THE HUMAN COST OF NURSING HOME PRIVATIZATION

We recently learned that the Washington County owned and operated Health Center is destined to become the latest victim to privatization.  The overriding issue appears to be red ink on the balance sheet.  Federally mandated reimbursement rates are well below what it takes for Washington County to run the facility.  It has been reported that if no changes are made, the County Health Center will lose close to 3 million dollars in 2017. 

But before elected officials pull the plug on this venerable institution, one that has provided Washington County with various public services since 1830, all solutions should be explored.  Sometimes, a public enterprise operating at a loss is an acceptable result when weighed against the alternatives, including the human cost of privatization.

Privatization is defined as a public service taken over by a for profit business, with the primary goal of profit-not service.  When a “for profit” business begins operating a Health Center (or hospital, prison, fire department or toll road, as the case may be) the business cuts costs to increase profits and satisfy its investors. In return the public entity receives either a lump sum payment or a long term cost saving, relieving its taxpayers of an ongoing financial burden and management headache.

The most common actions undertaken by private concerns to increase profits following privatization include: eliminating unions, raising prices to consumers, cutting worker benefits, expanding working hours, and terminating long term employees who earn the most.  More troubling, in a nursing home setting, cutting services to residents might be a prime cost cutting feature.

As luck would have it our Washington County decision makers do not have to dive into privatization of the Health Center with a blind eye. The Keystone Research Center, a well established nonprofit organization out of Harrisburg, with the mission to: “broaden public discussion on strategies to achieve a more prosperous and equitable Pennsylvania economy” has already done much of the heavy lifting.

Several years ago this group researched and published an extensive report on the human cost of nursing home privatization in Western Pennsylvania. The subjects of the study were the Kane Regional Centers in Allegheny County, where privatization was proposed but never implemented; Comfort Home, which remained public but where the operation was taken over by a for-profit management company and Chelsea Manor, which was sold outright to an entity, created by the county for the purpose of buying the facility.  The report compares these homes with one another and with Green Gables, a private nursing home known for its low wages, high employee turnover and poorer quality of care, which at one point lead to suspension of admissions.

The widely circulated report is readily available in PDF format and provides some interesting findings, including the following:

·        Although (with increased funding pressure) staffing levels declined whether or not privatization was ultimately carried out, the most significant staffing cuts occurred where privatization was taken the furthest.

·        Workers’ wages and employee turnover, two factors affecting care continuity, were most negatively affected at the home where privatization proceeded furthest.

·        At both homes where some form of privatization was implemented, workers complained about shortages of medical and patient care supplies.

·        After privatization, Chelsea Manor began to develop a pattern of unexplained resident injuries, some of which were not properly investigated or reported.

·        All of the homes in the study, in varying degrees of urgency, needed more nurses’ aides. However, the Kane facilities in Allegheny County and public homes across Pennsylvania have much lower turnover among nurses’ aides than is typical for private homes.

While the report contains other findings and a great deal of background information not included above, the overall conclusion is clear.  The greater the level of privatization adopted by the county, the greater the problems attributable to staffing and level of care. 

Washington County has been better than most in preserving a public care facility.  It is one of only 16 Pennsylvania counties that continue to provide such a public service.  The rising costs of maintaining the Health Center are real.  But the human costs to long term employees and residents, following privatization, are also real.

One can only hope that the $260.00 an hour attorneys, hired to advise the county on privatization options, will consider these human costs along with the various financial models available.  There may well be an option that gives county taxpayers a break, without sacrificing our older and disabled citizens (and long term county employees) on the altar of privatization.  Simply saving the most money should clearly not be the goal.

Washington County residents with skin in this game need to get educated on privatization and make themselves heard at public meetings.  After all, these residents, their older and disabled loved ones and their family, friends and neighbors who work at the Health Center, all pay taxes as well.

THE MICRO VIEW

Enough of national politics.  The emotional damage that political tribalism has caused to the fabric of our society has been unprecedented.  One candidate has become President. Millions of well meaning Americans are not only unhappy, but angry. Until the next national election their solace will be to break out the “I TOLD YOU SO” bumper stickers and to enjoy the political cartoons lambasting the candidate they voted against.

The 24/7 news cycle leading up to the election was a feeding frenzy of overblown personalities, with sexual and criminal accusations wrapped in unattainable campaign promises.  Cable news and political pundits will certainly not let the battle end.  Congressional opponents are already planning for the next ugly national conflagration over funding the federal government.

For those that are sick of the negativism and feel they have little influence over the events that shape their lives, the post election period is an excellent time to look around the neighborhood.  The irony in being a force for positive change is that where we can accomplish the most, closer to home, we often choose to do nothing.

 Here in Washington County, zealous supporters for both presidential candidates must continue to live, work and play together. We can all agree there is much to like about our corner of Pennsylvania.  Conversely, what important community work is yet to be done and deserves our attention?  On what can all citizens agree, regardless of political affiliation?  Where can we get involved and make a difference? I will offer some possibilities.

Diversity  Diversity matters and must be taken seriously if Washington County is to reach its full potential. The appointment of Ms. Geraldine Jones as President of California University of Pennsylvania, a well qualified African American woman, was an important positive step. However, the paucity of minority employees in county government, the court system and law enforcement remains an unaddressed problem.  The fact that the City of Washington has no minority police officers is rightfully seen as an insult by the black community. Washington County should follow the lead of other Pennsylvania Counties undergoing social change and appoint a Diversity Commission to draw up recommendations for local leaders.  Such a Commission is long overdue and should be formed with concerned citizens and bi partisan support.

Citizen’s Library  While all of the County’s libraries are important, Citizens Library is undergoing a crisis and needs immediate attention.  Uniquely, the Board of Directors is composed of representatives of each municipality that is serviced by Citizens.  Some appointed Directors wrongly believe their loyalty is to their municipality and not to the library.  This has caused dissension on the Board and an inability to address funding issues or capital projects.  A consultant hired to make recommendations to the Board, recently “fired” Citizens Library as a client because of its inability to have the Board consider even the most rudimentary of structural changes.  Concerned citizens should make it a point to attend open Citizens Library Board meetings and municipal meetings in their own communities to insist on appointment of Board members who want to see Citizens Library move forward.  Users and friends of the Library should also call for enhanced municipal funding for the Library. The alternative will be loss of staff and shrinking hours of operation.

Property Assessment  Now that the property assessment process is completed, county officials should remove their political hats and replace them with their leadership hats by embracing the results.  Washington County now has an equitable property tax system for the first time in many years.  This should be a badge of pride and accomplishment.  We are a shining example for other counties where inequitable assessments result in poorer communities paying more than their fair share. 

Unfortunately, the assessment results have caused unnecessary fear, anger and confusion. County officials and the media, including the Observer Reporter, must do a better job of explaining the ultimate effect of the assessment to individual tax payers, particularly our older and less informed citizens.  Those who understand how the new assessments will play out over time should take the time to explain the system to their friends and neighbors.

