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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMERICAN RENEWAL CAN CURE A SICK DEMOCRACY

 

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once remarked, “Our age is involved in irony because so many dreams of our nation have been so cruelly refuted by history.” This observation has never been more relevant. With the celebration of the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, communities are seeking to honor our foundation story. On a parallel path, Democrats hope to ring-fence Trump’s self-serving, authoritarian presidency by taking control of at least one body of Congress this November.

To focus on how the Declaration can help us return to what is important, consider President Calvin Coolidge’s remarks at the 150^th anniversary of the signing. He called upon America “to affirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time has demonstrated to be sound.”

Bill Clinton, at his first Inaugural Address, on January 20, 1993, began his remarks, “Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal… From our revolution, the Civil War, to the Great Depression, to the Civil Rights movement, our people have always mustered the determination to construct from these crises, the pillars of our history.”

The most quoted passage from his speech was “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." In retrospect, this thought was something of a prophecy. Quite a few things turned out right during Clinton's two-term presidency. The U.S. experienced a long stretch of peace, low unemployment, minimal inflation, and even a budget surplus.

What are we celebrating that is right about America? Can Trumpism be cured by an American renewal?

What is Right about American Democracy. The first democratic elections in the modern era took place from December 1788 through January 1789. George Washinton was elected the nation’s first president. Political parties were not yet established, and Washington won a unanimous vote in the electoral college.

Washington left the presidency in March 1797 after serving two terms. While Washington had originally been a unifying figure, his second term saw the emergence of two political parties with different visions on fundamental policies (the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans). This development would mark the beginning of America’s two-party system.

Washington had the foresight to establish a new precedent for acting heads of state. The American presidency would not be a lifetime appointment. Moreover, American democracy would establish the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

Many historians believe that the first true test of American democracy came in 1800. In this presidential election year, Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams. This marked the first time in modern history that power was transferred from one opposing political party to another through the electorate.

To understand the significance of these events, consider how the transfer of power was taking place in the rest of the world. Most Western nations were monarchies where power transferred through hereditary succession. When the hereditary line failed, power shifted through violence. The general populace had no say in who governed them.

The Ottoman Empire lasted for more than 600 years and covered three continents. All male offspring were considered legitimate heirs to the throne. When the reigning Sultan died, all of his sons raced back to Istanbul. The most cunning, with court support, took control. To avoid instability, the winner killed all of his brothers and male nephews.

American democracy was truly revolutionary. Despite the many challenges to come, a representative form of government produced democratic principles and institutions that were admired and replicated.

What damage can be repaired by an American Renewal? Since Trump came to power, many have been appalled as the President systematically dismantled important cornerstones of the nation’s original democratic principles. The good news is, as has happened before in times of crisis, Trump has exposed the weak links. New elections and subsequent legislation can reverse and repair much of the damage.

Legal and constitutional scholars have been hard at work drafting reform initiatives to jump start the American renewal. In the new book, Liar’s Kingdom: How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America, former Special Counsel, Andrew Weissman, argues that lying by elected officials can be criminalized by legislative revisions. He points to laws implemented in France, Germany, England, and Brazil where Trump’s lying would be a crime.

Experts have pointed out that Congress can use its authority under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution to set reform election rules in times of crisis. Issues like gerrymandering, seizing ballots, limiting who can receive a ballot, and Trump’s cancelation of funds to provide security for election officials can be addressed.

A revived Congress can stop abuses of presidential power, using its constitutional authority. These tools include overriding presidential vetoes and utilizing the power of the purse to defund controversial policies. Congress can enact laws that set guardrails on executive or administrative action. Congress can terminate a president’s unilateral declaration of a national emergency and/or “military operations.” It can pass legislation to directly overturn specific rules finalized by Trump’s executive orders, agencies, or departments under his control.  

In 2028, if a Democrat is elected president, everything changes. Simply by signing new executive orders, Trump’s egregious policies on immigration, DEI, foreign policy, and administrative directives can be reversed.

It is disheartening that serious damage has been wrought on American democracy. But elections matter. Concerned citizens should stop complaining and join Democrats to elect reform candidates that will begin the renewal.

 

 

 

 

THE “ICE AGE” IS SPREADING AND GETTING WORSE

 

The main enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE).  President Donald Trump has endorsed the idea of renaming ICE as the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (NICE). Concerned citizens should be wary of this attempt to soften the image of an out of control, masked police force, performing illegal detentions. In fact, the “ICE Age” is quietly spreading and getting worse.

