PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CREATED A NATIONALIST POLITICAL PARTY

America is no longer a two party political system. Donald Trump has accomplished what no politician since our founding has been able to achieve.  He has created a third political party as strong and vibrant as the two traditional parties that have thrived since the Civil War. 40% of the voting public now support this new political party, marginalizing the Republican Party. President Trump has started labeling himself a nationalist at his political rallies. Accordingly, I will name our third political party, the Nationalist Party.

Many Americans are not familiar with nationalism as a political ideology. Because nationalist political parties have a long history in Central and Western Europe, examining these organizations gives us a reasonable method of understanding nationalism.  Generally, European nationalists are described as “right wing populists.” Historians agree that the most unifying position of Nationalist Parties until recently was antisemitism.  Within the past 20 years the unifying factor has morphed into Islamophobia. 

Nationalist Parties have thrived only when they were able to use propaganda and conspiracy theories to identify an “other” group of citizens on which to blame past economic and social disruptions.  This was most evident in three of the most notorious Nationalist Parties, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Franco’s Spain.  Nationalist Parties in their modern incarnation have been able to gain more main stream acceptance by substituting Muslims for Jews as the number one enemy of the state and by preaching “nation first” positions attractive to working class citizens still suffering economically from the last recession.

With this brief background on nationalism, we must examine the specific platform of Donald Trump’s Nationalist party.  It will be clear that this platform has little to do with traditional Republicanism.  In fact, many policy positions are so anti conservative that modern conservative political pundits have been unable to support them.  Republican politicians, on the other hand, have embraced Trump’s Nationalist Party in order to ensure reelection. Moreover, these Republicans can no longer count on their own fading traditional party apparatus to achieve tax cuts, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to place conservative Judges and Justices into the federal court system.

First, Trump’s Nationalist Party is vehemently against diversity. Homogenous rural communities are favored over urban multicultural ones.  Urban, diverse sections of the country are viewed as havens for providing sanctuaries for illegal immigrants and as election districts that overwhelmingly vote against the Nationalist Party’s agenda. Conversely, rural areas are valued for their attachment to authority, family and the native land.  But mostly, rural areas are valued for their votes.

 Squirrel Hill in Pittsburgh is the most diverse neighborhood in Western Pennsylvania.  While the Jewish community is the backbone of the community, many others of varied religious and ethnic backgrounds seek to live there because of this diversity.   The Trump Nationalist party views Squirrel Hill and urban areas like it as the antithesis of everything it stands for.  The fringe element of his Nationalist Party, where hate is inflamed by the President’s rhetoric, will fully embrace the message sent to the Squirrel Hill Jewish community through the recent horrific act of domestic terrorism: “only white protestant Americans are welcome here.”

Second, Trump’s Nationalist Party is against most immigration into the United States and holds an elevated dislike for Islamic and Spanish speaking immigrants from below our Southern border.  Trump began his presidential campaign by attacking Mexicans.  Among his first acts as President, were attempts to unlawfully exclude many Islamic individuals from gaining entry into the country.  His policies of “building a wall” and punishing urban areas for not utilizing their scarce resources to round up illegal aliens are more political Nationalist Party statements than actual remedies to combat illegal immigration.

Third, Trump’s Nationalist Party deplores globalism.  This often misunderstood term can best be understood as describing a world that is: “characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances.” Multinational Corporations, international military, economic and legal organizations, European countries banding together to form the European Union, and trade agreements are all examples of globalism.  Nationalists view globalism as placing the needs of the international community before the national interest. In fact, globalism generally promotes international cooperation and helps control economic crises.

During the presidential campaign, Trump was quoted as saying: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. And under my administration we will never enter America into any agreements that reduce our ability to control our own affairs.” He has lived up to this pledge by canceling trade agreements; canceling the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; threatening to canceling the agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; and by berating our military and economic alliances around the world.

 Fourth, Trump’s Nationalist Party attacks the main stream media at every opportunity. After mocking and insulting penned-in reporters at his campaign rallies, Mr. Trump continued going after journalists the day after he was sworn in, over the size of his Inauguration Day crowd. Then came the “fake news,” “enemy of the people” Stalin like campaign against journalists who would hold him accountable for his words and actions.