Fostering a Sense of Community  The City of Washington is a bastion of community organizations designed to meet the needs of its citizens.  The City Mission, Lemoyne Center, Senior Citizens Center and Teen Outreach are examples of this rich tradition. Unfortunately, Washington County remains a jurisdiction divided into three distinct social groups. The rural hamlets on the one hand and Southpointe/Peters Township on the other, have little affinity for the City beyond court and county business.  While not an easy task, prudent leadership should take steps to decentralize services and activities throughout the County. For example, a creative arts center at Southpointe is a good project for this wealthy business community, to integrate Southpointe into the wider County population.

 Citizens need to do their part by leaving their safety zone and learning what the entire County has to offer.  One of my most enjoyable experiences this year was attending a County wide high school track meet at the California High School.  Free talks and cultural events at W&J College, California University and the County libraries are under attended.  We need to remove the blinders and take notice that such gems are happening every day.

Economics   Washington County is blessed with oil and gas resources that have provided valuable revenue and many spin off small businesses for its employment base.  However, since the oil recession of November 2014, we have learned that the cyclical nature of this industry does not insure economic prosperity.  As a hedge, non cyclical “new economy” industries must be encouraged to locate here. 

There will always be friction between oil and gas representatives seeking to meet their goals and environmentalists seeking regulation of those goals. Recently, the Pennsylvania’s Medical Association called for a halt to fracking activities until more is known about its adverse effects on our health.  County leaders must not favor one interest group over the other.  Citizens should not hesitate to get involved on either side of this debate which will continue for decades to come.

Social Services  This has been the year of the opioid epidemic and to a lesser extent bringing mental health out of the shadows.  The Observer Reporter has been in the local vanguard on both issues, highlighting them with human interest stories that offer hope and encouragement. Washington County should be proud to have a District Attorney and Court system that seek to treat those with either or both afflictions rather than to jail them. 

Unfortunately, the larger problem with opioid abuse and mental illness is not empathy or criminal justice.  Washington County needs additional funding to expand existing programs and to create new ones.  It is a sad experience to sit in on a County sponsored public meeting to address how block grant funds will be spent for human services, where no members of the public are in attendance.  County residents living with or around addiction or mental illness must get involved in insisting on better programs and services.  

I hope that I have identified some issues on which die hard political opponents can agree are important for our community.  There are many other established organizations from the food banks and literacy council to the domestic violence shelters, hospital and Washington Symphony that need the attention of volunteers who want to make a difference.

 While the political climate may be stalemated and vicious at the national level, citizens and local elected officials, working together, can create positive change. If each of us were to tune out the national news cycle and tune in to a local cause that directly or indirectly affects our lives, the results would be “over the moon”.  Here at home, in Washington County, there is much more to unite us and make us proud, than to tear us apart.

WHAT A TRUMP PRESIDENCY MIGHT LOOK LIKE

Election Day is close at hand.  After November 8, the thousands of articles written by political pundits, the hundreds of cable news shows and the millions of dollars spent on political advertising will no longer matter.  Either the White House will be claimed by our first woman president or by a maverick firebrand who adopts Ronald Reagan as his (sometimes) domestic model and refuses to disclose his plans in foreign affairs.

Donald Trump has clearly struck a chord with segments of white America who want this election to be about them.  They see Mr. Trump as the change agent needed to give voice to their complaints and fears.  This may be their last chance as an interest group to control the national agenda and they intend to seize the moment.

 Despite Trump’s missteps and un-presidential demeanor, he has an even chance of becoming the next leader of the free world.  In these final days before America votes, it is time to stop arguing about Trump’s statements and his campaign management.  Instead undecided voters should stand back and consider what a Trump presidency might look like. 

 It is time to extrapolate Trump the candidate into Trump the President. After all, four years of a Trump Presidency is the real issue, not this mean spirited election which often feels like a war of attrition.

FIRST 100 DAYS:  It is safe to assume that if Trump wins, Republicans will keep control of the Senate and House.  One would think that his first acts would be to repeal large portions of Obama Care; cancel administrative orders on immigration and regulatory matters; take some action to build a wall on the Mexican border and introduce his tax cuts.  If he nominates a Supreme Court candidate unacceptable to Democrats, this could derail his other programs as the Supreme Court battle consumes the Senate.

Before Republicans start cheering, remember that Trump has zero governmental experience and has alienated the Republican Congressional   leadership, some think beyond repair. His major election advisers, Governor Chris Christie, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator Jeff Sessions are outliers with little influence on Capitol Hill.  Believing he would manage the first 100 days of his Presidency any better than he did the Republican convention is not a good bet.

HONEYMOON PERIOD WITH CONGRESS: This is a different issue from the first 100 days because Trump is not a typical Republican.  Tea Party members of Congress will find little to like because while Trump may talk like a gun toting bigot, his daughter will want her father to govern more like a social liberal.  President Trump will not be a no spend tea party conservative.  He will appear more like father and son Bush, seeking to spend revenue to advance his projects like immigration enforcement, law enforcement, child care proposals and making the military “big, powerful and strong.”  His plans to force other nations to pay for projects, from the Mexican Wall, NATO commitments and Chinese trade imbalances will prove difficult to implement.   Traditional Republicans will soon wish Clinton had won the election as Trump roils the financial markets.

PRESIDENTIAL STYLE:  Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan who delegated to competent advisors.  His style is more in the Jimmy Carter micro-management camp. Unfortunately, Trump is also no Carter. He will waste valuable political capital on counter punching the media, Democrats and fellow Republicans who challenge his statements and policies.  His inability to understand that words matter, which has not affected his electability, will cause a series of crises, particularly in foreign policy.  Trump’s Secretary of State and Press Secretary will have the most difficult jobs in government, explaining his words and cleaning up after him.

DOMESTIC POLICY:  Eight years of steady profits and cheap money did not compel corporate America to invest in new factories or infrastructure.  Instead, increased productivity through layoffs and automation and using profits to buy back stock shares was the order of the day.  There is nothing in Trump’s corporate tax cuts that would compel a different result.  He does nothing to tie tax breaks to increased corporate spending on job creation.  If Trump is serious about penalizing corporations who use cheap overseas labor and in attacking all trade deals, he will run afoul of free market Republicans.

 Regarding individual taxes, his reduction plan will increase inequality by making the rich, richer and will increase the deficit.  There has been little evidence of trickle down spending by the wealthy.  Instead well healed Americans have plowed savings into the stock market which has had phenomenal growth since the recession.

 Domestic unrest will increase based on Trump’s off the cuff comments and his divisive election tactics.  The coal mines will not magically reopen and rust belt factories will not be unshuttered. Investment capital is not interested in reviving the old economy when the new economy holds so much profit potential .  There are no Trump plans to fix the student loan crisis or to recommit the nation to an equitable education policy.

FOREIGN POLICY:  This is the wild card in a Trump Presidency.  World leaders with the exception of the most embedded despots fear the worst.  Trump’s refusal to offer policies he would follow forces friend and foe to recalculate the options, many of which are destabilizing to the world order.  If a President Trump seeks to renegotiate alliances with Europe, South Asia and the Far East, pro American world leaders will be forced to rethink their own security concerns. 

Trump may be correct that compelling Germany, France, Japan, South Korea and India, among others, to increase militarization might save a small percentage of the defense budget. But the cost to American hegemony would be beyond repair.  Moreover, regimes in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran would expand quickly to fill the vacuum.

