THE END OF DEMOCRACY

Politico Magazine (September 8, 2019) recently set off a firestorm of discussion when it highlighted an academic paper presented by the renowned political scientist, Shawn Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg concluded that: “democracy is devouring itself- and it won’t last.”  His premise is that social media has diluted the ability of society’s elites to guide self-rule along a responsible path.  In their place, he argues, the masses now control the political process and they are ill equipped to run a well-functioning democracy as envisioned by the founders.

 Politico Magazine summarizes the argument as follows:  “Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who do not look like them.  It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and to process the good from the bad, the truth from the false.  It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.”

Rosenberg sees the end of democracy as imbedded in the human tendency to seek out simple solutions to complicated problems when given the chance.  Thus, when a cascade of unfiltered sources of information push out an easy to digest combination of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism as the path to a better life, it is difficult for many Americans to ignore. The reptilian brain is offered up a sugar high that encourages the replacement of thoughtful democratic pluralism with a populist plan to have no tolerance for members of other tribes.

Rosenberg does not place the blame for the end of democracy on Donald Trump. I would agree that these tendencies existed long before the internet exploded, during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. The information fueled populism smoldered during the Obama presidency and reignited in 2015, when Trump was running for office.  Ironically, the more open, free and “democratic” the flow of unfettered information, the less responsible the electorate has become.

To save democracy in our constitutional republic, is it time to turn to the philosopher kings envisioned by Plato for their non-partisan wisdom? Is it time to replace the unwashed masses with a few good men who can lead us through the wilderness?  I think not. 

In the pre internet decades, when money, politics and power from both political parties exercised greater control over the electorate, inequality rose to unprecedented levels.  Wealth begat more wealth at the expense of middle class prosperity.   Voters were presented with too few choices.  Selective agendas were formulated in the political back rooms and corporate board rooms. Clearly, top down democracy is as unacceptable as unchecked populist democracy.

So what is to be done?  There is no putting the information genie back in the bottle.  Responsible democratic pluralism must adapt to the new reality of opinions and misinformation masquerading as facts. Our long heritage of freedom of expression (not to mention the Constitution) would not permit the formation of “information police” to determine what is factual versus what is harmful to a democracy.

I will offer two thoughts that could represent small steps in returning to a healthy democratic pluralism.  First, Congress should adopt a bi-partisan national initiative to use debate technology in the public schools to teach critical observation from different perspectives.  Not the ego driven debate techniques found in political campaigns, but the fact driven methods taught in formal debating.

I still fondly remember my 8^th grade debating experience incorporated into the social studies curriculum. The topic was foreign aid and many of the issues remain the same in today’s political environment. The participants spent many hours researching their positions and the final debate was presented to the elementary school community.

I can think of no better platform than formal debating to prepare students for the opportunities and dangers of the information age. Such an addition would mandate increased emphasis on social studies and government, both sorely lacking. Students would develop skills in research, the weighing of alternative positions, organization, persuasion, communication and civic awareness.

My second suggestion would require individual and community effort to implement.  It has become obvious to me that face-to-face communication is a valuable tool in counteracting the excesses and falsehoods of the information age.  Actively listening, building trust, fostering relationships and letting others give feedback is a constructive way to address sensitive political, social, and economic issues.

Communities need to take the lead in sponsoring discussion forums in their libraries, places of worship and education campuses.  With the appropriate moderator, a diverse group of citizens can come to understand opposing points of view without the rancor or emotional outbursts so common on social media.  The goal is respectful tolerance for alternative positions, not to change anyone’s mind.

In my own experience, a book club is an excellent forum to consider alternative points of view. There are many other social gatherings that can achieve a cross pollination of ideas.  The only requirement is that the membership be diverse to avoid “preaching to the choir.” In this regard, meetings of partisan political organizations are of little benefit.

 The information age is not going away.  The internet and social media will remain a potent force in shaping our political future.  It is important that we take steps to insure that all reasonable views are open for discussion and that voters learn skills to identify, challenge and reject misinformation.

Will encouraging debating skills and community meetings alone abate the erosion of democracy? Probably not, but we need to start somewhere.

