JOE BIDEN SHOULD EMBRACE REASONABLE POPULIST CONCERNS

 Joe Biden’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention made a strong appeal that he is the candidate that can end the dangerous polarization which is threatening American democracy. In order to achieve this goal he must do more to convince white blue collar working class voters, who flocked to Donald Trump in 2016, that he has their back on several fundamental issues.

A perceptive cousin of mine with open-minded political views recently took a road trip to visit other members of our family.  At our home he quietly listened to progressive views and the case to elect Joe Biden president.  At his sister’s home, where she and her husband are a-political, not a word was spoken about the upcoming election. Ending his journey at his brother’s home he heard the case for re-electing Donald Trump.

What struck him most about his experience were the reasonable arguments made by family members on both political spectrums. It sounded to him nothing like the political attack ads on television, the talking heads on cable networks or the outrageous Facebook posts. He returned home with renewed faith that American democracy can be mended.

I am also reminded of a recent day in American politics I will never forget, Friday, September 9, 2016.  That afternoon, former President Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to Democratic Headquarters in Washington County.  He spoke for 20 minutes about the need to separate Donald Trump from his prospective voters while canvassing throughout the county. He cautioned the assembled Democratic volunteers to be courteous to these voters and to listen to their grievances.

Later that same evening, presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, spoke at a private fundraiser.  She referred to half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” with racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic views.  Of course her comments went viral, which in my view, contributed to her loss in November, 2016.

The positions taken by Mr. and Mrs. Clinton could not have been more opposite.  Granted, separating a presidential candidate from his supporters is no easy task in the age of social media. However, it must be done in a pluralist democracy with divergent interest groups. Biden’s campaign must not permit the President’s outlandish conduct to get in the way of tapping into an important segment of the electorate, the white/blue-collar working class, who under the thin veneer of Trumpism, are Democrats at heart.

In supporting President Trump it has not been difficult for many life-long Republicans to ignore his personality or what he says. Their focus is on the actions he has taken regarding issues like tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination of regulations, abortion and far right judicial appointments.

In addition to lifelong Republicans and evangelicals, a new breed of populist makes up the Trump coalition. Unlike traditional Republicans, these voters often like President Trump for his rhetoric in attacking established principles and institutions. Presumably, these individuals are the supporters that Hillary Clinton was placing in her “basket of deporables.” This overgeneralization was a mistake. Joe Biden is in a position to take up the concerns of these voters and to champion the revitalization of the middle class.

Among many Democrats, modern populism has been mischaracterized as including only those who are bigoted and xenophobic.  While these individuals do exist as part of Trump’s base, there is also a higher ground of white working class populism that voted for Trump in 2016.  These voters can be brought into the Biden coalition.

Many 2020 populists exhibit four basic traits: 1) they believe the traditional two political parties are ignoring them; 2) that they are trapped in a perpetual economic downturn; 3) they see themselves besieged by elites and outsiders; and 4) they are disillusioned with political establishments. 

In short, many of today’s populists want to be recognized as a white working class interest group that is seeking a better quality of life for their families. There is no reason that a President Biden administration cannot fashion policies to address these concerns.

A thick vein of populism runs through the history of American politics.  It originated with the rise of the egalitarian and often racially inclusive People’s Party in the 19^th century Midwest.  While never reaching the White House, the People’s Party had input into the direct election of U.S. senators as well as with women’s right to vote.  The New Deal, civil rights and LBJ’s Great Society programs all show hallmarks of the original populist platform.

Traditional Republicans will stay with Trump out of convenience, to gain whatever political advantage is tied to his administration. It is true that some populists have bought into the illiberal nativist philosophy of an imagined “people” against all the “others” and will continue to view the President as their savior.  Nevertheless, as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren understood better than most, the growing influence of a larger white working class populism is more in line with Democratic than Republican principles.

Joe Biden rose to power championing working class values and by opposing Republican goals which favor big money and Wall Street elites. In many respects he is the poster child for working class populism.  Through proper campaign messaging, he can gain an important election advantage and pave the way for a presidential administration with broad appeal and support.