As a direct result of Trump’s election statements and positions, Islamic fundamentalists will have resurgence both in the Mid East ISIS Caliphate and in recruiting terrorists in the West.  A vicious cycle of Islamic repression and increased violence at home and abroad will result.  Trump will find common cause with right wing governments in Europe who will support his draconian immigration policies.

Trump has made clear that the United States would no longer participate in global warming initiatives and treaties.  Trade wars will irrupt as existing accommodations are no longer honored by the Trump administration.

When sober Republicans and Independents enter the voting booth they must be careful what they wish for.   Voters should remember that the Clinton 90s were a time of economic prosperity, balanced budgets and thoughtful foreign policy.  Hillary Clinton will continue this tradition now that Obama has guided the country through the recession.

 Our economy in 2016 is the largest and most stable in the world. American diplomacy and military strength are the envy of the world.   Changing horses when you are in the lead and in the home stretch on numerous positive policies does not make sense.   A vote for Trump will be betting on uncertainty and disruption, not change for the better.

HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS TO LISTEN TO HER HUSBAND 

Two contrasting approaches to the Presidential campaign were offered up by Hillary Clinton and her Husband, Bill Clinton last Friday. Here in Washington, Bill Clinton spoke for 20 minutes during his surprise afternoon visit to the local Clinton headquarters.  He used his folksy southern delivery to emphasis that Trump supporters are not bad people and deserve our respect as Americans, even as we vehemently disagree with their choice for President, a man living in a vacuum of principles.   In effect he was giving the assembled campaign workers a way to avoid political “road rage” and identity politics as they interact with prospective voters in the coming weeks leading up to the election.

While her husband was giving this inclusive message, Hillary was delivering the opposite pitch on Friday evening.  She blasted 20% of the electorate, Trump supporters all, by lumping them together into a big “basket of deplorables.” This unenviable basket labels a large percentage of those who have declared for Trump as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic.

This difference in campaign tactics, not to mention differing philosophies on voters and leadership was astounding to me. Though a Hillary supporter, I agree with Bill Clinton that it is not only possible, but necessary, to attack Trump, without demonizing those who have expressed an interest in voting for him.

The winner of this election will face the herculean task of pulling the country back together again.  The new President must find a way to break down the vertical silos among interest groups and find horizontal agreement among all Americans.  Expressing the view that a vote for Trump makes one a bad person is not a good start in achieving this goal. 

Now that Hillary has apologized for her statement, she needs to carefully listen to her Husband’s stump speech and adopt his message as her own.

 .

WHITE PRIVILEGE SHAPES OUR VIEWS ON BLACK LIVES MATTER

Recent newspaper commentaries and discussions with black friends have focused my attention on the issue of “white privilege” and compelled me to take a fresh look at the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.  I am now convinced that white privilege has a profound effect on the way many whites view BLM.  Moreover, BLM began as a direct response to white privilege by those who understood that the killing of blacks through extrajudicial police actions was not eliciting the same social or political outcry and call for action as the killing of whites.

“White privilege” is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people.  These privileges have been defined as “an invisible package of unearned assets.”  These include cultural affirmations of one’s own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play and speak freely. Many of the advantages that whites enjoy are passive and not obvious, which is why white privilege does not necessarily involve overt bias or prejudice.

While there are not many recent examples of extrajudicial violence against whites, the Kent State killings on May 4, 1970 is considered a major event in our nation’s history.  The killings occurred four days after then President Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia. On that date, national guardsmen fired 67 rounds into a crowd of white students killing four and wounding nine, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

In the aftermath of the killings, the largest student strike in American history took place, involving two and one half million students on seven hundred campuses. Many refused to go to classes or take final exams. Thirty ROTC buildings were firebombed.  The governors from 16 states ordered the occupation of 21 campuses.  Almost all the protesters were white.  Their parents could not understand how white National Guardsman could kill white students.  Many parents reconsidered their position on the Vietnam War and turned against it.

Following Kent State on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State College, an African American school in Jackson Mississippi, state police called to address demonstrations randomly shot up a college dorm killing two and wounding 12 others.  Few remember this incident and it provoked little outcry when compared to Kent State.

In 1970, white privilege determined which killings would draw the attention of the nation and shape the anti war movement until Nixon was forced to resign. Today, the same white privilege minimizes police killings of African Americans and ignores systemic issues of institutional racism in the criminal justice system.

What is to be done? First, BLM deserves the vocal and financial support of all those who care about social equality and justice in America.  It has morphed from its early growing pains as a twitter slogan protesting against the killing of young black men by police and developed into a strong and vibrant movement that can make a difference in this year’s elections and beyond. 

Second, it is important to understand what BLM is not. The title was never intended to degrade the lives of police officers or non blacks.  Such an interpretation was always an easy cop out for whites, exercising privilege, who do not take the time to understand black activism in light of institutional racism in America.  

Third, the movement has expanded and now seeks to insure that people of color be given the same respectful tolerance as the rest of us in all stages of the criminal justice process.  For those families that have lost a young man in a police shooting, a life matters. Equally, for those families that have lost a young man because of drug abuse, incarceration, or a gang shooting, a life matters.  The movement encompasses all of this and more.

Fourth, BLM is not the reincarnation of the Black Panthers.  Its black liberation message is about ideas, not armed violence. One of its posters shows a young black man with fist in the air holding a flower not a weapon.  Neither is it about Black Nationalism, supporting “blackness” for its own sake and encouraging isolation from society.  It is about:  “…broadening the conversation around state violence to include all the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.  We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity.” In other words, BLM is about exposing and minimizing white privilege.

Fifth, if BLM can motivate young African Americans to get politically involved in urban areas, college campuses and local politics across the country, it can become an interest group with real power to facilitate change.

In a recent address at Howard University, President Obama’s remarks included his impressions on BLM: “It’s thanks in large part to the activism of young people like many of you, from ‘Black Twitter’ to Black Lives Matter, that America’s eyes have been opened — white, black, Democrat, Republican — to the real problems, for example, in our criminal-justice system,” But to bring about structural change, lasting change, awareness is not enough. It requires changes in law, changes in custom.”

It is not easy for white Americans, particularly those who consider themselves liberal or progressive, to stand back and examine how white privilege is shaping their views.  When it comes to Black Lives Matter, now is a good time to do so.

DONALD TRUMP AS HOMERIC HERO

This summer I have been working my way through the excellent book WHY HOMER MATTERS by Adam Nicolson.  Near the end of the last chapter I had an epiphany concerning Donald Trump.  The main stream media and talk show pundits may have misjudged the Republican candidate for President.  

Nicolson has convinced me that there is something much deeper and frightening playing out that goes well beyond Trump’s words and actions. Whether he consciously knows it or not, Trump is staging a Homeric hero quest.  This tradition originated 2000 years B.C., when myths were passed down orally from generation to generation and writing did not exist.   