 

Before Donald Trump again took office in January 2025, ICE had an annual budget of $10 billion. The agency operated with roughly 10,000 personnel. After Trump’s return and the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” ICE funding rose to over $85 billion and staffing levels increased to more than 22,000.

 

In 2026, over 73,000 people have been in ICE detention.  The detention population was only 39,000 at the end of 2024. Immigration lawyers report that 70% of those in custody have no criminal records.

 

Over the past six months, ICE has undergone a major shift in how it performs its work. At the beginning of the year, the policy was “in your face” and attention seeking. In Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota with much fanfare, ICE began Operation Metro Surge. It was the largest enforcement operation ever carried out in the United States. At its peak, the effort involved approximately 3,000 to 4,000 federal immigration personnel in Minnesota, including around 2,000 ICE agents.

 

Metro Surge turned into a strategic and public relations nightmare for the Trump administration. Two American citizens were shot and killed by ICE agents. Thousands of residents along with local officials united into a peaceful civil disobedience movement that warned and offered protection for targeted immigrants. Each day, news reports featured video of poorly trained ICE agents performing badly.

 

The disastrous Metro Surge was brought to a close by Border Czar Tom Homan on February 12. The fallout included the resignations of the Border Patrol’s “Commander at Large” Gregory Bovino and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. ICE has since refrained from conducting publicized large-scale raids on American cities. The new policy has been described by the replacement DHS Secretary, Markwayne Mullin as a “quiet way” of carrying out mass deportations.

The Iran War and the economy have replaced ICE as front-page news. However, the data consistently shows that despite the change in strategy, thousands of long-time U. S. residents continue to be arrested and thrown into detention centers. This is despite lengthy ties to American communities as taxpayers with gainful employment. Locally, this newspaper has periodically reported on ICE raids that spark fear among immigrants in the area.

A recent investigation by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law gives insight into ICE funding and its change in tactics. “As Congress is at an impasse over funding and reforms to the DHS, ICE is fully funded until 2029 thanks to the cash injection lawmakers approved for it last July. The money, which included $45 billion for new immigrant detention centers, more than tripled ICE’s annual budget and made it the largest federal law enforcement agency. ICE has since expanded its detention system at an unprecedented pace, creating a vast deportation ecosystem rife with abuses.”

The report goes on to disclose, “To justify massive detention centers, the Trump administration has shifted away from historical approaches to immigration detention by putting more immigrants behind bars and rapidly expanding detention capacity through private contracts and investments in its own infrastructure. At the same time, it is finding new ways to evade oversight, leading to greater risks to the health and safety of the people in the government’s custody.” (So far, seventeen deaths have been reported from inadequate medical care.)

According to the American Immigration Council, ICE is spending billions to purchase and retrofit industrial warehouses into “mega-centers” intended to hold 7,000 to10,000 people. The goal is to reach 100,000 detention beds to accommodate long-term removal proceedings. ICE needs more room to detain the 1.6 million immigrants who were in the country legally but suddenly had their temporary protected status revoked, such as refugees from Haiti and Venezuela.

While the “ICE age” has ceased its high-profile overrunning of metro communities, its growth in smaller urban and rural areas is unprecedented. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette (PG) reported in April that “As ICE expands its presence in the region, the number of people detained at the agency’s South Side field office also has grown.” November 2025 was the highest month with more than 170 detained.

Another PG investigation revealed that ICE has been quietly expanding its presence in the Pittsburgh area after leasing space for $600,000 in annual rent in a five-story office in the western suburbs. ICE has not disclosed the purpose of the rental. U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Fox Chapel, whose district includes the new building, issued a statement that “ICE should be open with the American people about how they are using the public’s money — especially in our backyard.”  

As of April 2026, DHS has purchased or identified two major warehouse sites in Berks and Schuylkill counties for conversion into large-scale ICE detention centers. The Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County is already operational.

Like an impenetrable glacier, the “ICE age” is expanding and getting worse. Concerned citizens need to stay informed and demand accountability for ICE activities which continue to violate democratic principles and constitutional law.

 

THE GERRYMANDERING WAR IS BAD FOR DEMOCRACY

Following each national census, there is a process whereby states redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts to reflect population changes. This process, redistricting, provides the opportunity to create maps that elect legislative bodies that fairly represent the voters in a community. In the words of our second President John Adams, redistricting creates an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the people as a whole.

