A DIVIDED AMERICA CELEBRATES A BIRTHDAY

 

July 4, 2026, will mark a major event in the nation’s history. It is the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and our landmark semi-quincentennial birthday.

In less divisive times, the focus of the event would be on the meaning of the American Revolution, how we have grown as a nation, and where we go from here. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has attempted some positive spin by proclaiming, “2026 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to foster unity, celebrate our nation’s progress, and to identify our goals for the next 250 years.”

However, next year, there will be little unity, sparse agreement on the nation’s progress, and major arguments on future goals. Finding any common ground cannot happen in an environment where there are constant deployments of National Guard to American cities, masked ICE agents hauling immigrants off the streets, and American fighter jets blowing fishing boats out of the water. To add to the tension, there will be critical and contentious mid-term election campaigns occurring across the country.

Community civic organizations will make attempts to provide exhibits, parades, lectures, and picnics. Fireworks, hotdogs, and patriotic costumes will be on full display. But museums and educators across the country who receive federal funding, are confused and often terrified about what to present in explaining the Revolution and its 250-year aftermath.

This is because the Trump Administration holds the purse strings and wants to present its own MAGA version of our history, without debate. In the months before the event, the national institutions that would normally take the lead on planning for the nation’s birthday celebration have either come under attack or been dissolved. Trump has fired the Archivist of the United States and the Librarian of Congress. He has demanded that the Smithsonian Institute bow to his curatorial bidding.  The National Endowment for the Arts has been gutted. National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been defunded.

To replace these respected historians and institutions, Trump has signed an executive order establishing himself as chair of a White House “Taskforce 250.” The taskforce’s website touts a series of videos produced by Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian institution in Michigan. One of the videos seeks to compare Trump with Lincoln.

A few ventures have survived the Trump purge and successfully presented an unvarnished story of our improbable beginning and history. At the privately owned Philadelphia nonprofit, the Museum of the American Revolution, the exhibit “Declaration’s Journey” opened on October 18^th. To set the tone it features two borrowed artifacts. First is the Windsor chair in which Jefferson is believed to have written the Declaration of Independence. Second, a rusted metal prison bench, from which Martin Luther King wrote his “Letter from a Brimingham Jail.”

The six-part, twelve-hour Ken Burns PBS documentary, “The American Revolution” somehow escaped Trump’s authoritarian censors. In the opinion of Harvard historian Jill Lepore, “It restores truth and sanity to American history.” The Trump Administration has made it clear that it wants a clean and neat national origin story that praises its version of the good guys. “The American Revolution” documentary is not that story.

Lapore praises Burns for his ability to present “a political carrousel, a teeming moving, terrifying story, relating a chain of events forged in bravery and betrayal, of ferocity and torment, of ambition and terror, and yet a chain held together by a single organizing idea, of possibility.” In many respects, the Burns documentary is an act of defiance by PBS that pushes back against Trump’s white-washed version of history.

Amid our ongoing cultural divide, what important messages should come from the story fostered by the American Revolution? First, our nation is based on a written creed, not on a single ethnicity or religion. Citizens with ancestors who go back many generations are no more American than recent ones. Unlike European nations there is no “fatherland” to explain the formation of the state.

Second, now is the time to reflect and study the Founding Fathers and their legacy. Each of them has been the focus of outstanding biographies from reputable historians in recent years.

Overall, the Trump presidency would stun and anger the Founders who were reacting to the abuses of a monarch and his “accumulation of all powers in the same hands” (Federalist Paper No.47) They conceived of a decentralized and restrained executive, not an authoritarian Trump, supported by a weak Congress and ideologically driven Supreme Court.

Third, for those who believe in the central position of race in the national story, there is the New York Times “1619 Project.” This Pulitzer winning historical study argues that for 250 years, slavery has profoundly shaped every aspect of American society, from its founding principles and economy to its culture.

Lastly, if our semi-quincentennial birthday gives new meaning and momentum to the “No-Kings” movement against the president, much has been accomplished. What better way to breathe new life into our Declaration and its principles?

I only wish I could fit the following words, written by Thomas Paine, on a tee-shirt or protest sign. “Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it. But I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by searing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HOLIDAY SEASON IS A RESET FOR OUR EMOTIONS

 

The holiday season represents many different things. For Christianity, it celebrates the birth of the centerpiece of the faith. For Judaism, it recognizes an important historical event. Kwanzaa is a cultural holiday that celebrates African American and Pan-African culture. For retailers, it constitutes 20 percent of annual sales.

For those of us seeking a respite from the negativity in the world, it offers a welcome reset for our emotions. It takes a holiday season that recognizes the joy of children, surrounded by comfort food, friends, and family to have this wonderful effect.

My holiday commentary offers three short stories that may help to reset emotions. These examples take place in three very different and unusual settings. They occur in Central Africa, within a Fortune 500 corporation, and in a courtroom that was virtually made-up for Veterans Day. May these offerings engender a sense of hope and joy.

The Albino African. My first selection comes from the travels and pen of New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof. He reminds us that “People in the poorest countries are often, of necessity, masters of strength, adaptability, and resilience.”

Twenty-three-year-old Chantale Zuzi was born with albinism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Her body lacks melanin). Chantale’s maternal grandmother labeled her cursed and wanted to kill her. Her parents intervened and Chantale survived. In the village school other students refused to touch her.

At age 13, Chantale’s parents were murdered by another ethnic group. She became a refugee in Uganda, helping to care for her nine siblings. Chantale’s albinism again placed her in danger, and she fled to Nairobi, Kenya. Fate intervened, and she was resettled in the United States because of the continued threats against her.

In 2017, at age 17, Chantale was adopted by a Massachusetts couple. After three years of learning English, she took advanced courses and entered Wellesley College. Following graduation, she has expanded her nonprofit, “Refugee Can Be,” to lift up young girls in the Uganda refugee camps. Kristof concludes his piece by saying, “Talent is universal, even if opportunity is not. Sprinkle some education on village girls, and the world can be transformed.”

The Corporation with a Heart.  I recently became aware of a corporation, Tyson Foods, that goes above and beyond the business world of seeking profit to demonstrate a profound concern for the well-being of its employees. Tyson Foods has a heart.

Animal rights activists and ethical vegans might initially disagree with my assessment. After all, Tyson Foods is a massive company, considered the world's second-largest animal protein producer and the largest in North America, with 133,000 employees. It produces roughly one of every five pounds of chicken, pork, and beef consumed in the U.S. and has sales of over $53 billion. 