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

“Sometimes, I feel I gotta get away
Bells chime, I know I gotta get away
And I know if I don't, I'll go out of my mind
Better leave her behind with the kids, they're alright
The kids are alright”  THE WHO

We recently attended a wedding in Pittsburgh, organized by and populated with millennials. Nothing about the ceremony or reception was traditional.  The few baby boomers in attendance could not help scratching their heads at the audacity of young people changing the rules of getting married.  By the end of the evening, I grudgingly had to admit, the future of America is secure.  The kids are alright.

To describe the wedding, is to enter an alternative reality of a communal gathering to honor an exchange of vows. Rather than a house of worship, the location was an old warehouse where nymph like twenty somethings practice the art form made famous by Cirque du Soleil. During the pre-dinner reception, guests were in awe of acrobatic performances above their heads.

The bride and groom met while swing dancing and both have a special affinity for tacos.  The former provided the post dinner entertainment and the latter the theme for the wedding appetizers and buffet.  There was no wedding cake.  A well-stocked cookie table and bar provided the sweets and lubrication for the occasion. 

The parents of the groom are close friends, so we were observers to the lead up of the wedding. The newly married couple have secure employment and utilized a parental loan to purchase a home in the heart of Pittsburgh. Senior wedding guidance was brushed aside and many of the well-appointed but frugal arrangements made by or paid for by the couple.  Nothing would deter them from their vision.

The young guests in attendance were emotional clones in their insular worlds, but diverse in their ethnic backgrounds and sexual preferences.  If the coupling in attendance holds firm, mixed marriages of every description will be the new norm.  Misogynist, homophobic, and anti-immigration views will have no place in mid-21^st century millennial America.

The few married couples with children seemed to hold an elevated position among the throng and one could detect the ticking of biological clocks among the single women.  But the women were emancipated and assertive.  The men were deferential and supportive. Adopting the bride’s maiden name was a popular idea.  Gender equality seemed the order of the day.

This was a professional and geeky crowd trained to practice medicine, law and cutting their teeth at Goggle.  Not many tattoos, at least in places that were observable.  In other words, our future leaders.

A few observations have lead me to conclude that America is in good hands. First, these young adults were aloof but confident in their life choices and career paths.  The groom loves working with his hands and nixed his earlier plans to earn a PhD in history to become a plumber.  Unlike my generation, they are not about attacking the choices made by their parents. They are simply ignoring what came before and busy taking action to create new social norms and business infrastructure.

Second, these young people care about the environment.  They make choices big and small with sustainability and carbon usage in mind.   I sense the environment will grow into a political and economic juggernaut as they age and seize the reigns of power.  Within my lifetime, Americans will be asked to sacrifice material wealth in order to address climate change and other fallout from industrialization.

Third, millennial America is well positioned to transition America into the information age. Their problem solving skills in medicine, law, accounting, finance and above all technology are digitally enhanced. No traditional method of doing business will be safe from their vision. The solutions to chronic problems they will develop are science fiction today.

In politics, the 2020 national election will see millennials as the largest demographic group in deciding our future.  They are not committed to partisan party politics but are intent on electing a President who values what they value.  There is a growing awareness that their parent’s generation has asked them to sacrifice a great deal in terms of high debt loads and lower economic outlooks, all to support the boomer’s crash into retirement.  Many millennials want to change this reality.

Lastly, I do not see this generation selling out their views for individual wealth.  One gets the sense that democratic socialism would match their worldview well.  A willingness to pay higher taxes in return for cradle to grave social benefits; job satisfaction and more free time. Less material wealth replaced by a healthier and happier life for them and their children.

I feel confident in leaving mother earth and American democracy behind with the kids.  The kids are alright. 

IT IS NOT “TIME FOR A CHANGE” IN THE COMMISSIONER’S NOVEMBER ELECTION

Many prospective voters are focused on the national elections in 2020 and giving little attention to this November’s contests.  For voters in Washington County, this would be a mistake.  This year’s race for County Commissioner will determine whether Washington County remains on the path of responsible decision-making or enters into an uncertain future with a high probability of a change for the worse. Unlike the well-worn political slogan, it is simply not “time for a change” in Washington County.