I am referring to the ancient dichotomy between the warriors “outside the walls” who view the civilized class “within the walls” as too soft, corrupt and dysfunctional. The quest is for the people of the “earth” and “sword” for whom action is everything and words have no meaning to tear down and replace the existing structure. In this Homeric tradition a hero appears to champion the angry unwashed forces that have nothing but contempt for the comfortable followers who bow to the elite.  The Hero’s goal is to crush what has come before and to take life back to a simpler time.

The Homeric tradition reaches into the earliest myths that provide the foundation of western civilization.  It sings the praises of a powerful leader who is able to meld uncooperative bands of miscreants into a coherent force to conquer what was thought to be the essence of the civilized world.  Thus we have Agamemnon, uniting the unkempt Greeks on the shores of Troy to sack and destroy the well formed civilization behind its walls; Julius Caesar doing the unthinkable in crossing the Rubicon knowing that the angry and underrepresented common citizens would support his bid against the Republic; Mussolini forcing out democracy in Italy so that the trains would run on time, (to the praise of other western nations, including the United States) and Trump’s soul brother, Vladimir Putin, stamping out his opposition to the cheers of his people who want him to regain the past glory of Mother Russia.

Donald Trump may not be crazy.  He may be the newest manifestation of the Homeric myth, which he obviously admires and seeks to emulate.  The Homeric view of the world centers on revenge and conflict, not consensus or compromise.  Power is something to be fought for, not passed peacefully from one political elite to the next.  The Homeric warrior who can reach the pinnacle of power, without the aid of other politicians or institutions owes nothing to the order that came before.  He controls his destiny.

Upon reflection so much of the Trump persona is Homeric.  For example, his rejection of established campaign orthodoxy; his refusal to be politically correct; his statements that only “Trump” can bring peace and stability to the country; and his unwillingness to back down from a controversy or to apologize to perceived enemies, all ring true in the Iliad.  In the Homeric tradition, the hero must continue to identify and attack his enemies. Victory is never enough but simply a stepping stone to the next conflict.

Trump’s famous business missive, THE ART OF THE DEAL, provides classic statements in support of my observations. There is no room in Trump world to accept criticism from any quarter: “I am very good to people who are good to me.  But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard.”  The heroic battle is what he lives for not the spoils: “The real excitement is playing the game.”

There may be a reason that the Trump tactics have not changed from the primaries to the general election.  Consider that it is not because he is disorganized or politically naïve. Remember that the Homeric warrior prefers to be defeated in battle rather than to win through compromise with those who have fought against or dishonored him. 

Trumps principles have nothing to do with party loyalty, ideology, democratic ideals or a specific worldview.  It is a scheme of endearing himself to the millions who might actually vote for him. He does this by feeding on their anger in being left unaccounted for, and attacking all others.  It is a simple plan, forged in the ancient myths of humankind that does not appear in the playbook of modern political consultants.

More “civilized” critics often mock the Homeric tradition, finding it too brutal and unrefined.  But there is something in the ancient words of Homer that still touch the oldest of our sensibilities.

 For those of you, who think I am giving Donald Trump too much credit, remember that Agamemnon has been called psychopathic.  In the Iliad he murders his daughter to gain a favorable wind to Troy and later steals Achilles’ woman, Briseis, thereby angering his greatest asset against the Trojans. Are these ancient and Trump’s recent acts those of a madman or of an Alpha Greek warrior in the Homeric tradition?

 On Election Day an outlier candidate, ignoring all the rules of decorum, who appeals to revenge, anger and political blood lust, may yet raise his sword in victory and turn our world upside down. Trump would not be the first in modern times to do so, nor the last.

A CONTINUATION OF THE RIGHT STUFF (REVISED)

Eight years ago Barrack Obama was the right candidate at the right time to lead the country.  This year, Hillary Clinton will be that candidate.

It is difficult for a President to be transformational from both a policy and an identity prospective. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Ronald Reagan were major policy transformers.  John Kennedy (Catholic), Obama (African American) and hopefully Clinton (Female) will be primarily remembered as identity transformers.  In recent memory, only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was both.

So, what is the basis for my thesis that Obama has demonstrated and Clinton will produce “the right stuff?”   I will begin with President Obama. I believe that history will come to view him as the “black Kennedy.”  (or maybe Kennedy should become identified as the white Obama) Like Kennedy, his strongest attributes are charisma, oratory, a noble presence on the world stage and a beautiful family with fairy tale charm.

 Like Kennedy, Obama has never been an ideologue.  He is practical, careful, and more moderate than people give him credit for.  The fact that the firebrand activist Cornel West has labeled Obama: “a Rockefeller Republican in blackface” helps prove my point.  Many progressives fault him for not moving enthusiastically to the left, which was never in the President’s political DNA.

Had John Kennedy lived to serve a second term, he could have only hoped for the scandal free four years, improving economy and rising approval rating (56%) that Obama now enjoys.  More likely, Vietnam and Kennedy’s misadventures both political and private would have brought Camelot crashing down around him.  Few have stopped to consider how rare it is to serve eight years in a White House, where the new media makes every molehill into a mountain, and to emerge as unscathed and popular as President Obama.

But the Obama presidency has been about more than simply surviving.  By being the nation’s first African American president, a beaten down minority, forged out of slavery, came into its own with dignity. The pride and encouragement Obama engenders among African Americans is beyond expectations.  Consider that black students in middle school have only known a black President.

Moreover Obama did exactly the right thing with the economy, in shambles when his first term began.  He provided stimulus and then let the economy take the time needed to heal.  He knew the wealthy would spring back faster than the average American; they always do. Now that the healing is complete, rational social engineering to address the growing inequality can take place, just not on his watch. 

In foreign policy, Obama has been careful not to commit to new initiatives best left for his successor.  Over the last eight years, the world has become more complex than Game of Thrones and even without dragons, twice as dangerous.  We have discovered that the bipolar cold war was easier to manage than a multi polar landscape stoked by rampant tribalism in the third world and populism in the west. Obama has moved forward in this new environment with caution. His replacement will contend with numerous hot spots but no out of control fires.

Turning to Hillary Clinton, she has the right stuff to replace Obama and serve as President for a number of reasons. First, Clinton is the most accomplished woman candidate in our nation’s history and it is well past time to elect a woman to our highest office.  In this election year, once the politics are removed and the facts examined; she was far and away the most qualified of any of the announced candidates.

Second, I believe history will come to label her presidency as the “Female Bill Clinton.” I am not inferring that her Husband will have undue influence over her time in office.  To the contrary, she has always been fully committed to her Husband’s sound beliefs which brought moderate politics, liberal social views and constrained fiscal policy to the White House.  If elected, Hillary Clinton will no more move the country sharply left than her Husband or Obama.  The concessions to Bernie Sanders on party platform issues, designed to unite the party, will not affect her moderate governance, once in office.  She will work around the edges to encourage increased equality, mostly by providing more opportunities to earn it.  Hand outs and free programs will not be part of her legislative agenda.  It is not the Clinton way.

Third, Clinton’s many years of public service have provided her with the knowledge and background to serve. While her long career has provided her detractors with political baggage to gleefully attack her, in fact, rational voters who weigh the evidence will discover a stellar record.  She was the hardest working and most traveled Secretary of State in our history. The highly politicized Benghazi episode does not dampen the positive results of her steady hand in advancing Obama’s foreign policy. 