 

 

 

 

GIVE THE NATION TIME TO HEAL FROM THE PANDEMIC

 What do education, college football, voting and patronizing restaurants all have in common?  Each of these activities is at the center of a raging debate on how quickly we should return to normalizing our lives in the face of a pandemic. Proposals that made sense in June are now difficult to implement in August.  Attempts at “opening up” have caused new outbreaks of the virus to erupt around the country.  

Whether to return students to their public school classrooms before there is adequate testing or a vaccine for the virus is a quandary for administrators.  It seems that the virus is always several steps ahead of the planning.

On the one hand, pediatricians recognize the developmental delays that will occur if students must endure a prolonged period without in-classroom learning.  This is particularly true in the early primary grades.  On the other hand, opening up a large school district could be catastrophic at a time when 40% of adults remain at risk for a bad outcome if they contract COVID-19.

With college football it is television executives, athletic directors, coaches and players with their families facing off against university presidents, trustees and their lawyers. The first group wants to preserve the hours of television, many millions in cash payments to universities and the gigantic NFL minor league football machine that fills the dreams of young men.

Supported by the second group, the Big Ten and Pac-12 football conferences arrived at a different conclusion. When they reviewed all the possible scenarios of young student athletes behaving like young students, there were few favorable outcomes would allow for a safe football season.  Moreover, the Penn State pedophile scandal in which a football program was given priority over the safety of student athletes is fresh in many memories. These schools decided to concentrate on academics for the pandemic year, a herculean task in itself, and hope for a return to athletics in 2021.

How the nation votes in a highly volatile presidential election year that includes a pandemic could not avoid being wrapped in political intrigue. Democrats want to expand mail-in voting to limit person-to-person contact. Republicans want to discourage mail-in voting, arguing that a trip to the polling place is no different from a trip to the grocery store.

Each political party has a hidden agenda behind their position.  Democrats are sure that mail-in voting will increase the turnout in poor communities with many citizens of color.  Republicans think they are right.  Lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign against state voting laws are now common and the Post Office is under attack, to slow down the mail.  The red herring in the affair is the Republican claim of voter fraud when citizens vote by mail, a fact that is not supported by any historical evidence.

An overview of recent voting law in Pennsylvania is instructive on this issue.  The state Election Reform Bill was passed with bipartisan Republican support long before the pandemic.  The new law permits all voters, without any excuse, to vote by mail 50 days prior to each election.  During the Pennsylvania May primary election officials relied on dedicated drop boxes to allow voters to hand-deliver their mail ballots.  The Trump campaign is suing these officials to prohibit the use of drop boxes. The claim is that they encourage fraud and that the procedure is unconstitutional.

Lastly, there is the restaurant dilemma where ten percent of the nation’s work force is employed.  Restaurants and bars have been identified by public health officials as a major source of viral spread.  In Pennsylvania, the Governor has mandated that indoor dining be limited to 25% occupancy with bar service only with meals.  Restaurant owners are furious at these limitations, which threaten their livelihood.

I have two personal observations on restaurants. First, I have dined out in both Pittsburgh and Washington on several occassions since the March ban was lifted. The sedate, well-controlled dining experience in Washington is much different from the crowds of young people who congregate to socialize and drink in the South Side of Pittsburgh.  The same public health mandate does not make sense for both situations. 

Second, I have compared notes with many older patrons who dined out 3 to 4 times a week prior to the pandemic. Many of these deep-pocket customers will not return to restaurants until there is no longer any health risk.

What is one to make of all this confusion, disparate views and hostility? Remember the often quoted wisdom that it is a fool’s errand to “fight city hall” or for investors to “fight the fed”.  Similarly, it is not wise to fight COVID-19.  Efforts to “out think” the virus in order to gain some economic advantage have failed and left the nation in worse economic shape with increased spread and death.

It is time to take a different view and stand down to permit our country to heal. Attempts to open up within most environments have proven to involve significant risk.  Recent efforts to hold classes at UNC, Notre Dame and other universities, only to close a week later, are further evidence of our limited options.

The pandemic will eventually become more manageable with new testing techniques and effective vaccines.  In the interim, nothing will be normal and we must show some acceptance and make the best of it.