A nonprofit organization called Jobs for the Future has estimated that 60% of front-line workers in Tyson processing plants are immigrants and refugees.  Within one plant, more than 25 different languages are spoken. While the company requires all employees to be legally authorized to work in the United States, Trump’s immigration policies have presented challenges.

Tyson created a program of dedicated chaplains to provide employees and their families with compassionate care for their physical and psychological needs, regardless of the employee’s ethnicity or religious beliefs. The chaplains are “faith friendly,” but do not preach. Tyson provides nearly 100 chaplains in more than 150 facilities across 22 states. These resolute individuals, trained in clinical pastoral education, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and other psychological assessments, offer support to all employees.

In a statement describing the program, the past Director Karen Diefendorf, explains, “Some days, they visit a team member’s family who is sick, or maybe help a team member in need of community resources like housing or transportation. The chaplaincy is an important benefit that provides a sense of comfort during high-anxiety situations, while also helping team members celebrate their greatest wins—either at work or at home.”

The Made-up Virtual Courtroom. My last story is more of a fairy tale. Around Veterans Day this past November, a story appeared on social media that fact checkers could not document as true. An 88-year-old Vietnam veteran was seated in a wheelchair before a stern judge known for his strict rulings. The city attorney presented a long list of housing violations and unpaid fines and requested an eviction of the veteran from his home.

As the man sat trembling the Judge took a recess and left the bench. When the judge returned, he announced to the defendant that he had contacted the local VFW and the county’s veteran’s fund. All fines were dismissed. In addition, the judge had contacted a local construction union that agreed to make repairs to the veteran’s home. As the man was overcome with joy, the judge came down from the bench and hugged him, thanking him for his service.

This apparently fictional story attracted me because of its application of a moral precept made famous by Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe in their 2011 book, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to do the Right Thing. The authors urge each of us to learn to do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time rather than to blindly follow unbending laws and established procedures. The message is, “Wise people know when and how to make the exception to every rule.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONER’S ILL-ADVISED CONTRACT TERMINATION

 

Before diving into this inaugural “point-counterpoint” commentary I want to thank Dave Ball for proposing the idea. I also want to thank the Observer Reporter editorial staff for agreeing to provide topics and a monthly forum.

Dave and I have contrasting political views but we both agree on the importance of presenting topics important to the Washington County community. We seek to do so using proven facts and with civility. We hope that readers will respond to this “point-counterpoint” approach with support and comments.

The recently terminated economic development contract between Washington County and the Chamber has been prominently featured in this newspaper over the past two years. Before Diana Irey Vaughan retired as commissioner, she joined with Larry Maggi in September 2023 to finalize the contract in the amount of $1.6 million over 10 years. The contract called for an initial 5-year term followed by a 5-year option period.  

The agreement required the Chamber to provide staffing, plans and updates on economic development for Washington County.  Nick Sherman voted against the initial contract. When he and Electra Janis became majority commissioners, they began a crusade to undermine the deal.

In my view, a careful reading of the contract makes it clear that the Commissioners’ ill-advised decision to terminate the agreement eliminated a successful and important resource, with the region’s second largest Chamber. The decision to cancel, without one year’s notice or evidence of a breach on the Chamber’s part, also obligated the County to pay substantial liquidated damages of 50%. The Chamber has announced it will seek the contract’s designated penalty payment of $460,000 from County taxpayers, unless Sherman and Janis reconsider.

The agreement’s intent was to establish a “cooperative arrangement” where the Chamber and County work together to foster economic development and growth. The contract commits the County to “provide assistance and support as may be requested, including coordination of activities among public and private parties and in seeking grants for economic development.”

Instead, the two Republican commissioners have fought the intent of the contract at every opportunity. Despite having seats on the Chamber’s board, they have failed to regularly attend meetings, ignored Chamber reports, and offered little constructive input on advancing this highly successful project to promote economic development.

Notwithstanding the Commissioners’ intransigence, there is no evidence that the Chamber has not met its obligations under the contract. These include the promotion and marketing Washington County to prospective employers, providing assistance, the maintenance of a database of sites for new businesses, and the hiring of qualified staff.

The County’s payment responsibilities are clearly defined. These include liquidated damages in the event the county unilaterally terminates the arrangement without the designated notice or good cause.

It is important to point out that while the five year “initial term” of this contract was new, the County and Chamber have entered into similar one-year economic development agreements since 1999. Until Sherman and Janis became majority commissioners, disagreements were minimal and this “County-public,” “Chamber-private”, partnership for economic development reaped over-the-moon results for Washington County.

In a statement concerning the contract termination, Sherman announced, “At this time I feel it would be irresponsible to fund a contract that we’ve had zero return on our investment for the money.” However, a very different picture emerges from the 2024, Southwestern Pennsylvania Business Investment Scorecard for Washington County.

Last year, over $35 million in new capital investments were secured by the Chamber for our community. The Chamber was only paid $140 thousand to perform its contractual obligations, a significant return on investment. Had Sherman and Janis fulfilled the county’s contract responsibilities and cooperated, the results could have been even better.

In their search for excuses to end the agreement, the Commissioners have cited the need for “budget cuts.” But this contract was in no way dependent on funding from the recent state or federal budget impasses. Moreover, no budget cuts to other less productive county programs have been announced. Without the Chamber’s work product, the County will be obligated to develop and fund an internal economic development program at great expense.

I am not disputing the Commissioner’s right to oversee how funds are managed or which projects are prioritized. But the actions of Sherman and Janis to terminate this long-standing, productive arrangement to provide economic development, was imprudent and will be costly.

The citizens of Washington county deserve better cooperation between its elected officials and the business community; not a quagmire of no collaboration, made-up excuses and unsupported finger-pointing.

THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP & MAGA

 

Now that we are almost a year into Trump’s second term, it is an appropriate time to stand back from the head scratching and frustration to pose an important question. Where did Trumpism and MAGA come from? I am not referring to the man himself, but rather to the ideological and political movement that supports the president.

The contrast between Trump’s first term in office and today’s version is striking. The years 2016-2020 were characterized by internal dysfunction. Moreover, there were enough adults in the room to save the country from Trump’s worst impulses. The first administration’s inability to formulate coherent policies, the constant turnover of cabinet members, and the impeachment proceedings all slowed him down.

Trump learned from his earlier debacle and began laying the groundwork for a different approach well before he won reelection. He enlisted the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 to provide a road map for a second term. The president hit the ground running with a more ideologically developed and institutionally robust movement.

He now surrounds himself with sycophants that never say no. His advisers all believe: 1) that foreign policy is transactional and does not require long-term goals; 2) that the free movement of goods is not acceptable; and 3) that the free movement of people is even less acceptable.