By attacking the source of balanced reporting and fact checking, Trump’s Nationalist Party is able to manufacture yet another enemy and to accuse the media of working to take away his election victory and defeat his agenda.  The Nationalist Party must always be the victim, even as it controls all three houses of Congress.

Lastly, Trump’s Nationalist Party supports and admires authoritarian elected officials from around the world.  Most of these leaders have used the above elements of a nationalist platform to consolidate power and to develop illiberal democracies in their own countries.  These authoritarian countries that have received Trump’s blessing include Russia, Hungary, Poland, Egypt, Turkey, Austria and the Philippines.  I would include Saudi Arabia, which is a kingdom and not a democracy.

All of these countries have strong nationalist tendencies.  Trump would like to join their elite club by reconfiguring the principles of our constitutional democratic republic.  This would include increasing executive powers without the need to consult Congress, a reduction in the rule of law, a reduction in the economic influence of the Federal Reserve and the marginalization of the media.

It is often said that only in a democracy do people get the government they deserve.  In order to preserve our rights and liberties, we must vote.  Please keep in mind the platform of Trump’s Nationalist party when fulfilling this most sacred duty on Tuesday. Elections matter.

THE DEATH KNELL OF NEWSPAPERS

This year has been a bewildering adjustment for those of us living in Southwestern Pennsylvania who find it difficult to give up our print newspapers. Recently, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stopped publishing print editions on Tuesdays and Saturdays and began running head scratching existentialist commercials to explain their move to digital. The finale of Pittsburgh print news seems inevitable. After all, the Tribune-Review is already a mostly ignored news source after going totally digital to avoid bankruptcy.

To add insult to injury, many of us also stopped receiving our print addition of the Wall Street Journal on Tuesdays and Saturdays because the Journal uses the Post Gazette’s delivery network.  After many weeks of promising a fix, still no Journals delivered on the off days.  Heaven help us if the stock market blows up on a Monday.

The final blow arrived when our reliable local Observer Reporter was sold to a larger network of local papers.  We had all come to rely on the Northrop Family to maintain and publish the O-R. With the sale came uncertainty and many questions: would the O-R go digital?; what would be the new editorial policy?;  would there be less coverage of local events?;  would our favorite comic strips disappear?. (So far there have been minimal changes to the paper.)

I read a great deal of internet digital news, but only those sources to which I do not subscribe.  When I was forced to tackle the Saturday WSJ online, (because of the above non-delivery issue) no section of the paper or article was where it was supposed to be.  What was an enjoyable experience in print, turned into a headache on my IPad.  Sometimes I go to a store with a newsstand and pay for a replacement printed paper.

Aside from my personal discomfort, the time has arrived to consider the once unthinkable.  What would the end of printed newspapers mean to our society and to the fabric of communities across America? Would the digital press continue to report on municipal meetings, the local theater groups, or the High School Sports teams?  Would expensive, time consuming investigative journalism be supported?

First, we must consider why newspapers are leaving print and moving online in the first place.  It is basic economics, accelerated by the recession of 2009. Major advertisers such as department stores, supermarkets, boutique retailers and car dealerships, consolidated or went out of business.  Those that survived often moved advertising and sales online to compete with Amazon. The profitable classified section of print newspapers saw listings for used cars, real estate, and employment move to Craig’s List or other dedicated online services.

Previously, print publishers could always count on young adults gravitating to the purchase of newspapers as they made their way into the world.  With millennials, who were raised getting all of their information online, this trend is over.  This guarantees that along with advertising, print readership will decline overtime, never to be replenished.

Before print newspapers (and magazines) began to disappear, they spent years getting smaller. Shrinking newsrooms, budgets, print runs and page counts all accelerated as the “cost to print” came closer to exceeding the “revenue from print.”  It is simply more cost effective to publish a digital newspaper.