What is gerrymandering? This derogatory term originated in 1812 from a political cartoon mocking a strangely shaped voting district created by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. Gerry signed a bill that rearranged district lines to benefit his political party. A reporter observed that one map in Essex County “looked like a monster.” He combined "Gerry" with "salamander" to create "Gerry-mander.”

Redistricting was designed as a non-partisan, once-a -decade effort, to fairly redraw congressional maps as populations change. The process becomes partisan gerrymandering when political parties in control of state legislatures (usually Republican) seek to rig congressional maps.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Although gerrymandering has long been a problem in the United States, the redistricting cycle after the 2020 census was the first since the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling (Rucho v. Common Cause) that says state gerrymandered maps cannot be challenged in federal court. Since then, Americans have seen gerrymandering ramped up to unprecedented levels — and the worst may be yet to come.”

Gerrymandering procedures have changed dramatically since our founding. Today, computer algorithms and detailed data about voters’ political preferences allow partisan map-drawers to submit partisan districts with surgical precision. These laser-focused computer-generated options can all but guarantee that a former competitive district will now vote Republican.

The excellent article published by the Brennan Center in August of 2025, Gerrymandering Explained, summarizes how the practice adversely impacts democracy. First, partisan gerrymandering is undemocratic. Political leaders choose voters instead of voters choosing elected officials. Electoral outcomes are virtually guaranteed by the creation of partisan maps. In extreme cases, the party drawing the maps may even be able to win a majority of its state seats even though it wins only a minority of the vote.

Second, gerrymandering impacts the national balance of power. After the 2020 census, Republicans controlled the redistricting process in more states than Democrats, and aggressively used this advantage. By Brennan Center’s estimates, maps used in the 2024 election had on average a net 16 fewer Democratic or Democratic-leaning districts than maps that complied with anti-gerrymandering standards adopted in some states.  Recent district maps in Texas, Florida, and North Carolina were especially subject to abuse. 

Third, while gerrymandering affects all Americans, some of its most significant costs are borne by communities of color. Targeting the political power of minority communities is often a key goal of partisan gerrymandering. Residential segregation and racially polarized voting patterns in the southern states means that “packing” communities of color into Black districts is an effective partisan tool. It ensures that white Republican districts, with fewer Blacks, are created elsewhere in the state.

For decades, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a hugely successful shield against schemes that limit or dilute the voting power of communities with a history of being marginalized. Over the years, the act has led to the election of hundreds of federal, state, and local candidates of color in states with a history of discrimination.

This all changed in April, when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second majority-Black voting district, calling it unconstitutional. (The case was permitted to be heard in federal court because it was based on the act and not on state gerrymandering.) This decision limits the ability to use race as a factor to ensure minority representation. It allows for the erasure of longstanding black congressional districts, particularly in the South.

This “Louisiana Map Ruling” gutted important provisions in the Voting Rights Act and reignited the gerrymandering wars. Republicans can now “pack” minority districts with Black voters and eliminate competitive majority-minority districts if it helps their party.

Immediately after the ruling, Republican governors in Alabama and Tennessee called lawmakers into special sessions to draw new congressional districts. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry suspended the already underway primary elections for house seats to redraw congressional maps. Similar actions in South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are expected. More Republican states will enact more “gerrymanders.” Their partisan efforts to control the House of Representatives will go further than ever before.

In another setback for Democrats, on May 8, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a congressional map.  The map, recently approved by voters, allowed Democrats to gain as many as four House seats in the upcoming midterms.

What does all this mean for Pennsylvania? Thankfully, our commonwealth will not take part in the national rush to redraw congressional maps. For once, we are “lucky” that Pennsylvania has divided government with a governor that does not favor gerrymandering. In 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was forced to step in and chose a representative congressional map after lawmakers deadlocked.

Nationally, gerrymandering in this 2026 midterm election year will reach historic levels of disruption. It will be characterized by unprecedented "mid-decade" redrawing of maps to gain partisan political control.

These actions by Republicans to remain in power, ignore the preferences of voters and prevent fair elections.

 

 

 

 

 

WE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO HISTORY

 

Lately, I have been thinking about two famous quotes that help explain the importance of history. Mark Twain is credited with the statement, “History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes.” Philosopher, George Santayana more pessimistically wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.”