 

 

 

POST ELECTION COMMON GROUND

                      

This election season has seen the rancor between those who take their politics seriously escalate to an all-time high.  Fueled by social media and a nation of voters shut in by the pandemic, emotions and cognitive biases encourage voters to only give credence to opinions that confirm their long established beliefs. Moreover, many partisan political observers see the upcoming presidential election as an “all or nothing” event, leaving no opportunity to consider proposals of the “others.”

At the risk of being ridiculed by fellow Democrats and hostile Republicans alike, this commentary will explore some issues that could provide post-election common ground for both political parties and their elected officials. With one exception, I have stayed away from the hot button issues that tend to inflame passions and concentrated on fundamental problems brought on by the pandemic and its aftermath.

*        First, the one position that is likely to get me skewered by Democrats.  In the event Biden wins the presidency, it would not be advisable to begin a Congressional crusade to investigate Trump and his administration for the  alleged criminal acts committed over the past four years.  Obama took the correct position in 2008 that investigating the Bush administration for past misdeeds would accomplish little and burn valuable political capital needed to pass comprehensive health care. Similar considerations are valid if Biden wins the presidency.

*        Second, as a corollary to the first, the 2021 Congress should directly address institutional shortfalls and loopholes that permitted Trump to run rough shod over the intent of the Constitution, to ignore accepted norms in the administration of the government and to violate the rule of law. As a partial list of concerns, new legislation is required to shore up transparency and enforcement of the Constitution’s emoluments clause to prevent presidential self-enrichment; to establish limits on executive orders and presidential pardons; to provide protections for appointed inspector generals and non-partisan civil servants; and to mandate the release of tax returns by presidential candidates.

*        Third, a 9/11 type bi-partisan commission, staffed by former elected officials and scientists, ought to be convened to examine the pandemic and how best to prepare for future outbreaks. The United States spent upwards of 6 trillion dollars on its “War on Terror.” There have now been more pandemic deaths on one day than all of those lost to terror since 9/11.  Moreover, the pandemic is a wake-up-call to begin preparing for a wide range of other transnational threats, including global warming.

*        Fourth, one of the first orders of Congressional business in 2021 ought to be a long needed infrastructure bill designed to spur job growth decimated by the pandemic. Roads, bridges, the energy grid, public transit and broadband all require extensive repair, maintenance and replacement.  Infrastructure is a bipartisan issue and a negotiated package is well within reach.

*        Fifth, as a step toward reconciling the nation, a tribute/memorial is a top priority to honor those who lost their lives and those essential workers who served so bravely during the pandemic.  Along with medical personnel, this endeavor would highlight law enforcement officers and low-income workers who are often people of color, all of whom were called upon in large numbers to answer the bell.  These individuals heroically served our communities, nursing homes, public transportation systems and grocery stores during the worst of the lock-down.

*        Sixth, regulatory barriers to online tools that were relaxed during the pandemic should be made permanent. This would include permitting telemedicine for health care; full or partial tele-learning and online homework for those parents who choose this option in public schools and  revisions to higher education for students who seek on-line innovations to obtain a degree. Legislation should be considered to permit Congressional representatives to conduct business virtually from their homes during a national disaster.

*        Seventh, the pandemic exposed the failure of big pharma and global supply lines to meet the needs of the American public during a crisis.  The public sector must take a far more active and direct responsibility for the development and manufacture of critical medicines and materials, at a reasonable cost.

*        Eighth, both the pandemic and the upcoming election have again revealed China and Russia as global threats to United States security.  To meet these challenges the next administration should work to defend and upgrade political, economic and military multilateral international institutions.  No international body can work properly without the world’s most powerful nation playing its part.

*        Lastly, in connection with the call to increase corporate taxes back to pre-Trump levels, I propose a short-term compromise to raise revenue until the economy stabilizes.  Any corporation that saw increased profits as a direct result of the pandemic could be assessed at a one-time 50% rate on the increase, for the 2020 tax year.  If the government is providing billions to support companies that are failing because of economic collapse, it can certainly seek revenue from those that experienced a windfall.

There will be those that disagree with my priorities and the methods needed to achieve each goal. Democrats will call for a more progressive agenda and Republicans for less spending.