Trumpism and MAGA did not begin with the Heritage Foundation. The ideological position which supports a white Christian, isolated America, empty of as much diversity as possible, has a long and entrenched history.

These views can be traced back to early colonial Puritan beliefs, followed by the vision of 19^th century American exceptionalism, disengaged from the world. Manifest Destiny held that the U.S. had a divinely ordained mission to expand across the continent. Before the Civil War, slavery supported white nationalism. Following black emancipation, a segregated South kept the ideology alive. Over time, these ideas coalesced to create a movement that resulted in the Heritage Foundation and the alt-right.

Since WWII, a number of movements and individuals have been important in the making of Donald Trump. A new book with an unusual title helps provide historical background into the intellectual origins of today’s alt-right movement. Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right, by Quinn Slobodian outlines the genesis of right-wing ideology with a colorful cast of characters.

The book introduces Friedrich August von Hayek, an Austrian-born British economist and philosopher. Hayek (1899-1992) had considerable influence on a variety of political and economic thinkers, including the alt-right.

Slobodian traces a history of ideas inspired by Hayek based on “hardwired human nature, hard borders, and hard money” (gold or silver). The early movement “forged an alliance with racial psychologists, neo-confederates, ethno-nationalists, and goldbugs” that would become known as the alt-right.

Historians have linked the making of Donald Trump to several national politicians from America’s recent past. Gillis Harp, a retired professor of history at Grove City College draws a comparison with George Wallace in his recent commentary, “The first Trump ran for president in 1968.” Harp notes that in this Vietnam dominated election year “political violence and rapid social change opened the door to a candidate well outside of the mainstream.”

In a familiar theme, white working-class Americans became alienated from the conventional political order. Harp points out that “Wallace drew support from Northern blue-collar voters who were attracted to his folksy populism, social conservatism, and frontal attack on the political, journalistic, and educational establishment.” Wallace exploited “cultural war” issues. He campaigned on “taking the handcuffs off the police.”

“Make America Great Again” is not a Trump invention. Ronald Reagan made the same promise during his 1980 presidential campaign. Reagan was the first presidential candidate to use the slogan on campaign merchandise. Reagan and Trump are similar in their shared backgrounds in the entertainment industry and their strong communication skills. Both successfully tapped into a narrative that someone from outside the traditional political establishment could capture the presidency.

Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent in 1992, provides another comparison to Trump due to their shared similarities as wealthy political outsiders. Both men ran anti-establishment populist campaigns focused on objections to free trade and government corruption. Like Trump, Perot called for a tougher stand on immigration. He also employed a Trump-like, blunt, communication style that appealed to voters not happy with “smooth-talking” Bill Clinton. My father, like many other life-long Democrats who always supported the Party’s nominee, voted for Perot.

In the online Politico Magazine, editor John Harris, wrote a feature article, Ross Perot: The Father of Trump. Harris reminds us that “Perot was a secular prophet who in his time anticipated and personified the disruptive currents of the present. Idiosyncrasy, or at a minimum an eagerness to break standard political molds was part of Perot’s charm.”

Harris concludes, “Perot’s campaign revealed clear evidence of a constituency in national politics, radicalized in its disaffection with the major parties and with a nagging sense of American decline. This constituency did not go away after Perot did.”

On a daily basis, we are gob-smacked by the barrage of statements, executive orders and policies issued by the Trump administration. Clearly, our political past was a prelude to our present predicament. What changed was the Republican Party’s willingness to capitulate to Trump and make him a mainstream candidate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM PROVIDES IMPORTANT GUIDEPOSTS

 

On Oct. 27, Tom Flickinger presented Observer-Reporter readers with a political commentary entitled, “What is socialism and has it ever worked?” I found it interesting that Flickinger would choose this moment to debunk socialism when Donald Trump and his MAGA followers are firmly in charge. Before the Nov. election, aside from Vt. Senator Bernie Sanders, the avowed number of democratic socialists serving in office represented very few voices in a very large country.

When democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defeated the more traditional Andrew Cuomo (running as an independent) to become mayor of New York City, Republican motivations became clearer. Going into next year’s mid-term campaigns, based on Mamdani’s election, the plan is to label all Democrats as “dangerous socialists.” Republicans are inventing a scary diversion to take attention away from the most mean-spirited, anti-democratic administration in the nation’s history.

The truth is that most Democrats, like most Americans, would label themselves democratic capitalists, not democratic socialists. The United States is a country that believes in the former while often borrowing ideas from the latter, like recent agreement on the importance of “affordability”.

It is important to understand the differences in the two ideologies. Democratic capitalism maintains a private, free-market economy while using democratic processes to regulate it and to provide a social safety net.

In contrast, democratic socialism calls for greater social ownership, worker control, and gradual redistribution of wealth. Its adherents use democratic means, never violence, to achieve these goals. 

Key goals of democratic socialism include: 1) Addressing inequality 2) Providing universal access to necessities like healthcare, education, and childcare 3) Giving ordinary citizens a greater voice in the decisions that affect their working lives and communities 4) Managing the economy with democratic goals, not just profit-making 5) Advocating for an environmentally sound economy. Many Americans support some or all of these objectives without realizing they are basic pillars of democratic socialism.

In our 250-year history, the United States has relied on democratic capitalism to contain free-markets by enacting laws and implementing safeguards to prevent abuses. Our country has never strayed far from its democratic capitalism roots. Unlike Europeans and Scandinavians, Americans are too enthralled with owning and accumulating private property and inherited wealth. However, democratic socialist principles like progressive taxes, civil rights legislation, and the Affordable Care Act have encouraged equality.

For the past year, the policies of President Trump and his right-wing administration have ambushed democratic capitalism by attacking democracy and adopting policies of unregulated capitalism. In many respects, unregulated capitalism of the wealthy is a larger threat to democracy than unregulated socialism of the masses.

I have no disagreement with Flickinger’s conclusion, in his criticism of socialism, that “Most countries experienced severe economic decline and authoritarianism, while others, which blend socialism with elements of capitalism, achieved greater social stability and prosperity.”

The examples he cites of failed socialism were either based on totalitarian communism, or were outright dictatorships. None of his failed examples were democratic. However, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland) that employ many elements of democratic socialism have been highly successful. These nations have strong social safety nets, higher taxes, and a commitment to social welfare programs. They operate within a regulated market economy and democratic framework. 

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that combines democratic governance with public ownership of important societal functions like healthcare and education. It encourages economic equality. Over the years in times of crisis, the country has adopted elements of this philosophy to move the country forward. FDR did so with his social engineering in the “New Deal” and LBJ likewise with his domestic “Great Society.”