No one who follows local politics believes that Commissioners Larry Maggi, a Democrat, or Diana Irey Vaughan, a Republican, are in danger of losing their seats.  The future of Washington County governance will depend on whether incumbent Democrat, Harlan Shober, or Republican challenger, Nick Sherman, wins the third seat for Commissioner.  

Voter registration has become more Republican in recent years.  In the event that Democrats do not turn out to vote, Washington County could enter 2020 with a Republican majority on the Board.  This was almost the result in 2015 when Mr. Shober won his Commissioner seat by the narrow margin of 35 votes over his Republican challenger.

Let me be clear, I am not a die-hard local Democratic supporter.  I disagree with the present Board of Commissioners on several issues.  I felt that the court mandated money spent on tax reassessment was important and warranted.  I was not in favor of privatizing the Washington County Health Center.  I would like to see more County resources dedicated to mass transportation and social issues.  I believe that the County has a responsibility to provide more economic assistance to the City of Washington and other struggling municipalities.

Despite my concerns, it is impossible to ignore the facts.  The present Board of Commissioners works well together and governs with a minimum of political rancor.  Washington County has faced many challenges over the past decade.  By all appearances, the incumbent Commissioners have been adept at incorporating new economic wealth from fracking operations and proximity to a major urban center into a desirable place to live and work. 

The unemployment rate in Washington County is at record lows.  Many new businesses have located their operations here. Each year, more tourists visit the plethora of festivals and activities within our borders.  For these and other positive developments, all three incumbent Commissioners have earned the right to be re-elected.

Full disclosure, I know Harlan Shober and find him to be an accessible, hardworking Commissioner. It was impressive to me that his fellow Commissioners across Pennsylvania voted him President of their statewide association in 2018. Before serving as Commissioner for 8 years, Mr. Shober earned his political stripes as the former Chairman of Chartiers Township Board of Supervisors.  I do not know Republican challenger, Nick Sherman. I must give him points for honesty when he states on his campaign website: “We are doing well in Washington County.”

To illustrate what can go terribly wrong, consider the 1996 Commissioner’s race in Allegheny County. Two Republicans, Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer, won the election, creating a Republican majority for the first time in six decades.

The new Republican administration quickly went to work firing Department heads with many years of experience and replacing them with political appointees and conservative ideologues.  One of the first actions of the new Commissioners was a 20-percent property tax cut, implemented before spending cuts were in place.  Allegheny County’s reserves of $80 million quickly disappeared.  When the budgets of essential county services were finally slashed, a host of lawsuits were filed.  Attempts to privatize County services resulted in union protests and more lawsuits.

The following two years were a mashup of chaos, bumbling, bickering, financial problems and lowered bond ratings. Allegheny County voters responded by voting to get rid of the three headed Commissioner system in 1999 and adopted a County Executive with a 15 member council.

Washington County can point to its own misplaced “time for a change” moment that occurred in January of 2000. Under the pretense to balance the budget, newly elected Democratic Commissioner, John Bevec, joined forces with Republican Diana Irey to terminate several well qualified department heads. Among the dismissals were the head of County Administrator, Bill McGowen, and the Director of Parks and Recreation, Andy Baechle.  Mr. Baechle was recognized as an expert in his field and had secured 3 million in grants during his tenure.  Allegheny County quickly hired him at twice the salary.

Many in Washington County interpreted the dismissals of professional department heads as more political than economic. The one Commissioner who had worked to develop a strong lineup to run the County, Bracken Burns, was outraged by the maneuvering of his fellow Commissioners. In interviews with local newspapers, he called the actions a “political purge” and “the dumbing down of Washington County.” Predictably, until the next election, County government was marred by infighting and little was accomplished.

In this November’s election, there is no reason to roll the dice with an uncertain future and risk repeating the post-election meltdowns described above. The voters of Washington County know what they have with the three incumbent Commissioners.  They are a team that has earned the right to remain in office so they can continue to work together and provide thoughtful leadership and a stable government.