What will the effect of this trend be on the news reading public? One study, supported by a research grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, has closely followed the reading habits of the British when the national British daily, The Independent, stopped print publishing and went online in 2016. It first appeared that the number of digital readers it gained basically replaced the number of print readers it lost. But many believe the explosive news events of both Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are responsible for the digital readership and make the number of new digital readers unsustainable over the long run.

The other results of the study are far more troubling. Print readers were found to spend significantly more time consuming news than digital readers, prior to the all-digital transition.  After the transition, in depth reading disappeared when the paper did. 50% of its print readers read the newspaper almost every day (37-50 minutes each day) while online visitors read one story on the average of twice a month (6 minutes a month).  The study concluded: “By going online only, The Independent decimated the attention it receives. The paper is now a thing more glanced at, it seems, than gorged on.  It has sustainability but less centrality.”

One bright result from the study was that the international English speaking readership expanded greatly with the all-digital format of this national newspaper. Of course, local papers that transition to all digital will not benefit from this overseas expansion because the readership interest in local issues is minimal.  On the other hand, one could argue that a local digital paper has a captive audience for local information, including the crime blotter, obituaries, local sports and calendar of events that will compel print readers to make the switch to digital.

Many astute observers of how digital content is prepared and distributed do not believe that the future of digital newspapers is any more intact over the long run than print journalism is today.  Vice News co-founder Shane Smith forecasts: “a bloodbath that will wipe out 30 percent of digital sites.”  Those sites that dominate the internet, Facebook and Google, lack any dedication toward original news.  They have expressed no desire to act as responsible publishers, with reporters on the ground backed up by fact checkers dedicated to balanced reporting.

If indeed, the existing model for producing unbiased original news is not profitable or sustainable in the digital format, there is a grave danger that all news on the internet will be suspected of being manufactured, fake or dissembled. Once the trust is lost, the famous mottos of the Financial Times: “Without Fear or Favor” and of the New York Times: “All the News That’s Fit to Print” will mean nothing and a fundamental democratic institution will cease to function.

While it is true that Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, who purchased the Washington Post and Philanthropist, Patrick Soon-Shiong, who now owns the Los Angeles Times are willing to absorb large losses to keep responsible journalism alive, a few billionaires preserving a few urban newspapers is not the answer. A comprehensive plan and new business models must be developed to save the Fifth Estate, with no time to waste.

Thomas Jefferson wisely made an observation on newspapers that rings true today: “This formidable censor of the public opinion functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peacefully, which must otherwise be done by revolution.”  It is not difficult to imagine pitched battles in the streets, if balanced original news disappears and elected officials are permitted to say whatever they please to remain in office, with no reliable counter-balance.

RACE IN AMERICA

Washington County was treated to a gem of a lecture on race in America on a cool Monday evening at W&J College.  The event was well attended by students and interested citizens to hear author, journalist and academic, Jelani Cobb present the first lecture sponsored by W&J’s African American Studies Program.

The first half of the talk dealt with the importance of interpreting American History within the context of slavery and race.  The Constitution, addition of States to the Union, the Civil War and fundamental Supreme Court decisions must be studied within the framework of slavery and later, segregation in order to understand our “original sin” and its continuing influence on American society. Those who would prefer to sugarcoat the past are only making it more difficult for the nation to heal in 2018.

The lecture concluded with some of Mr. Cobb’s personal experiences with diversity.  He grew up in Queens, New York, a melting pot for established minorities and new immigrants alike.  Hundreds of languages are spoken within the Borough. As a child the speaker’s baseball team was a cornucopia of different cultures all dedicated to winning a game.

These remarks reminded me that diversity is a circumstance to be encouraged, not a problem to be managed.  My belief that Washington County needs a diversity council to explore and strengthen its ties to multiculturalism was reaffirmed by the lecture.

ELECTIONS MATTER

Two issues have dominated political journalism since the election of Donald Trump. First, how was Trump and the Republican party able to cobble together a victory in 2016?  Second, will our democratic processes and institutions survive his presidency?  By my count over 25 books have been penned to address these issues.  In addition, hundreds of essays and articles have been written by journalists weighing in with their own take on the election and its aftermath.