The often reviled Clinton Foundation is hardly a villain in this presidential election. It is an apolitical and well respected nonprofit that has raised and distributed almost 2 billion dollars in humanitarian resources around the world.

Ms. Clinton has admitted making a mistake in following her predecessors in the State Department by opening and supporting a private email account.  In truth, she no doubt considered email delivery as a non issue when becoming Secretary of State.   However republicans have demanded their pound of flesh, years of unprecedented investigation have taken place and the results have revealed neither criminality nor any harm to national security.

Hillary Clinton as President will continue to build on the Obama legacy of inclusive, fair and open government.  She will forge her own identity that women worldwide will come to admire.  Under her leadership more Americans will begin to participate in the new economy.  Calls for protectionism from the left and the right will fade.  There will be no misplaced effort to return workers to the old rust belt industries and coal mines which are no longer viable.  Voters will quickly learn they elected the candidate with the right stuff.

A CONTINUATION OF THE RIGHT STUFF

Eight years ago Barrack Obama was the right candidate at the right time to lead the country.  This year, Hillary Clinton will be that candidate.

It is difficult for a President to be transformational from both a policy and an identity prospective. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and perhaps Ronald Reagan were major policy transformers.  John Kennedy (Catholic), Obama (African American) and hopefully Clinton (Female) will be primarily remembered as identity transformers.  In recent memory, only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was both.

So, what is the basis for my thesis that Obama has demonstrated and Clinton will produce “the right stuff?”   I will begin with President Obama. I believe that history will come to view him as the “black Kennedy.”  (or maybe Kennedy should become identified as the white Obama) Like Kennedy, his strongest attributes are charisma, oratory, a noble presence on the world stage and a beautiful family with fairy tale charm.

 Like Kennedy, Obama has never been an ideologue.  He is practical, careful, and more moderate than people give him credit for.  The fact that the firebrand activist Cornel West has labeled Obama: “a Rockefeller Republican in blackface” helps prove my point.  Many progressives fault him for not moving enthusiastically to the left, which was never in the President’s political DNA.

Had John Kennedy lived to serve a second term, he could have only hoped for the scandal free four years, improving economy and rising approval rating (56%) that Obama now enjoys.  More likely, Vietnam and Kennedy’s misadventures both political and private would have brought Camelot crashing down around him.  Few have stopped to consider how rare it is to serve eight years in a White House, where the new media makes every molehill into a mountain, and to emerge as unscathed and popular as President Obama.

But the Obama presidency has been about more than simply surviving.  By being the nation’s first African American president, a beaten down minority, forged out of slavery, came into its own with dignity. The pride and encouragement Obama engenders among African Americans is beyond expectations.  Consider that black students in middle school have only known a black President.

Moreover Obama did exactly the right thing with the economy, in shambles when his first term began.  He provided stimulus and then let the economy take the time needed to heal.  He knew the wealthy would spring back faster than the average American; they always do. Now that the healing is complete, rational social engineering to address the growing inequality can take place, just not on his watch. 

In foreign policy, Obama has been careful not to commit to new initiatives best left for his successor.  Over the last eight years, the world has become more complex than Game of Thrones and even without dragons, twice as dangerous.  We have discovered that the bipolar cold war was easier to manage than a multi polar landscape stoked by rampant tribalism in the third world and populism in the west. Obama has moved forward in this new environment with caution. His replacement will contend with numerous hot spots but no out of control fires.

Turning to Hillary Clinton, she has the right stuff to replace Obama and serve as President for a number of reasons. First, Clinton is the most accomplished woman candidate in our nation’s history and it is well past time to elect a woman to our highest office.  In this election year, once the politics are removed and the facts examined; she was far and away the most qualified of any of the announced candidates.

Second, I believe history will come to label her presidency as the “Female Bill Clinton.” I am not inferring that her Husband will have undue influence over her time in office.  To the contrary, she has always been fully committed to her Husband’s sound beliefs which brought moderate politics, liberal social views and constrained fiscal policy to the White House.  If elected, Hillary Clinton will no more move the country sharply left than Her Husband or Obama.  She will work around the edges to encourage increased equality, mostly by providing more opportunities to earn it.  Hand outs and free programs will not be part of her agenda.  It is not the Clinton way.

Third, Clinton’s many years of public service have provided her with the knowledge and background to serve. While her long career has provided her detractors with political baggage to gleefully attack her, in fact, rational voters who weigh the evidence will discover a stellar record.  She was the hardest working and most traveled Secretary of State in our history. The highly politicized Benghazi episode does not dampen the positive results of her steady hand in advancing Obama’s foreign policy. 

The often reviled Clinton Foundation is hardly a villain in this presidential election. It is an apolitical and well respected nonprofit that has raised and distributed almost 2 billion dollars in humanitarian resources around the world.  Ms. Clinton has admitted making a mistake in following her predecessors in the State Department by opening and supporting a private email account.  In truth, she no doubt considered email delivery as a non issue when becoming Secretary of State.   However republicans have demanded their pound of flesh, years of unprecedented investigation have taken place and the results have revealed “no harm, no foul.”

Hillary Clinton as President will continue to build on the Obama legacy of inclusive, fair and open government.  She will forge her own identity that women worldwide will come to admire.  Under her leadership more Americans will begin to participate in the new economy.  Calls for protectionism from the left and the right will fade.  There will be no misplaced effort to return workers to the old rust belt industries and coal mines which are no longer viable.  Voters will quickly learn they elected the candidate with the right stuff.

RESPECTFUL CONFLICT NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED

Why don’t we all get along and cooperate; find common ground; seek peace among ourselves and in the world?  The short answer is because humankind is made up of multiple cultures with multiple world views within each culture.  China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others) have taught us that modernization does not equal westernization.  The European Union has taught us that westernization does not equal one federal polity. One federal polity, the United States, is based on the principle that pluralism, not one majority consensus, is the foundation of democracy.

Conflict is defined as: “an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles or interests”.  It exists in all human endeavors.  It can be ignored, as we often do, or accepted and managed in a respectful manner so as to avoid resentment and potentially violence.  It is time to give conflict its due and to develop responsible methods to address it.  Several examples may help illustrate my point.

Example one:  The American Mideast and South Asian Muslim communities believe that our military presence and use of drones is killing innocent civilians in their homelands and needs to stop.  These otherwise loyal Americans are not encouraged to develop public forums to discuss these beliefs which are in fundamental conflict with ongoing foreign policy.  Frustration is internalized within families and places of worship. Outside radical influences fan the flames among young Muslims.

Example two:  Western ranchers believe that federal regulations over land and water use are too restrictive and make it difficult for them to make a living.  Rather than form a vocal interest group, they keep a low profile until federal laws are enforced, when the conflict turns violent.

Example three:  Tea party republicans and progressive democrats decide that the established two party system is incapable of addressing issues that must be resolved in order to move the country forward.  The traditional party conflict resolution apparatus is ignored on both sides and extreme political positions are supported as a protest to the status quo.