My view is that in order to repair our democratic institutions and to manage the great divide between conservative and progressive ideologies, finding mutual goals in 2021 will be of utmost importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“GOOD TROUBLE” VS. “DANGEROUS OUTSIDERS” IS NOW DIVIDING AMERICA

Many watchwords highlight the divide between our political tribes as the 2020 election approaches.  Over the past several weeks, “good trouble” as proclaimed by deceased Congressman John Lewis to describe nonviolent protest against authority in the face of inequality has become a popular phrase. It has been invoked to support the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and rallies protesting the murder of George Floyd. 

On the other side of the divide, “dangerous outsiders” has become a rallying cry of the President and his supporters. The term is used to convince voters that out of town lawless anarchists and violent agitators are appearing at local, peaceful demonstrations in an attempt to destroy democracy in America. This commentary will provide some context for “good trouble” and “dangerous outsiders” in past history and current events. 

This year celebrates the centennial anniversary of women’s constitutional right to vote.  The battle for women’s suffrage was long and arduous.  When Susan B. Anthony was arrested, tried and convicted for illegally voting in the national election of 1872, she addressed the jury: “You have trampled underfoot every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, my judicial rights, are all alike ignored." Anthony’s “good trouble” led to years of women’s activism before the 19^th Amendment was assured.

Martin Luther King Jr. took inspiration from Gandhi, drawing heavily on his principles of nonviolence in developing his own techniques to jumpstart social change. King’s “good trouble” throughout the South saw him and many of his supporters beaten and jailed. The result was America’s second reconstruction when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act dismantling official segregation; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibiting racist voting laws; and the 1968 Civil Rights Act ending discrimination in housing sales. Johnson also appointed Thurgood Marshall as the first African American on the Supreme Court.

 More recently, in regard to the BLM movement, Congressman John Lewis in one of his final speeches urged young Americans to: “Get into good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.” He was amazed, as were many first generation civil rights leaders, that BLM had grown from a twitter hash tag in 2013 into a worldwide decentralized organization. In addition, on June 6 alone, an estimated half a million people joining protests in 550 places in the United States to protest the murder of George Floyd.

While “good trouble” encourages Americans to leave the couch and social media behind, put on a mask, pick up a sign and take a stand for racial justice, something much more sinister is going on with presidential talk of “dangerous outsiders.” Trump and his Republican allies have doubled down on fear by invoking the four horsemen of the political apocalypse: chaos, disorder, domestic terrorism and anarchy. These efforts are designed to keep the red tribe locked down and fearful until it votes to return the President to office.

The invocation of outside agitators into issues of social change has a long and sorry history.  Pennsylvania mine owners spread stories that striking coal miners in 1869 were being “led by the nose” by outside exploiters.  During reconstruction in the South, the gossip was that but for those “northern mischievous outsiders”, the cordial southern way of life, loved by black and white alike, would endure forever.  A southern Jury concluded that the murder of Emmett Till in 1955 was a hoax dreamed up by northern outsiders to make Mississippi look bad.  By 1965, communist infiltrators from the north had become the outside force to worry about as the South was forced to integrate.

The nationwide protests that were ignited by the murder of George Floyd gave the President the ideal opportunity to revive a political campaign centering on “dangerous outsiders.” Early on, there were several days of looting and property damage associated with the protests. Most cities, like Pittsburgh, were able to identify the criminal element and bring them to justice. Extensive FBI investigations disclosed no coordinated plan to cause violence by any outside agitators or organizations.

The past several weeks have centered on the events in Portland, Oregon after Trump sent federal officers to protect the federal courthouse. Neither the Mayor of Portland nor the Governor of Oregon asked for or wanted federal troops. During the Portland episode, the White House narrative  continued to emphasize in a conference call to all 50 governors the use of “dominate force” against “dangerous outsiders”.

It was with great interest that I followed the dispatches of investigative journalist Nicholas Kristof. He reported from Portland for over a week during the height of the Portland disturbances.  While Trump and his minions spoke from Washington of a war zone and a city destroyed by an outside mob, Kristof witnessed local protestors trying to protect their city from violent federal intruders.  No one was trying to burn down the courthouse as suggested by the acting Director of Homeland Security.