The books and articles that discuss the election have covered the effects of social media on the election; the lower than expected voter turnout in urban areas with Obama off the ballet; Russian interference influencing the vote count; Democrats ignoring the issues important to the working class in the rust belt; and the botched FBI investigations. 

Those books and articles that discuss the functioning of the Trump presidency over the past two years have critiqued an administration that is dedicated to deconstructing the “rules based” international order in foreign policy. Other studies have researched how the White House bases domestic policy on anti-immigration; on protectionism; on lower taxes and on fewer regulations.  Some authors have written detailed analyses explaining Trump’s support for authoritarian leaders abroad and for nativist policies at home and its effect on our democratic institutions.  Others have chronicled the dysfunction and turnover within the White House itself.

 Most recently the acclaimed writer Michael Lewis has released a deep dive well researched study that asks, who is really running the government? (The Fifth Risk) Rather than address Trump’s character defects, Lewis centers on the President’s ignorance on what the federal bureaucracy is and how it works.  Lewis exposes the dangers in ignoring the complexities of federal agencies and the need for leadership from the White House in supporting them.

All of these investigative works that uncover the limitations and degradations of the Trump presidency are illuminating and necessary, but it is time to flip the switch and to concentrate on the upcoming mid-term elections.  Elections matter and can change the future. Placing Democrats in House and Senate seats around the country is the only path that guarantees Trump will be investigated for his past actions and challenged on his new initiatives.  It is time to stop reading and complaining and to place all efforts into getting Democrats elected. Time to stop agonizing and to start organizing.

After the unexpected results in the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic “blue wave” that is predicted for the 2018 mid-term elections and the belief that Democrats will capture the House of Representatives leaves me somewhat skeptical. First, I am convinced that the 84% of registered Republicans who approve of Trump are not going to change their preference in the mid-term elections and unless there is a sea change not in 2020.  Moreover, even dissatisfied Republicans may stick with the party of their President who has kept most of his campaign promises and who is taking credit for a booming economy.

Second, while the numbers of Democratic voters in the primaries and the new voter registrations are encouraging, the Republican base tends to show up with greater frequency in off year elections. Third, I do not trust polls in the age of Trump when voters are hesitant to name their preferences.  Fourth, Trump is capable in springing an “October surprise” on the electorate in order to the hold the House of Representatives in Republican hands.

I believe that for Democrats to win the House and to have a chance in flipping the Senate, the national and state Democratic Parties must show the type of organization over these last several weeks that is typical in presidential elections.  This would include rallies in vulnerable districts headlined with well-known national figures.  Advertising funds should not be spared for those candidates who are running for the first time and who present new faces to the voting public.  The election day get out the vote effort should take nothing for granted.  The Democratic overconfidence that was on full display during the 2016 Presidential race must not take hold during the mid-terms.

Normally issues would define an election, including the upcoming House and Senate races.  But Trump has defined this election cycle and placing checks and balances on his abuses is the overriding concern.  If a democratic blue wave is successful, a base will be in place for the 2020 presidential contest when a full slate of issues can be presented to the electorate.

 Voters will then have a real choice: to reelect a demagogue who uses the twin evils of race and tribe to placate the millions of disgruntled Americans who have fallen behind; or to choose a candidate and a party dedicated to building an equitable and just society for all Americans, based on real progress rather than fear.

DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS ARE FLEECING OUR ELDERLY

For those looking for a non-partisan cause to get behind, there is an underreported tragedy in this country that must to be discussed, exposed and regulated.  Our most vulnerable senior citizens are being fleeced by solicitors and advertisers out of billions of dollars.  It is a scam which many younger Americans may not have considered, unless they are involved in the day to day financial affairs of an older adult.

My initiation into this sleazy world of greed and deception began when my family received a power of attorney from a ninety something family member to assume responsibility for the mail and check writing.  In going through the stack of daily junk mail, I noticed that almost all of it was directed to our charge by a variety of political, religious, education, and disaster organizations, all seeking a contribution.