In my first two examples, the absence of respectful conflict resolution has resulted in the radicalization of a few Americans who view terrorism and/or armed conflict as the only alternative. The question to American Muslims and ranchers should not be: “what actions are you taking to avoid violence?” The question to all Americans should be: “what actions are we collectively taking as a democratic country to understand and vet the issues in conflict and to resolve them?”

In my third example, the inability of the long standing establishment to employ respectful conflict resolution has resulted in a major attack on the two party system that forms the basis of our democratic constitutional republic.  Non action and failure to even discuss differences by the competing establishment elites has lead to its rejection by a majority of Americans.  Again, the need to be “right” needs to be replaced by the need to “understand” and to respectfully address the party in conflict.

I believe that respectful conflict is not only possible, but has been proven to work in America.  Recently, the Black Lives Matter and United We Dream initiatives have been very effective in the African American and Latino communities. Because of these forums to raise grievances and present rational opinions, violent acts are avoided.  While Muslims and ranchers are much smaller minorities, organizing, lobbying and debate can still be effective in framing issues for a larger audience.  The alternative is unaddressed anger, which is no alternative at all. 

In examining the American political conflict that has now gravitated to the fringes, there is plenty of organization, but not enough compromise.  Respectful conflict always has the goal of developing ultimate solutions that carefully consider conflicting positions and that discourage rigid ideologies.  Once it is discovered that extreme politics muck up the machinery of government worse than moderate politics, respectful conflict may return to the halls of Congress.  However, there is no reason to wait and moderate influences should be passing compromise legislation, even in this election year.

Conflict needs to be recognized and respectful conflict needs to be encouraged.  Ignoring conflict until there is a crisis and then calling for peace and good will in the aftermath of violence accomplishes nothing. Permitting political frustration to boil over until it leads to the support of extreme positions is not an answer.

Once American Muslims and western ranchers (among other minorities in conflict) receive a full and respectful airing of their concerns, as pluralism is intended to work, reason replaces emotion and anger as the motivating factor.  Once moderate legislators recapture the law making process we move forward with something for everyone rather than nothing for no one.

The featured quote in the June 21 Observer Reporter captures my point exactly:  “He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” William Drummond, Scottish writer (1585-1649).  Conflict is inevitable.  Bigotry and ignorance are not.

 Let us agree to disagree and make conflicts transparent for all to view. Citizens can then openly participate and form opinions on a level and respectful playing field.  The alternatives have not worked and never will.

COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS

What will be the political response to the worst mass shooting in the history of America? There are many possibilities in the middle of a contentious presidential campaign.  Trump will inevitably call for a clamp down on Muslim communities, notwithstanding that the shooter was an American citizen who hated gays.  Clinton will point to Trump’s anti Muslim rhetoric as a contributing factor. Gun rights advocates will point to the ready access to assault type weapons.  The NRA will call for arming nightclub personnel.  The Gay community will call for more protection in places where they socialize.

In this election year many Americans do not feel safe or secure in their homes, in sending their children to school, in the malls and movie theaters or at work.  Whether a shooting is triggered by mental illness, hate, or radicalization, the result is the same.  The fear is the same.  The access to automatic weapons is the same.

Here is hoping that the debate that will follow this horrendous act will be all inclusive of all the above issues and will seek a rational debate, not more finger pointing and divisiveness. Certainly there are common sense solutions on which all Americans can agree.  Responsible elected officials and candidates will seek responsible answers.

IN DEFENSE OF MODERATION

In this election year the label of “moderate” has been the kiss of death.  If a candidate was not willing to profess allegiance to left leaning progressive ideals as a democrat or to populist ones as a republican, there was little chance to gain the attention of voters.  Indeed, running for office and calling for incremental policy changes and keeping the ship of state on a steady course has been the most discredited of all positions.  Hillary Clinton tried this moderate approach early in the primaries but has moved significantly to the left in recent months as her support eroded.

What caused political moderation to lose its purchase, to be replaced by calls for revolution on the left and for anti establishment and controversial proposals on the right?

First, this trend toward the extreme is not limited to the American electorate.  As a direct result of immigration and state security issues, Europe’s far right is no longer on the fringe of the political process. In Austria the Austrian Freedom Party, founded by ex-Nazis, came within .6% of winning the recent national election.  In France, the far right candidate Marine La Pen is predicted to come in first in the initial round of next year’s presidential election. Right wing pluralities in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland are firmly in place. Sweden is not far behind.  Also in Europe the far left parties have gained in stature and undermined the moderate social democrats who have traditionally governed these countries

Second, angry calls for wall building, banning Muslims and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants seem like reasonable proposals to older Americans who fear for their personal and job security. On the other end of the political spectrum young Americans have bought into the theme of a social revolution that will provide free education, free medical care and a revived Social Security system for their retirement.

Lastly, the status quo of the last eight years is viewed by many voters as a time of stagnation rather than a period of growth.  The art of governing has ground to a halt.  Witness the recent energy bill (the first in nearly a decade) that easily passed the Senate but is now bogged down in the House over petty partisan politics. 

Voters are embracing the political extremes in the hope that anything is better than a do nothing, crisis driven legislative process.  It apparently never occurs to those seeking change that other extreme lawmakers have caused the impasse in the first place and that their candidates will actually make matters worse if elected to higher office.

So how can political moderates recapture the political playing field?  Congress is already well represented with moderates in both political parties.  Unfortunately, in this election year they operate under the radar and are afraid of an angry electorate who view them as the failed establishment and could vote them out of office.  They are patiently waiting for rationality to return after the extremists flame out.  This is not the right approach.

Moderates must realize that remaining silent about their ideals will not defeat extremism. The mantra should not be: “this too will pass” but rather “fight for moderation in government.”  Voters are eager to support politicians with clear values and sound ideas.  Moderates have both without the baggage of do or die ideologies.  Moreover, only moderates on both sides of the aisle and in the White House can reach the degree of cooperation necessary to pass long overdue legislation. 

Populists and left wing progressives seek to blow up our established two party system.  This is not the path to sensible governing.  Moderates must speak up to preserve and nurture our traditional political process.

If the moderate position is firmly and clearly presented to the voting public two facts will become obvious.  First, that the emotional positions espoused by the extremists are nothing but pipe dreams and will never be adopted once the elections are over.  On close analysis it will also become clear that the only certain result from electing extreme public officials will be divisiveness and partisan politics that will make the past eight years appear as tame as a church social. 

The second fact is that the strength of moderation lies not in the sound bites of campaigning but in the give and take of governing. Centralist positions open to compromise and not unbending fringe ideology make for a healthy legislative process.

 Moderates from both parties, those slightly left and right of center, tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Given the issues that must be addressed, there is no better political formula for moving our country forward.

THE YEAR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST

You parents who had doubts that a liberal arts education would pay off for your children; here is hoping you raised them to be political scientists and not lawyers or doctors.  

   

Over the past decade, economics has dominated the best seller list, speaker forums and overall American culture.  This has been necessary and predictable given the collapse of Western economies following the 2008 recession. Those experts who professed to be economists needed to explain what they got wrong, what happened and to set out their plan for the future.  Even Cinema took this normally undramatic “dismal science” and made a series of feature films highlighting ordinary citizens getting screwed by economic forces not easily explained.