There are two important points to emphasize. First, it is time to stand firm against Republican efforts to brand Democrats as “democratic socialists.” In fact, the “large D” Democratic Party is hard at work attempting to save “small d” democratic capitalism from a cruel authoritarian president.

Second, we should stop maligning democratic socialism and seek to understand what it has to offer our pluralistic democracy. There is much to learn from its guideposts. There are elements of democratic socialism that can help the nation recover from the recent economic and social carnage caused by the Trump administration.

For those looking for a short book on democratic socialism, what it stands for, and how it can address societal problems, I highly recommend “Ill Fares the Land” by historian Tony Judt (1948-2010).  He carefully lays out the “ills” of modern society and what democratic socialism can do to address them.

Judt admits that “democratic socialism is a hard sell in the United States.” Conservatives have incorrectly equated it with communism and argued it would replace constitutional liberties. Judt believes the problem is how we talk about it. Americans seem to forget the past laws we have implemented to expand social policy in favor of equality.

One reason Judt wrote the book was to explain the difference in liberalism (tolerance for dissenting attitudes) and social democracy (tolerance with the possibility of collective action for the collective good). Judt believed one key is teaching young people the value of moving away from material self-interest toward a better way to organize our lives.

In the final analysis, democratic socialism is simply a refreshing way to view the world through different lenses. Following the Trump administration’s decimation of our democratic institutions, we may again need to call on its wisdom.

 

 

 

 

 

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS ARE HURTING THE ECONOMY

 

There is more to the immigration story than the constant images of masked ICE agents chasing people of Hispanic heritage through parking lots and forcibly removing them from vehicles, schools, and workplaces. These operations, using racial profiling and aggressive military tactics, lack basic due process protections and require a full-throated protest. However, what is escaping the attention of many Americans are the negative economic effects that the Trump immigration restrictions are having on the economy.

Two weeks ago, my commentary addressed the tariff barriers that are being imposed across specific industries and against countries with whom the president has a political axe to grind. This commentary will discuss the second part of the Trump strategy to turn America into an isolated bunker at a substantial economic cost. His immigration policies are keeping talented foreigners from entering the country and is deporting those who are productive workers.

According to the Economist, until Trump took office in 2025, in every year since the 1930s, more people arrived in America than moved abroad. America’s borders have now been closed to the “huddled masses yearning to be free.”

The one astonishing exception has been a group of right-wing, White South Africans who claim to be victims of racial discrimination. Under a special program they have been resettled. This appears to be a politically motivated effort rather than a humanitarian one.

A recent report issued by the American Immigration Council concludes, “The first six months of the second Trump administration have arguably seen the most significant changes to U.S. immigration policy in the nation’s history. Taken one by one, as they have been announced or revealed, the effect can be overwhelming.”

National surveys conducted after recent ICE raids on workplaces and the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops by the Trump administration reveal the public’s changing views. Many Americans have softened their opposition to legal immigration in the space of a year. Overall, just one in three Republicans (34%) want to see lower legal immigration levels today compared to 50% last year. Regarding undocumented immigrants, a CBS/YouGov poll conducted on July 16-18, 2025 shows 51% of Americans overall now disapprove of Trump’s program of deportation, which is up from 41% disapproval in February.

This recent history provides background to review the economic fallout from the Trump immigration policies. This issue has not received the same attention as the moral/legal objections.

H1-B Visas. The H-1B visa category allows employers to petition for highly educated/skilled foreign professionals to temporarily work in “specialty occupations.”  These jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent and include positions like civil engineers, software developers, and researchers. Typically, the initial duration of an H-1B visa classification is three years but may be extended.

The administration claims that this type of visa displaces American workers and suppresses wages. On Sept. 19, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order mandating that foreign nationals seeking to enter the Unites States as H-1B temporary workers must pay a $100,000 fee.

In fact, studies have found that H-1B workers complement and strengthen employment opportunities for native-born workers in the United States. Unemployment rates are relatively low in occupations that hire large numbers of these workers. Economists have sounded the alarm that this astronomical fee will likely hurt the U.S. economy by causing a “brain drain” of qualified workers who will now move on to other countries.

Reduced GDP and Larger Deficits.  The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects that a four-year deportation program that removes 19% of migrant workers per year would cut our GDP by at least 1% over that period. Reduced tax revenues from fewer workers and the $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement in the “Big Beautiful Bill” will expand the federal deficit.

Job Losses for Native-Born Americans and Labor Shortages.  Rather than focus on the “worst of the worst,” the Trump administration has increasingly targeted worksites for immigration raids, picking up delivery drivers, restaurant employees, farmworkers, meatpackers, and other essential employees.

Because immigrant and native-born workers often have complementary jobs, there is a ripple effect when immigrants are deported. Consider the restaurants, construction companies, and farm operations that will close or reduce operations because of the inability to fill positions. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that deporting 4 million people over four years could result in nearly 6 million total job losses, including 2.6 million job losses for Americans.

Before deportations, an aging population and lower birth rates were already causing a shortage in labor-intensive jobs. As Trump’s efforts ramp up, restaurant, construction, landscaping, agriculture, and food processing businesses will experience increased labor shortages.

Trump needs to take off his blinders and consider what other right-wing populist leaders are doing to strengthen their countries through immigration. For example, in Italy, ultra conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni intends to issue 165,000 low-skilled work visas next year. Even Trump’s authoritarian pal, Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, has recently embraced a guest worker scheme permitting 78,000 non-EU migrants to work in Hungary.

Four of the seven corporate leaders of America’s most profitable technology companies were born abroad. They entered America through the immigration programs that Trump is attacking. A smaller population and workforce will constrain our economy. It will devastate labor-intensive work forces including on farms (50%) and construction companies (25%). Trump’s push for net-zero migration is ill-conceived and bad for the economy.

 

 

 

 

WHY ELECTIONS MATTER

 

The well-regarded Chicago journalist, Sydney J. Harris, once observed “Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be, whether they are the powers that ought to be.” After the Nov. 4 elections, this observation was the ideal reflection to brighten the day of demoralized Democrats. In Washington County, across Pennsylvania, and throughout the country, despite an authoritarian president who ignores the rule of law and who attacks democratic principles, we were all reminded that “elections matter.”

Voting is the paramount democratic tool we have to help us build a community and nation that reflects our values and voices. The recent election results permitted concerned Americans to reimagine a resilient democracy, even when the “present powers that be” are attempting to change the rules that govern our constitutional republic. With impartial elections, we collectively get to choose the officials that make the decisions that affect our lives.