A review of our relative’s finances disclosed a long list of repeat contributions, going back years.  One payment would trigger many more solicitations, all sent with the obvious intent of causing the recipient to feel guilty if a contribution were not made.  Letters would contain small amounts of money or a negotiable check, urging a contribution. Other large envelopes arrived with pot holders, dish clothes, address labels, calendars and tee shirts.

One solicitation regularly comes in a large white envelope with the words: “Loyal Supporter” above the address.  On the front in large letters that look like they were written by a child is the word “please”.  On the back is written “help.”  Inside were pot holders and a note tablet. A quick check on the charity at Give.Org revealed that less than 5% of their collections make it to the children they are allegedly helping.

How pervasive is this problem?  A study performed by True Link Research in 2015 found that seniors lose $36.48 billion each year to elder financial abuse.  The highest proportion of these loses, 17 billion, come from deceptive but technically legal tactics, designed specifically to take advantage of older Americans. Two devastating findings from the study were: (1) Small loses in earlier years cascade into large loses as time goes on. Those who first lost small amounts to financial exploitation went on to lose an average of $2,000.00 over the next five years; (2) There are an estimated 954,000 seniors who skip meals as the result of financial abuse.

It is not difficult to determine why these deceptive practices are so widespread. Annul solicitations that are successful quickly morph into quarterly and then monthly mailings. Our elders forget they have already contributed and feel obligated to respond to free stuff, with another check. For those older Americans who live alone, the daily mail call becomes a highlight of the day and each solicitation provides an emotional lift when a check is mailed to help the less fortunate. Clearly, charities and political organizations have learned how to exploit these traits, unique to the elderly.

This commentary does not directly address telemarketing, info commercials, shopping networks and television advertising, each of which take advantage of the elderly using their own well tested delivery systems. Each of us is familiar with an older person who has purchased a closet full of items on the home shopping network to distribute to family members.  Or an elderly relative insisting on Prevagen for memory lose or Enbrel for arthritis, after being bombarded with medical commercials.  Similar tactics and marketing philosophy are common to all advertisers targeting the elderly and the deceptions are as injurious to our elders as direct mailing.

In regard to mail solicitations, what is to be done? First, charitable and political solicitations must be regulated in a fashion to deter abuse. Increasing the frequency of mailings based on a contribution should be limited or prohibited. Multiple mailings from the same source should state the date and amount of prior contributions in bold print. Solicitors should be required to flag frequent or unusual giving patterns and to report them to a third party Agency for the Elderly, for investigation.  A toll free number of a reputable consumer agency should be included with each solicitation, along with clear instructions for the recipient to call and check on the rating of each charity.

Second, each of us with older relatives and friends must make a point to do a financial review of contributions, particularly for those who are living alone on fixed budgets.  While this task may appear to the older person as an invasion of their independence and privacy, contributions can be approached in a positive way.  This would include an explanation of how charities work, why some are better than others and with preparation and review of a budget to show the giver why other obligations are more important than a particular charity or political organization.

For those elderly friends and relatives who have IRA accounts and must make required minimum distributions under the tax code, an excellent solution presents itself.  In 2018 tax deductions for charitable contributions are no longer available for many older adults who do not itemize under the new tax law. However, the law permits IRA accounts to be used to set up Qualified Charitable Distributions. This allows the elderly to “do good” while at the same time reducing taxes.

 This approach of once a year charitable planning (which can be done without access to IRA accounts) permits the older adult to choose the charities in advance he or she wants to benefit, within budget, so that no further contributions are necessary.  The rest of the direct mail “vultures” should be notified to cease and desist their solicitations, with notice also given to the state consumer protection agency.  Over time the stacks of unwanted solicitations will disappear.

To those who argue “it is their money and they should be left to spend it as they wish” I would argue that rational independent discretion decreases as we age, opening the door to fraud and abuse. Moreover, the solicitation techniques are designed to pray on older individuals and are difficult to resist.   Only reasonable regulation and concerned friends and family can put a stop to this fleecing of the elderly.