In today’s world it is easy to ignore history and get overwhelmed by unimportant details. We go down the rabbit hole of repetitive social media or “zombie scrolling” (mindlessly watching one clip after another) and inaccurate “doomscrolling” (which focuses on negative content). News is reported 24/7, in short sound bites or tweets, with minimal background.

We are not encouraged to slow down and consider current events within their historical context. It has become a chore to learn about more complicated topics that may actually affect our longer-term wellbeing.

Becoming numb to the news is a self-protective psychological response to information overload. The last weekend in April provided an excellent case in point.  On Saturday night, two of my favorite professional sports teams (Pittsburgh Penguins, New York Knicks) were each fighting for their playoff lives. Suddenly, an assassin broke into the White House Correspondents' Association dinner with the President in attendance. The confusing “on again, off again” Iranian peace talks offered no clarity on how the war would end. Over 21 million Americans were in the path of severe weather, including tornadoes that destroyed entire towns. An unusually large number of wildfires continued across the Southeast, burning many homes to the ground.

This commentary will suggest that it is important to back away from the constant barrage of paralyzing news and to consider essential issues important to the fate of modern civilization. It will discuss two potential “doomsday” issues through the lens of recent history. Hopefully we can learn from historical mistakes and successes in an effort to preserve our future.

The first subject was highlighted in a recent piece in the Economist, “How to Avoid World War Three.”  The article relied on two recent books to provide background and propose answers for world leaders. The Coming Storm by Yale historian Odd Arne Westad examines the threat of the next Great Power war and spells out interventions necessary to avoid it. The Next World War, by journalist Peter Apps makes the case that Russia, China, and the United States are closing in on a large-scale conflict, last seen in 1945. When both books are considered together, the reader is treated to the scholarship of Westad, accompanied by Apps’ timely discussions of the frightening personality traits of those leaders with the biggest nuclear arsenals.

I will paraphrase some of the important findings and conclusions raised by the authors. In many respects, today’s world resembles the international situation before 1914 and the breakout of WWI. Great powers have abandoned globalization and are seeking to dominate their own backyards. Nationalism (state worship with confidence in military power) has replaced reliance on international organizations. Disgruntled citizens are blaming other countries, immigrants and minorities for their problems.

As in 1914, the task of avoiding World War Three falls to a small group of belligerent, overconfident, and often irrational decision makers. Both then and now, these Great Power leaders seem to believe that conflicts they initiate will end quickly, with the instant gratification of strategic success. Instead, history has proven that this thinking leads to drawn out global conflicts with unexpected results, millions of casualties, and nations reduced to rubble. Both authors point out and history confirms that small wars often become big ones.

Westad provides some solutions for avoiding another world war. In a fast-moving world that leaves little time for diplomacy, leaders must develop instant communications systems and meet in person on a regular basis. Leaders must cooperate on mutually important world issues like climate, pandemics and space exploration. On intractable issues involving spheres of influence and sovereignty, they must agree to disagree and seek acceptable compromise.

The second issue that calls for our attention is the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI). Over the past several months, the competitive race to develop the top model has accelerated. In late April, Anthropic’s "Claude Mythos Preview" AI model, designed for advanced cybersecurity, was breached. This incident highlights the growing risks in the AI supply chain where tools used to enhance security can themselves become "ground zero" for a cyberattack.

In the case of AI there is an historical success story that could be followed to regulate future development and prevent disaster. Here, we should remember the past and repeat it. In the 20th century, nations built international institutions to allow the spread of peaceful nuclear energy, but slowed nuclear weapons proliferation by controlling access to the raw material that underpins it. Today, 32 nations operate nuclear power plants, which collectively provide 10% of the world’s electricity. Only nine countries possess nuclear weapons.

World leaders can do something similar with AI. They can regulate the technology from the ground up by controlling access to the highly specialized chips that are needed to train the world’s most advanced AI models. Governments can establish a regulatory regime where only authorized computing providers are licensed and able to acquire large numbers of advanced chips.

Where historical trends have led to blundering into “Armageddon” world wars, the circumstances must not be repeated. Where past history on proliferation has worked well, it should be duplicated.

 

 

 

 

COUNTY DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY IS A MESS

 

When you write these commentaries long enough, issues from the past will often resurface. In March of 2021, I received a phone call from now deceased District Attorney Eugene Vittone. Vittone told me about his efforts to save the Washington Drug and Alcohol Commission (WDAC) from county plans to dissolve it.