The academic world must now prepare for a major attention shift from an enthralled public.  2016 and beyond will see a time that political scientists lead the academic discussions that matter in America.  We are not talking about the television pundits who jabber on endlessly about the election, but rather real academic heavy weights who are trained to analysis data before and after elections take place.

Political Science by its nature is observational. It seeks to reveal the relationships underlying political events and conditions and from these revelations it attempts to construct principals about the way the world of politics works.  Donald Trump has given these specialist something to observe, unlike anything in their collective lifetimes.  No political theory or hypothesis in our pluralistic democracy predicted his rise to capture the Republican Nomination.  Now the experts must figure it out.

One can almost predict the topics of the best selling tomes that will hit the book shelves by early 2017, after the data is complied and theories developed: “America’s move to an illiberal political order thriving on anti-immigrant sentiment and Islamophobia”; “Trump’s success and the new media”; “The demise of America’s traditional two party system”; “Celebrity and politics in America.”;.  No one would have predicted these trends a short time ago.

In many respects this election season, which is now remarkably longer than the NFL season, is similar from an analytical perspective.  In football the goal is to deconstruct the winning team in order to mimic or defeat it.  In 2016 it appears that copying or defending against the Obama formula from 2012 will not be enough.  Trump has jumped the shark, not unlike a good NFL Patriots team, sending all participants back to the drawing board.  This is what makes 2016 such an exciting time to be a political scientist.

For all the attention it gets, American politics is normally a case study in incremental change. Not only Trump but also the Sanders phenomenon has guaranteed that 2016 is different. Dwight Eisenhower who once said: “I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center,” would be appalled. The center is under attack from angry isolationists on the one side and progressives on the other.  The only thing that is certain is that political scientists will figure it out after the dust has cleared.

BABY BOOMERS…….START CLIMBING

Last week I came across the quote: “I am so far over the hill that I am half way up the next one.” This could be interpreted as a call to action for all baby boomers in their sixties and seventies to rethink their golden years.  In short, we need to begin climbing the next hill by understanding and helping millennials, aka our children.  With a blink of the eye they are coming into their own and dominating the political, social and economic culture. If we pull up the rocking chairs rather than put on the walking shoes boomers will exercise little positive influence over the future of our country.

Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to around 2000 in defining millennials.  The signs of the changing of the guard are everywhere.  Our new family vehicle is basically a mind numbing computer on wheels, designed with millennials in mind.  It should come with a 30 year old in the back seat to explain the radar, cameras, bluetooth, wifi, navigation, i phone and voice recognition interfaces.  When I sarcastically told my age challenged friend that the car was equipped with an Amazon app that dropped packages through the moon roof via drone, he believed me. Ironically, while many millennials turn down a new vehicle  purchase in favor of Uber, mass transit and short term rentals, boomers will never fully understand the technology packaged to attract their children.

Statistics disclose that for the first time, more millennials than baby boomers are eligible to vote in the presidential election. Many are educated minorities and white Americans with increasingly liberal attitudes.  They are more likely to support economic policies based on equality, same sex marriage and legalization of drugs. As the Bernie Sanders campaign has revealed, millennials want their own issues addressed by elected officials.  These concerns include the prohibitive cost and debt service of higher education, the ability of the wealthy to buy elections and real progress on fixing the national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

The economic habits of our chidren are changing America. Purchasing a home or a car (see above) are no longer top priorities.  Frequently changing employment is common in search of a job that actually makes them happy. Malls and department stores are passé and all of brick and mortar retail is in a funk because there is nothing that they cannot  purchase on the internet.  Important news events are picked up on twitter and few read print newspapers or magazines. Chain restaurants that cater to their eating habits, gourmet coffee and tattoos have become prevalent.  They are among the few luxuries many millennials can actually afford.  Cable television, land line telephones and desk top computers are as unnecessary to millennials as typewriters were to baby boomers.

Socially, studies show that millennials tend to be less religious, better educated and slower to get married and/or start families than their boomer parents.  What effect this will have going forward is unknown.  Either there will be a rush to produce children as biological clocks wind down, turning boomers into grandparents in their 70s, or the country will begin aging.  Because we  boomers will live longer and many have already depleted savings for a number of ill advised reasons, a sizeable number of millennials will not inherit wealth when their parents finally expire.  But they will, no doubt, be saddled with taking care of us, as many boomers hang around past the century mark.

We over the hill boomers have a choice.  We can start climbing the next hill with vigor and moral clarity along with our children and be part of the solution by understanding their world and cooperating on solutions.  The alternative is to keep our title as the “me” generation and double down along with AARP to defend our entitlements to the last dollar.

There are simply not enough resources for boomers and our children to both move ahead unhindered.  Better for older Americans to sacrifice a little and seed the future with higher taxes and entitlement benefits that vest later and in lower amounts.  Better to volunteer and help our children with the multitude of economic and social issues they will face.  Better to take a deep breath and start climbing the next hill.  Along the way we may even learn what Bluetooth is and how it works.

A PROPOSAL TO HELP MOVE FROM “BEING RIGHT” TO “UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER” IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with each other.  Indeed it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, angry white male). When we associate one of these labels with another, we often jump to invalid conclusions about that person’s political and/or social views.  This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more difficult and at times more antagonistic than it needs to be.  Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic democratic society, misunderstanding each other is not.

For those who wish to share ideas, either orally or in print, we need a better system for determining both political and social orientation in America.  The old labels are either too open to multiple interpretations or too ugly to withstand face to face discussion. An example of the former is labeling oneself a democrat or republican which in today’s political environment tells us little about a person’s views. Examples of the latter are to label someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding “political” orientation would be for actors to identify their standing by specifying a well know individual who shares their views or time period that represents their political orientation. Thus when we speak to or read an article by a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”, or “William F. Buckley Conservative”, or “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Senator Angus King Independent”, we would know much more of the positions held by the speaker or author. For example, describing oneself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative akin to Bill Clinton says much more than simply being called a democrat.

Such an adjustment to foster clarity would have several positive effects.  First, it would require those of us interested in political discourse to do our homework and learn more about political history, philosophy and thought.  Second, it would remove many of the unwarranted assumptions we make about another’s political views based on an over broad label.  Third, it would compel us to rethink our positions and make sure our overall orientation is consistent. Fourth, it would recognize that personality is often as important as positions in choosing a political orientation.

My suggestion regarding “social” labeling is a bit more complex than the political variety.  I would replace many of the negative social terms now popular in speech and print with three new classifications:  intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.  These terms are not my own and were developed by the contemporary German political philosopher Forst Rainer in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is rather self explanatory.  It would cover opinions most of us share including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who are responsible for conduct outside accepted norms. Intolerant would also be an appropriate label for an avowed racist, homophobic, or sexist.

The second classification, “permissive tolerance”, gives qualified permission to the members of a minority to live according to their believes or to be accepted on the condition that the minority follows certain rules, laws or conditions. For example Donald Trump has advocated permissive tolerance toward immigrants by excluding families who entered the country illegally.  Ted Cruz has advocated permissive tolerance toward Muslims by subjecting their communities and places of worship to surveillance.  North Carolina has passed permissive tolerance legislation that specifically targets transgender individuals in their use of public restrooms.  Many conservative evangelicals demonstrate permissive tolerance toward homosexuals by having no objection to civil unions but being against gay marriage.

