowment. The dictator is asked to divide this endowment between himself and a passive recipient who has no role in the decision making. The DG thus reflects an assessment of altruistic versus selfish behavior in a hierarchical social interaction.

Should the dictator keep all the money (rational) or share the windfall (reasonable)? Many different variations of the DG have been studied in many different settings.  In one example, when money is earned through personal effort, the dictator feels less obligated to share it. However, if the money is obtained by chance, the expectation of fairness increases.

The psychologist Susi Ferrarello Ph.D. writes in Psychology Today, that “Being reasonable requires a flexible midpoint between rational thoughts and emotions.” She suggests that being reasonable is often more conducive to navigating complex social worlds than being strictly rational, as it balances personal goals with human, emotional, and social factors.

A relatively new interdisciplinary field of study called “wisdom science” focuses on sound judgment and decision making. It examines how people are guided in making decisions when rational and reasonable standards are considered. A study published in Science Advances presented findings from a systematic attempt to compare and understand rationality and reasonableness.

The studies demonstrated that most people understand rational decisions as “preference-maximizing” and reasonable decisions as “balancing one’s preferences with social norms such as fairness.” The study found that this insight has implications for the way people behave as well as how they evaluate the behavior of others. The research also showed that people would rather have a dedicated “rational person” represent their side in economic and social disputes, However, these same individuals responded more favorably to a more understanding “reasonable person” representing the other side in such disputes.

In today’s political environment, those on the left and the right often hold shared contempt for compromise. Those in the middle that call for reasonableness are labeled political cowards or worse. A new book by a well-respected philosopher decides that reasonableness is exactly what we need.

Krista Lawlor, a professor at Stanford University makes her case in Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue. The book explores what it means to be reasonable and why it matters for the well-being of our society. Lawlor concludes that “a reasonable person must be rational enough to figure out what is valuable and thoughtful enough to care about what other people find valuable.” She concludes that by taking command over our emotions, and by interacting attentively with others, we can live up to the standards set by our democratic, pluralistic society and the rule of law.

This is a short book that carries a big punch. Lawlor’s ideas amount to a defense of the reasonable habits that make common life in a democratic, diverse community possible. Those of us that think the only rational alternative to being a victim is to victimize others, have missed important possibilities. Lawlor believes that compromise is not capitulation. It is at a minimum, social survival and may lead to progress.

Lawlor finds that reasonable people “assume responsibility for their judgments and grant others standing to challenge them.” As we enter a highly charged election season, this is an approach worth considering.