First, consider Washington County. Republicans have consistently won the latest election cycles due to a significant advantage in voter registration.

In the recent county election for controller, the ultimate political irony occurred. The Republican appointed Controller Heather Sheatler, herself a Republican, won the Democratic primary in a write-in effort. She went on to defeat the endorsed Republican candidate, Pat Phillps, 53% to 47%.

This result would not have been possible unless a number of registered Republicans ignored the “D” on the ballot beside Sheatler’s name. They voted for her based on personal observations, their values, and news reports commending her job performance.

We should all be proud of the Republican voters who were open to considering Sheatler’s record as a public servant. As controller, she consistently honored her financial watchdog responsibilities. She consistently placed the taxpayers before partisan loyalty. She refused to follow the demands or to approve the actions of the Sherman/Janis administration or of the local Republican party.  

In the race for the statewide judicial position on Superior Court, Washington County Common Pleas Judge Brandon Neuman, also broke through the local Republican registration advantage. Neuman, running as a Democrat, captured 52% of the county vote (54.6% statewide).

Local Republicans again considered factors beyond their party affiliation. These included Neuman’s name recognition, performance as a local judge, and the rare opportunity to place a favorite son on the statewide court. As reported in the Observer-Reporter, “Neuman is the first judge from Washington County to ever win election to a statewide appellate court, etching his name in history.”

Lastly, the local Republican party organized a partisan effort to unseat Washington Common Pleas Judge John DiSalle in his retention election. Once more, informed Republicans did not follow the party line. By a 57 to 43% margin, DiSalle will remain on the bench for another decade.

Throughout Pennsylvania, the statewide retention elections for three Democratic Supreme Court Justices were also great news for those who oppose the MAGA movement. Retention elections are typically low-interest, low-spending affairs. These political calculations changed last year when the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin made national headlines.

This year, the three Pennsylvania retentions became historically expensive campaigns that focused on some of the most contentious issues facing the nation. The Democratic majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had handed down critical decisions including support for mail-in voting, abortion rights, and the rejection of a congressional map that it found unfairly benefited the GOP.

These decisions brought fierce opposition from President Trump and MAGA.  At least $20 million in Republican campaign spending, and an intense mailer and ad campaign were launched by Republican groups.  Despite this all-out attack, each Democratic Supreme Court Justice captured at least 63% of the vote.

Nationally, one thing was clear — up and down the ballot, it was a big night for Democrats. There were Democratic blow-out victories in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races. Many of the most conservative counties in Virginia, that had heavily supported Trump in 2024, turned Democratic.

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a man with a Muslim name, an African past, and an Indian lineage, won the contest for mayor. Mamdani is also an avowed democratic socialist. He appealed to young voters by adopting a message of affordability in a city that has long been viewed as too expensive for the average American.  

In California, voters approved a plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts. In this state referendum of national significance, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom led an effort to counter attempts in several red states to increase the Republican House of Representatives majority.

 

Why do this year’s elections give Democrats hope for the 2026 mid-terms and the 2028 presidential race? Their chosen nominees won with promises to lower costs for ordinary Americans. After the election, Trump responded to reporters in the White House, “I don’t want to hear about the affordability.” Similar to President Biden, Trump tried to use data to insist the economy has improved. Unlike the prior administration, Trump’s economic claims were often exaggerated or false.

More generally, voters delivered the message that by-and-large, they were not comfortable with the president’s narcissism or the “meanness” in his style of governing.

No one can predict whether the rising backlash against the president will continue into the mid-terms and beyond. The 2025 elections were a warning for Republicans and provided signs of recovery for Democrats. Only one fact is known – because we are a democracy, the next elections will matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

MORE TARIFFS, HIGHER PRICES, FEWER SUPPLY CHAINS

 

After regaining the White House, President Trump began claiming unprecedented tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On April 4, 2025, Trump sent international and domestic stock markets into a tailspin by invoking this emergency law to impose "reciprocal tariffs" on imports from select countries not subject to other sanctions. A universal 10% tariff took effect on April 5, with higher rates indiscriminately announced in the following weeks.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This includes the authority to impose tariffs. Most constitutional law experts agree, and so far, three lower courts have ruled, that the IEEPA gives Trump no power to impose tariffs unless there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” a condition not found in this case.  On November 5, the US Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments about the legality of Trump’s tariffs. A final decision is not expected until June or July of 2026.

Over the past seven months, Trump’s tariffs on various countries (friend and foe) and industries (steel, smart phones, aluminum, cars, car parts, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals) have gone up or down without warning, often based on Trump’s political whims.

Tariff policy has become so unpredictable that financial analysts coined the acronym “TACO”, which stands for “Trump always chickens out.” This term describes his habit of announcing a tariff and then delaying the actual implementation if the stock market reacted badly. Under recent pronouncements, India and Brazil both face a 50% on most goods. Canada is at 35%, and China temporarily 47%, reduced from 100%, after the recent meeting with president Xi.

Most economists do not favor tariffs. Trade barriers raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods/services. Historically, tariffs often result in lower income, reduced employment, lower economic output, and higher inflation.

Following World War II, the United States favored an open trading system that rejected protectionist trade policies. The consensus was that international policymakers should promote free trade and the economic benefits it brings over imposing barriers to trade.

The Trump administration has rewritten these rules and turned U.S. trade policy on its head. At an average effective rate of around 18 percent, American import taxes are now the highest they have been in nearly a century.

What are the Trump administration’s justifications for imposing tariffs? According to the White House Fact Sheet: 1) The trade deficit is “an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.” Many economists disagree and The Council on Foreign Relations responds, “The trade deficit is a sign of a strong, attractive economy where foreigners invest heavily.  It allows the U.S. to consume more goods than it produces. It reflects efficient global capital markets, supports domestic investment, and provides a wider variety of goods for consumers.”

2) Tariffs encourage “Made in America.” Economists point out that this reasoning involves both potential benefits and significant drawbacks. Tariffs can support specific domestic industries. This is a reason to invoke “targeted tariffs’ on critical industries like steel rather than on entire countries. However, on the whole, tariffs lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses, trigger international retaliation, and cause broad economic disruptions.

3) Tariffs encourage the reshoring of American manufacturing. Politico points out that “President Donald Trump is pushing manufacturers to bring factories home. His policies are punishing them when they try.” Politico explains, “Tariffs meant to protect American producers are raising the cost of the very materials they need to expand their footprint in the U.S.”