When the above examples are viewed through the lens of permissive tolerance, the debate changes in a way that I believe is more manageable.  The majority granting permissive tolerance often feels the minority should thank them for being more accepting than in the past.  The minority does not feel it is enough to not be exiled or persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equal.  In many respects a permissive tolerance analysis makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the position of the other.

The last category is “respectful tolerance” where citizens may have fundamental differences between them but morally regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status.  Different ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different views on social issues, all tempered by respect.  Here there is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority and diversity is encouraged to make the whole stronger than its parts. Respectful tolerance is the sweet spot of political and social conflict resolution.

With respectful tolerance, conflict between competing interests remains.  However, a civilized debate takes place on a level playing field.  All actors recognize the healthy conflict as the basis for our pluralistic democracy.  Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise rather than all or nothing positions is more prevalent.

Where do I see these dynamic categories shifting before our eyes?  The  vestiges of passive racism as embodied in the “black lives matter” movement and minority incarceration, drug policy and urban education in America are examples of positions shifting from permissive to respected tolerance.  In international affairs, our changing foreign policy toward Cuba and Iran are examples.  The understanding and treatment of mental illness is also making this shift.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome our human nature to be right rather than to take the time to understand each other.  I am sure that others could propose classifications with more clarity. My goal is simply to start the conversation in developing systems to consider political and social conflict in a more positive and constructive way.

WASHINGTON IS IN THE RETIREMENT SWEET SPOT

Now that Forbes Magazine has placed Pittsburgh on its list of Best Places to Retire three years in a row and placed Morgantown on the list in 2014, Washington County is in the retirement sweet spot.  Washington combines the best of both locations with affordable housing, abundant shopping, proximity to an international airport and a thriving home grown senior population.  One could argue that we deserve a place on the list next to our neighbors.

Here in Washington, volunteer opportunities for seniors are numerous, taxes are low and retirees can take advantage of three Pittsburgh professional sports teams that regularly make the playoffs. Excellent college teams reside both south in Morgantown and north in Pittsburgh. Retirees quickly learn that it takes only a few minutes longer to drive to downtown Pittsburgh from East Washington as it does from Wexford or Monroeville.

The Forbes Magazine survey is focusing on retirees who have the economic means to move anywhere in the country to enjoy their golden years. These new residents have money to spend and time to lend a helping hand with no children to stress the public schools. Washington County should be promoting itself to attract these individuals.

 Many retirees are “four season” people who love the climate changes that Western Pennsylvania has to offer.  Add to the climate one of the world’s best health care systems; a world class Symphony at Heinz Hall (and the local Washington Orchestra); an excellent Regional Theater at the O’Reilly (and the Off the Wall theater in Carnegie); and outstanding museums and parks throughout the area. The exciting restaurant revival in our region is another perk.  It is no wonder that Southwestern Pennsylvania did so well in the Forbes retirement survey.

If Forbes Magazine were to undertake a deep dive into Washington County as a place to retire, what would be the draw backs?  No doubt crime/drugs and lack of economic diversity would be high on the list. In regard to the former, District Attorney Eugene Vittone is committed to working with region wide task forces and showing no mercy to drug suppliers while treating addicts as patients first and criminals only when violent crimes are committed.  In regard to the latter, Commissioner Larry Magi has recently discussed the importance of diversification that lessens over dependence on energy, hopefully with a mix of advanced manufacturing, technology, health care and finance.  Both issues are receiving high priority by County officials and will be solved over time to make our quality of life even better.

No place is perfect.  Washington County is far better than most.  Contact your friends and family who are aging baby boomers in other parts of the Country and sing the praises of one of the best places to retire.

REPUBLICANS PLUNDER THE ROBIN HOOD MYTH

Most American workers are confused by economics.  While they certainly know when they are not doing well, working longer hours for less pay, it is the causes of this inability to get ahead that are not easily explained. 

This lack of certainty in economics has given republicans great leeway in blaming the wrong social and economic factors for lack of opportunity and frozen wages.  Unfortunately, many in the working middle class believe these unsupported theories that are circulated by conservatives.

The example that irks me the most is the conservative high jacking of the Robin Hood myth, as brilliantly described by James Meek in the London Review of Books (Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity, LRB 18 February 2016).   The conservative version of the Robin Hood Legend has all the same players as the original medieval tale but gives “robbing the rich to pay the poor” a whole new meaning. 

Under this conservative revisionist story of Robin Hood the great mass of heavily taxed citizens who work hard for little reward are identified as our disgruntled working class.  All but the ultra rich (the one percent), are included in this category including multi millionaires who work for a living.  The profits from their labor and taxes they pay go to support a number of arrogant lazy individuals who have no need to work, now identified as anyone receiving public benefits.  The vast liberal bureaucracy is identified as the Sheriff of Nottingham.  The ultra rich become the absent monarch, King Richard, who are cast as a kinder, more benevolent authority, insuring that capitalism, including inherited wealth, survives in its purest form.  Lastly, conservative politicians set themselves up as Robin Hood figures, seeking to right the wrong by knocking down the disabled, the single mothers, refugees and other assorted chiselers and cheats.  The new mantra becomes:”take back from the not working poor to give to working citizens, including the wealthy.”

While this economic model that excludes give backs from rich Americans seems preposterous, there is a reason why republicans are able to get away with it.  Many low and middle income working Americans prefer to align their economic interests with wealthy workers than with those who do not work at all.  How else to explain disgruntled American workers and small business owners throwing in their lot with a multi billionaire presidential candidate, who lives in the stratified air of penthouses, private jets, yachts and country clubs rather than with the progressive democrats seeking an end to income inequality from the top down.

In a recent cover story The Economist pushes back against this republican economic myth from a different angle. (Why high profits are a problem for America, The Economist March 26-April1 2016).  It becomes clear that there are additional hard facts to explain why the one percent continues to gather extraordinary wealth.  This probing comprehensive study finds that the profits realized by the largest American corporations comprising the S&P 500 have been too large for too long when compared with historical averages.  While these corporations employ fewer workers, now only one in ten, they have amassed over-sized profits through consolidation, productivity, lobbying for favorable regulations and arcane patent laws.  These giants suck up all the air in many sectors of the market economy leaving little room for small businesses and startups.  This places severe restrictions on competition and the hiring of new employees.

This well documented article makes clear that the enemy of the small and medium size employer is not the safety net created to help the most disadvantaged among us.  What are holding back new business ventures and new employment is our largest corporations that are realizing returns on equity 40% higher at home than abroad.  By in large these profits are not being reinvested, not used to increase wages and not returned to consumers by lowering prices.

Before a Republican Congress attempts to cut corporate tax rates, give amnesty to overseas profits, or permit further consolidation of large business interests it needs to understand this clear and convincing example of runaway corporate greed.  Perhaps conservatives seeking a more equitable America will even return the Robin Hood myth to its original intent:  to take from the rich and give to the poor.