Vittone sent a letter opposing the county plan to Jennifer Smith, Pennsylvania Secretary, Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs. In Pennsylvania, treatment programs are administered through county drug and alcohol offices called Single County Authorities (SCAs). Smith’s Department has for years provided funding to Washington County’s designated SCA, the WDAC.

The letter made a passionate case that WDAC should not be terminated and its important functions not absorbed by the county. The letter began by explaining “WDAC is providing service to clients at a superior level. This level of service is envied by many other counties. The WDAC under Executive Director, Cheryl Andrews, has done a fantastic job of integrating and improving {D&A} services.”

Vittone, a Republican, made the following observation about county administration of drug policy: “Washington County’s track record in providing services where they have control is not reassuring.”

Vittone’s letter ended with the request that “I strongly encourage the Department to reject this ill-considered proposal to move the SCA back within county control.”

In March of 2021, I wrote a commentary, published in the Observer Reporter, raising similar points. I concluded, “A new monolithic human services department would swallow up the existing independent commission like a giant amoeba. There is little confidence that a transition could go smoothly, especially given the lack of transparency. Whatever grand plan is in play must be exposed and explained.”

Shortly thereafter, the county’s scheme to take over the services of the WDAC were discontinued. Washington County drug and alcohol policy remained stable for several years. Now, there is a new threat, initiated by Commissioners Sherman and Janis, that must be challenged.

A short history on the formation and work of the WDAC is helpful. In 2003, in an effort to offload the expenses associated with drug and alcohol programs, the county commissioners encouraged the state to award the local SCA contract to an independent third party. Following a review of proposals, WDAC was selected. In 2011, Ms. Andrews began developing the Drug Commission into a highly regarded program.

The WDAC is responsible for overseeing drug and alcohol prevention and treatment services for county residents. Its goal is to provide a whole person care model by coordinating with other agencies. WDAC has a strong presence in county schools and maintains an active recovery center.

In 2021, a national, bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, including now-Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, reached settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors who had directly contributed to the opioid addiction crisis. Pennsylvania is due to receive $2.2 billion dollars from the national opioid settlements over a period of years.

Pennsylvania was unique in that the lion’s-share of the settlement funds were given to local county governments. The one important oversight was the creation of the PA Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust (The Trust). The Trust was tasked with reviewing each county’s plans to disperse the settlement funds. The Trust relies on “Exhibit E” from the opioid settlement documents, a comprehensive list of remediation uses, in reviewing and approving county grants.

Andrews soon realized that the county was granting funds without following Exhibit E or having a process for preapproval that would be acceptable to the Trust. She began appearing at public Commissioners’ meetings to express her concerns.

At the February, 2026 public meeting, Andrews was denied the opportunity to speak. The excuse provided by the majority commissioners’ staff was that she resides in Greene County. Andrews now sends another employee to the meetings. Her office estimates that Commissioners Sherman and Janis have distributed $900,000 in opioid settlement funds without a process that follows Exhibit E.

As the county’s designated SCA, the WDAC timely submitted proposals to receive its share of the county opioid settlement funds. Each request was denied. Recently county staff, via email, informed the WDAC not to bother submitting future proposals.

Shortly after Andrews voiced her objections, the Republican Commissioners renewed efforts to dissolve the WDAC and to take over its SCA functions. Similar to 2021, the Commonwealth was notified of their intentions. Thankfully, these county efforts were disregarded, and the Pennsylvania Department overseeing drug and alcohol policy presented WDAC with a new 5-year contract. WDAC remains the Single County Authority for Washington County. Despite the new contract, the county continues to hire staff that duplicate WDAC responsibilities and refuses to cooperate with its mission.

I recently listened to a video link of a public meeting conducted by the Trust. The members reviewed county opioid grants from across Pennsylvania. Washington was the only county chastised for having a large number of requests for non-compliant programs. The Chair, Thomas VanKirk, recommended that our commissioners receive technical assistance from the County Commissioner’s Association. There is little evidence that a hastily formed county committee to review local grants will solve the dysfunction.

As is the practice in other counties, Commissioners Sherman and Janis should immediately relinquish the dispersing of opioid money to Pennsylvania’s local designated SCA, the WDAC. The independent commission has no political agenda. More importantly, when it comes to drug and alcohol policy, it actually knows what it is doing.