The history of America is filled with examples of how effective it is for those seeking change to endure violence rather than to commit it.  Those seeking “good trouble’’ will always win out over violence caused by real or imagined “dangerous outsiders.”  This is especially true when the outsiders are federal troops intended to provoke violence in order to draw attention away from the pandemic and a tanking economy.

 

 

WE NEED AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC HEALTH

When it comes to addressing the pandemic, the federal government gets a grade of D- on its public health policy and a B+ on its monetary policy to help the economy. In explaining the poor grade on public health the daily news cycle has rightly focused on the absence of presidential leadership.  However, there is an underlying constitutional issue that must be considered, in conjunction with Trump’s mismanagement, when evaluating the nation’s response to the virus.

In my view, Republican and White House interpretation of federalism and the 10^th Amendment have adversely affected our public health response to the virus.  Conversely, the Federal Reserve was able to act without the constraints of federalism and received high marks for making decisions on monetary policy that were well timed and beneficial.

Under the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectfully, or to the people.” This form of government that calls for sharing of power by federal-state elected officials is known as federalism. 

From America’s founding until the time of the great depression in 1933, all levels of government were small by modern standards.  With the exception of war (including the civil war) and tariff policy, the states controlled most decisions important to its citizens. When faced with power sharing issues, the federal courts often invoked the “police power” granted in the 10^th Amendment, to provide the states with authority greater than the federal government.

From the great depression through the 1970s, all levels of government expanded their scope of governance to keep pace with industrialization and globalization.  However, more power shifted to Washington as the federal government took on new responsibilities commensurate with modernization.  To skirt the limitations of federalism, federal courts began citing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Congress has the right to regulate all commerce among the states) as justification for federal intervention. This approach was successful in nationalizing the law on everything from child labor laws to civil rights to Obama Care.

In recent years, the pendulum on federalism has swung back toward the states.  The Republican Party under the sway of ultra conservative elements has fully adopted the position of one of their revered leaders, President Ronald Reagan. He proclaimed: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” 

As a result, Republicans have fought to keep important issues like education, health care, public assistance and public health, firmly under state and local jurisdiction. Conservatives who favor small government know that the states must balance their budgets and have limited resources available for addressing these important societal needs.

There is not enough time or space to discuss all the ways in which the Trump administration managed to bungle the pandemic response.  For purposes of this discussion, he has often pointed to federalism and state responsibility in order to absolve his administration from tough decision making.  He made a political calculation that “red” state governors would  shut down economic activity slowly and open quickly to aid his reelection.  Moreover, if the states failed, he could place blame on the governors.

Other democratic nations, with national top-down decision making and no federalism to fall back on, took the opposite approach. These responsible leaders centralized efforts to close their entire countries early in the outbreak. They did not reopen until the curve of new cases was broken and further outbreaks manageable.  America is now in a very different place. Acting on their own, the fifty states resemble “whirling dervishes” creating mass chaos and dysfunction.

As a counterpoint to this public health melt-down, the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) has acted in spectacular fashion to effectively address the financial crisis of 2008 and during the current pandemic.  The actions taken in March include cutting the federal funds interest rate; purchasing massive amounts of securities; direct lending to banks with a temporary relaxation of regulations; supporting loans to small, medium size businesses and non-profits; and direct lending to state and municipal governments.

Through these bold monetary actions taken by the Fed a major economic disaster was avoided.  Unfortunately, if America is forced into a second extended shutdown because of the mismanagement of the first, the Federal Reserve’s ability to repeat its monetary rescue mission is limited.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress in 1913.  It is governed by a board of governors appointed by the President. The Fed received a mandate from Congress to remain an independent entity of the federal government, insulated from undue political pressure or short term political considerations. The mandate has worked well to ensure that the Fed can effectively pursue its statutory goals based on objective analysis and data.

The past few months make it abundantly clear that it is time for Congress to create an entity similar to the Fed to provide central control over public health emergencies.  Existing federal departments and agencies with public health responsibilities report directly to the President and have lost all credibility in addressing pandemics.  Our recent national health crisis is no different from a monetary crisis. One independent entity is required for public health.  Politicized mismanagement under the guise of federalism must never be repeated.