4) Tariffs are a boost to government revenue. This reason is not listed on the Trump White House Fact Sheet, but is frequently brought up by the President as a reason for his tariff policy. The Republican “Big Beautiful Bill” kept taxes low for the wealthy and increases the federal deficit. To negligibly help plug this largest ever, 38 $trillion deficit, the Budget Lab at Yale recently calculated, “The U.S. has collected roughly $165 billion to $200 billion in tariff revenue for this fiscal year.”

The Trump administration fails to point out that the more effective a tariff becomes at restricting imports, the less revenue it generates. Moreover, Trump’s claim that the exporting country pays the tariff is not true. U.S. importers pay the tariffs to U.S. customs. These costs are passed on, to U.S. consumers through higher prices, or absorbed by U.S. businesses.  Americans ultimately bear the economic burden.

Recent research has pointed out another massive disadvantage to tariffs – supply chain disruptions. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Shannon O’Neal, Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Affairs, concludes, “The Trump administration’s tariffs exclude the United States from the overall economic boost global supply chains provide…Unless American companies can buy parts from foreign firms at a reasonable cost and locate some of their operations abroad, they will struggle to make products as well, as cheaply, and as quickly as foreign competitors that are connected to global supply chains.”

O’Neal is most concerned about the ability of American defense contractors to “go it alone” without access to international supply chains.

Following seven months of new tariffs, the overall economic analysis indicates a failing "report card" for their impact on the U.S. economy. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be too late in reversing Trump’s illegal imposition of these harmful tariffs. This will restore prudent guardrails rather than insanity into American trade policy.

 

 

  

DEMOCRACY VS. CAPITALISM SPLITS THE NATION

 

With the constant barrage of news, it is easy to focus on the President’s newest outrage. Less obvious, permanent damage is being done to our republic’s founding principle of “democratic capitalism.” If we took a “social MRI” of the United States we would discover that, below the surface, democracy and capitalism, once compatible, have taken radically different paths.

Democracy and capitalism are no longer working together to maintain our republic. In today’s world of politics and economics, democracy is for Democrats, unregulated capitalism is for Republicans.

This conclusion helps explain why so many traditional Republicans continue to hold their noses and support Trump’s narcissistic personality and populist, authoritarian policies. For them, the Trump administration’s economic policies have added to their wealth and power. This outweighs significant losses to democratic principles and institutions.

When our country was founded, democracy and capitalism comfortably coexisted. There was limited representative government designed to protect property rights. Unlike Europe, most white male citizens in America held a "stake" in society as property owners and supported capitalism. Majority rule was restrained. The colonial system was balanced by an economy that, while fundamentally capitalist, had not yet developed the vast economic inequalities seen today.  
During the American Industrial Revolution, democracy and capitalism were in a more complex and often tense relationship. The period was defined by economic laissez-faire policies and rampant corruption. Ultimately, government intervention and social reforms won out to address the worst excesses of industrial capitalism.   

Following World War II, democratic capitalism flourished. The middle-class soldiers returning from battle were rewarded by the government for their sacrifices. The period was characterized by unprecedented economic growth and expanding consumerism.  Government programs helped the middle class economically improve.  While capitalism brought prosperity and stability, it was also a period marked by strong labor movements and public investment into important social priorities. 

To examine the unexpected breakdown between democracy and capitalism over the past several decades, I will turn to Martin Wolf, one of journalism’s most influential commentators on economics. Wolf trained at Oxford and worked at the World Bank before becoming the chief editorial writer for the prestigious London Financial Times. His two most recent books come to opposite conclusions regarding democratic capitalism.

First, in his 2004 treatise, Why Globalization Works, Wolf explained the then prevalent economic consensus following the West’s 1991 victory in the Cold War. He confidently stated that, “democratic capitalism is not only a coherent form of social organization but in fact the best one.” In 2004, Wolf was adamant that a market economy in a democracy was the only means for “giving individual human beings the opportunity to seek what they desire in life.” Most Republicans then supported democratic capitalism.

Twenty years later, in his latest, 2024 book, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, Wolf’s analysis and conclusions are quite different. He now believes that the global financial crisis of 2007-09 turned discontent into seething anger at governing elites and caused a loss of trust in the system. His present diagnosis is, “Neither politics nor the economy will function without a substantial degree of honesty, trustworthiness, self-restraint, truthfulness and loyalty to shared institutions. These values have run into crisis all over the world.” Wolf’s hard to dispute conclusion follows: “Without ethical elites, democracy becomes a demagogic spectacle hiding a plutocratic [government by the wealthy] reality.”

Traditional Republicans appear to be “all in” with this state of affairs. Even young tech entrepreneurs can get behind an unethical governmental that represses democracy and gives the elite power to champion unfettered capitalism. It does not matter that Trump achieved this result by building a movement under the banner of nativism, religious nationalism, and resentful populists looking to return to a glorious past.

What does unjust capitalism mean for Republicans? The “Big Beautiful Bill” guarantees hardship for those who depend on wages, disability benefits and public services. It provides state-sponsored extravagance for those who own assets.

Tax cuts are given to wealthy individuals and corporations. There are tax breaks, incentives, and inducements for investors, financial asset holders, and home owners. The bill assures a continuous wealth transfer to the already well off and to Americans fortunate enough to own assets.

What does democracy mean for Democrats? As reported in the Harvard Business Review, in a 2020 article, Democracy Under Attack, “Capitalism is the right way to organize an economy, but it’s not a good way to organize a society. Markets can allocate resources, but they cannot solve climate change, too much inequality, or the plight of workers whose jobs have been destroyed by trade or technology.”

A functioning democracy is needed to establish guardrails against both political and economic inequality. The mechanisms of democracy must be in place to push back against powerful, entrenched interests. Democratic institutions are needed to ensure that the electoral process is not compromised. Most importantly, as pointed out by Martin Wolf, “democracy needs ethical leaders to survive.”

There is no reason that the free market must remain in the hands of corrupt leaders, large corporations and the wealthy. There are over 36 million small businesses that employ most of the nation’s private sector workforce. They can help bring back a functioning civil society with a market economy and democratic resilience.

It is time to stop tribal fighting about nonsense on social media and to figure out how to reconcile democracy and capitalism for the next 250 years.

 

TRUMP DESERVES CREDIT FOR GAZA BUT NOT A NOBEL PRIZE

 

Recent international events paint a complicated picture of the President’s values and goals. When it comes to the Gaza ceasefire and the Noble Peace Prize, is Donald Trump one who personifies the peace prize qualification of “fraternity between nations” or are his actions only about drama and fragile, short-term deals?

On the one hand, despite all of his faults and the domestic and international carnage caused by his policies, the Trump administration has achieved an historic breakthrough on the war in Gaza. For his diplomatic actions, the President deserves all the accolades he is receiving from Israel, the Middle East, and around the world.

On October 13, Hamas released all 20 of the last living hostages, and Palestinian prisoners were returned to Gaza. The same day, Trump flew to Isreal and Egypt to praise his own efforts and to sign a peace deal, though not the twenty point plan he wanted.  A week after the signing, the truce appeared tenuous, when Israel launched attacks and halted aid into Gaza.

The violence began two years ago with the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The Israeli response has killed over 60,000 in Gaza and 1.9 million have been displaced. Now that the shooting has stopped, serious challenges lie ahead, leaving many unanswered questions. However, the exchange of hostages and prisoners is significant in itself and marks a key first step.  

Trump’s administration was largely responsible for this landmark development.  Envoys, Steve Witkoff and the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner entered the negotiations when they were deadlocked to work out final details. Back at the White House, a critical turning point occurred when Trump strong-armed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apologize to Qatar for an air strike against Hamas negotiators in its capital, Doha.

The citizens of Israel view Trump and his team in heroic terms for getting the hostages released. However, there is much work to be done before Trump’s claim of “Everlasting Peace” becomes a reality. Isreal Prime Minister Netanyahu appears ready to resume the fighting at the least provocation.

Why the breakthrough now? I am inclined to agree with the analysis of the Economist digital editor, Roger McShane, that some of Trump’s most negative characteristics of bullying, being transactional rather than visionary and his narcissism have actually assisted in reaching a ceasefire. McShane concludes that, “The choreography of the negotiations, with so much pressure applied to both sides, Mr. Trump’s willingness to push Israel hard, and the enlistment of Gulf Arab states not only to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction, but to underwrite a peace process and perhaps help provide security—these are huge steps forward, possible only because of this administration’s efforts. Whether or not Mr. Trump deserves a Nobel prize, he certainly deserves praise.”

It must be said that the Trump approach, while successful in the short term, is a far cry from the sustained economic and diplomatic commitment needed to make a lasting peace. Such a level of commitment is not a hallmark of Trump or his MAGA followers. However, in this moment, I applaud Trump’s work in creating possibilities for a new beginning in the Middle East, while remaining a fierce critic of his authoritarian, domestic policies.

No doubt, the President is seething that his diplomatic efforts did not land him the Noble Peace Price, announced on October 10. The award will be presented to Maria Corina Machado "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy."

The irony is that Trump has recently been anything but peaceful toward Venezuela. His administration has halted diplomatic contacts, increased intelligence activity, deployed military assets throughout the Caribbean, and mounted at least five military actions against its citizens in international waters.

In fact, Trump sealed his own fate in being denied the Peace Prize.  First, before the recent peace initiative, Trump’s Mid East position was to “give war a chance” by often categorically supporting Israel and sending bombers to attack Iran’s nuclear program.

Second, at a press conference last month, the President proclaimed that the Department of Defense would thereafter be known as the Department of War.  Third, his newly anointed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, proclaimed that the armed forces would henceforth deliver “maximum lethality” that would “not be politically correct.”  

Fourth, Trump ordered drone strikes on several small boats headed out of Venezuela suspected of drug trafficking. This violent alternative to inspecting the boats killed almost all on board in what some legal and defense experts consider a war crime.

Fifth, at a recent conclave of all active serving generals and admirals, the President announced a new plan for using American cities that object to his immigration policies, as training grounds for the military.  He told the assembly, “That’s a war too. It’s from within.”

Lastly, Trump’s Border Patrol officials announced that a marine unit would be relocated to Chicago.  The explanation was that Chicago’s lakes and rivers are borders (with Michigan, not a foreign country).

Attacks on revered democratic institutions, bombing Iran, provoking hostilities in our own hemisphere, and the fabrication of domestic war zones do not build an ideal resume for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  One can only guess what opportunities three more years of a Trump White House will bring.

THREE COUNTYWIDE REASONS TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER FOURTH

 

In last week’s commentary I discussed the importance of the upcoming election as it relates to the retention vote for three Supreme Court Justices. Overall, each local election is important and deserves careful vetting of candidates prior to filling-out and returning a mail-in ballot or visiting a polling place on November 4. This commentary will give my opinion on three voter decisions of significance to all county residents.  

Judge Brandon Neuman for Superior Court.  Judge Brandon Neuman is clearly the more qualified candidate for the vacancy on Superior Court. Neuman has served as a Washington County Judge since 2018 and is now running for this statewide judicial office. This is a rare opportunity for Washington County voters to support one of their own judges in an important judicial position that reviews lower court verdicts across Pennsylvania.

Traditionally, candidates serving on Superior Court are from urban areas like Allegheny, Montgomery or Philadelphia counties where there is a large base of familiarity and financial support. Neuman will bring a distinctive “Washington County” perspective to Superior Court, reflecting our unique community and his knowledge of issues in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

This diversity helps produce rulings where all positions are considered.

 

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Neuman served four terms with distinction in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. His work on the House Judiciary Committee, Commission on Crime/Delinquency, Commission on Criminal Sentencing, and on other subcommittees, gives him a strong background in state government and on important legal issues facing the Commonwealth.

Judge Neuman was honored to be “highly recommended” by the non-partisan Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) Judicial Evaluation Commission. The commission concluded, “His opinions demonstrate knowledge of substantive and procedural legal issues and the ability to provide good factual background and well-developed legal arguments.”

 

Neuman’s opponent, Maria Battista, has worked as a county prosecutor and as counsel in state government. She has never served or been elected to any judicial office. Because Battista refused to participate in the PBA rating process to evaluate her qualifications for Superior Court, she was not recommended.

Judge John DiSalle for Retention.  In Washington County, Judge John DiSalle is on our local ballot, running for retention. In 2005, he appeared on the Republican ballot and won his first term.  Judge DiSalle has earned the right to remain on the bench and to continue to work for the citizens of Washington County. Following a recent poll of county lawyers, the President of the Washington County Bar Association, Deana Stephens, announced, “with a 72% retention vote for Judge DiSalle, we are confident in recommending his retention.”

As I explained in my last commentary that discussed the judicial retention process, “In a retention election, voters cast a "yes" or "no" vote on whether a judge should be granted another ten-year term. There are no opponents or party affiliation listed for these races… Retention elections are designed to be a non-partisan means for voters to weigh in on the overall judicial acumen and competence of members on the bench.”

My prior commentary also explained, “Pennsylvania's judicial retention policy originated at the 1968 Constitutional Convention as a reform measure intended to reduce partisan political influences on the judiciary. In order to make the process as non-political as possible, the names of retention candidates appear on a separate area, at the end of the November ballot, apart from individuals running for other elective offices.”

Judge DiSalle has performed his judicial functions admirably for nearly twenty years and served for three years in the administrative position of President Judge. He currently presides over homicide cases, Family Court cases, and domestic violence matters. As a cutting-edge jurist, DiSalle reconstructed the county’s diversionary programs in substance abuse, veterans’ issues, and mental health. In appropriate cases he permitted offenders to seek treatment as an alternative to incarceration. He also created the county’s DUI Treatment Court to provide treatment for driving under the influence offenders.

During DiSalle’s tenure as President Judge, he implemented a state-of-the- art court docketing system to provide online access to the court’s dockets and for the electronic filing of pleadings and documents. DiSalle worked closely with the county commissioners to initiate substantial remodeling of the courthouse. Under his leadership needed repairs were made and construction of a new courtroom was completed for the county’s seventh Judge.

Heather Sheatler for Controller. In 2024, Heather Sheatler, a Republican, was appointed by the Republican Commissioners and sworn in as Washington County’s acting Controller. Sheatler had worked in the county controller’s office for 22 years and before her appointment served as deputy controller. Sheatler incurred the ire of the Republican Commissioners by doing her job and, among other issues, challenging their movement of federal grant funds into an unauthorized checking account.

 

The Republican Commissioners supported an alternative candidate, Pat Philips, who won the primary. Sheatler came in second place in the Republican primary but a write-in campaign gave her the Democratic nomination.  

During her appointment, Sheatler has brought stability and professionalism to the controller’s office. She deserves to be elected in her own right. Disagreements between her office and the commissioners should not be taken lightly. Her prudent decisions demonstrate that she understands the importance of placing taxpayers before politics. She will provide an ongoing transparency and watchdog function on finances that Washington County desperately needs.

It is not often that an “off year election” offers two elections and one retention of critical importance to local voters. When added to the Supreme Court retention votes, discussed last week, there is every reason to exercise the important right to vote.

 

   

A Week in the “Land of Enchantment”

 

While searching for a late summer getaway, an article in the Wall Street Journal provided an intriguing prospect. Why not fly into Albuquerque, New Mexico and also visit Santa Fe and Taos?  The State is proudly called “the Land of Enchantment” to reflect its rich history, cultural diversity, and natural beauty. 

My wife and I decided that since the three destinations are only an hour apart, a week was all we needed. We scheduled two days in each location, with a final dash back to the Albuquerque airport.

After arriving and taking in the high desert sights, sounds, and smells of Old Town Albuquerque, we rested before heading out for a full day of exploration. Our first stop was the well-regarded Pueblo Cultural Center, an introduction to the Native American clans that have populated New Mexico for centuries. Luckily, each Sunday features a full program of Pueblo native dance in full traditional costume. The exhibits surrounding the outdoor courtyard where the dancers performed were outstanding. A traditional Pueblo lunch concluded our visit.

In the afternoon, we headed for an attraction that every tourist seems to seek out as a break from indoor museums. The Sandia Peak Tramway takes visitors to the crest of this 10,000-foot mountain for spectacular views covering 11,000 square miles of New Mexico.

The next morning, we departed for Santa Fe and arrived minutes after the Georgia O’ Keefe Museum opened for the day. We were rewarded with an uncrowded viewing experience of some of the greatest works of this famous American artist. O’ Keeffe began her career in NYC before discovering the beauty of New Mexico. Her earlier paintings featured large colorful close -ups of flowers. Later, she would paint the landscapes surrounding Santa Fe and Taos in her distinctive style.

Across the street in Santa Fe’s Old Town was the New Mexico History Museum. The major attraction is a timeline that traces historical events from antiquity to the present. New Mexico's history spans thousands of years, beginning with Native American cultures, followed by Spanish colonization in the late 1500s. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and subsequent Spanish reconquest were violent, not well known, events.  Following Mexican independence, the region became part of the United States after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. New Mexico became a US territory in 1850 and finally achieved statehood in 1912. 

At the History Museum, one cannot help but reflect on what it means to be an American. In the 1840s, “manifest destiny,” the 19th-century doctrine that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable, overran New Mexico. The historical record makes clear that neither the Native Americans nor Spanish speaking residents were eager to become assimilated into the United States.

In the early twentieth century when the western railroads were being built, there was a critical need for labor. Tens of thousands of workers from Mexico were recruited. Many of them stayed and are now the backbone of New Mexico society.

Today, roughly fifty per cent of the New Mexico population identifies as Hispanic or Latino and eleven percent as Native American. There are too few jobs and a great deal of open space.  Eighteen percent live below the poverty line. When we had dinner with a classmate from Swarthmore College, now an Albuquerque physician, he explained how difficult it was to retain professionals in New Mexico.

Our next full day in Santa Fe was dedicated to diverse attractions.  The church located in Santa Fe's historic central plaza is the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi. Another historic church near the plaza is the San Miguel Chapel, the oldest in the continental U.S.

We left the central square and drove to seek out the Museum of International Folk Art, a pleasant surprise. We spent hours admiring the large collection from all over the world. It was a riot of color, design, and unique objects. My wife could not resist purchasing a traditional Ukrainian blouse, in support of this nation still under siege by Russia. Across the street, the Botanical Gardens delighted her with a large collection of local flora.

The next morning, it was on to Taos along the more scenic “high-road” where the two-mile-high altitude will “take your breath away.” Outside of town we made an unscheduled stop for lunch at “Antonio’s,” a roadside café. We were thrilled to learn that this traditional New Mexico eatery had been featured on the show, Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.

Nearby, Taos Pueblo is the only Native American community designated as both a World Heritage Site by UNESCO and a National Historic Landmark. Made entirely of adobe, the multi-storied homes are still occupied today, embodying a living culture. In our only disappointment of the week, the village was closed to tourists in late August so that the community could undertake some traditional rituals.

As an alternative, we took in the Millicent Rogers Museum, started by the late daughter of a Standard Oil executive. Her collection of Native American art is considered one of the finest in the Southwest.

Our final day in Taos started with a visit to the breathtaking Rio Grande Gorge Bridge and ended with hours of shopping in Taos Plaza. Discerning buyers from all over the world patronize the many galleries and studios.

Sometimes it is the trip that is taken on short notice with minimal planning that reaps the greatest rewards. The New Mexico “land of enchantment” provided an entertaining and cultural journey to the Southwest – well beyond our expectations.