IN DEFENSE OF PESSIMISM

 

“Optimism is a cruel philosophy hiding under a reassuring name.” Voltaire

Optimism is not the point-of-view that will see us through during these trying times. There is no reason to believe that things will suddenly get better. Not when the Trump administration seeks to alter or terminate many of our most revered institutions and traditional American values. In a few brief months, the unimaginable has happened. However, things are never so bad that they cannot get worse.

Barrack Obama was defined in part by his 2008 campaign slogan of “Hope.” It uplifted many voters and helped him win his presidential election. Unfortunately, the slogan contained no realistic understanding of the nation’s challenges or how to solve them.

Sixteen years later, being optimistic that Trump could never again run for office did not work. Hoping that voters would see through the Trump propaganda and not elect him to a second term got us nowhere. Convincing ourselves that Trump did not mean what he said during his rowdy rallies was a pipe dream. Having faith that the Democratic party could mount a last-minute national campaign and defeat Trump was unrealistic. Hope that the “better angels of our nature” would rise and regain the upper hand has not materialized.

On the other hand, despair and fatalism are also not the answer.  While there is no guarantee that things will get better, there is every reason not to give in. As stated by Timonthy Snyder in his landmark book On Tyranny, “We must take responsibility for the face of the world. Our words and gestures or their absence count very much.” Snyder points out that throughout history apathetic resignation to an authoritarian regime only results in more of the same.

Perhaps in a world that promises us nothing, there is a better way than unrealistic optimism or total despair to approach life – a way of thinking to do the right thing despite the chance that little good will come of our efforts.

A philosopher from the University of St. Andrews, Mara Van Der Lugt, believes that there is an answer and wrote a stimulating book, Hopeful Pessimism, to prove her point. Her thesis is that crude optimism can no longer be a virtue in a breaking world. It may well prove to be our downfall. In an age of climate change, chronic regional warfare, and Donald Trump, the virtue we need is “hopeful pessimism.”

Van Der Lugt explains that when events give us little to be optimistic about, the tendency is to resist pessimism. Things must improve. They will get better. They have to. However, all too often—they get worse.

Conversely, hopeful pessimists do not assume the ultimate arrival of a positive change that will fix the problem. Instead, while they believe that individuals have no control over the direction of the world, with hopeful pessimism the only logical choice is to take action. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for a miracle is not an option.

In support of her thesis, Van Der Lugt touches on a wide range of philosophers from the Greek Stoics to Arthur Schopenhauer.  Literary references include The Lord of the Rings and Camus’s The Plague. The young environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, was further inspiration. From all these sources the author concludes that it is possible to be pessimistic about the future without being fatalistic. One can be a forceful activist for social change without any certainty of success. Van Der Lugt concludes that history has shown that “despair of a better future may be the precise point at which resistance takes place.”

Where does the concept of “hopeful” fit in, given the title of the book, Hopeful Pessimism? To find out, a journalist for the Atlantic, Gal Beckerman, interviewed the author. Van Der Lugt told him that “a certain kind of hope is compatible with pessimism.”  She insisted it must obey two ground rules. First, hope should be built on the uncertainty that “We just don’t know how things will turn out. Things might get pretty bad but there is no telling if things could get better again. It’s never a closed story.”

In the event an individual cannot form any concrete belief in a good ending, the second condition applies. “The individual must ask whether the cause you are fighting for would still be worth the effort if you knew you would never see it realized. The hope is value-oriented. It is driven by principles such as justice, duty, solidarity with your fellow humans, and just your sense of goodness. You act because you feel you must.”

The ability to work for something because it is the right thing to do, not because it stands a chance of success, has inspired political activists throughout history. Beckerman concludes in his Atlantic book review, of Hopeful Pessimism, “hopeful pessimism demands action, because there are no promises; it banishes wishful thinking."

The notion of hopeful pessimism struck a chord with me in connection with my thirty-five-year journey as a recovering alcoholic. The 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous has some similarities. Alcoholics are never guaranteed a better life because they stop drinking and work a recovery program. When sober, many recovering people face worse health, family, employment, and financial problems than when drinking. AA only promises the ability to face an uncertain future without alcohol, a noble goal in itself.

 

 

 

TRUMP’S FIRST HUNDRED DAYS

 

Those of us who are not recent immigrants, seeking help from federal agencies, supportive of Ukraine, investors, employed by a university, retail shoppers, small business owners who rely on imports, or someone who cares about the future of traditional American values, may not have yet been directly affected by Trump’s first hundred days in office.

Congratulations if you have remained calm and not lost any sleep since Trump’s inauguration. For the rest of us, the beginning of Trump’s second term as president has been a nightmare brought to life. Going forward, I would advise even the most dedicated of Trump supporters to pay attention. Before the year is up, every American will know individuals close to them who have been adversely impacted by one or more of Trump’s executive orders.

Trump’s first hundred days will go down in history as the second most impactful beginning of a presidential administration. The first was the period after Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March of 1933. The Great Depression had caused a total national breakdown. Millions of Americans lost everything. In what many historians have called the perfect match of man and moment, Roosevelt’s political instincts and exuberant temperament cobbled together the nation’s new social contract, including social security. Roosevelt lifted the country, rebuilt lives, and later saved the world from fascism.

Trump’s first hundred days will be remembered by historians for the unrelenting attempt of one man, surrounded by loyal yes-men, to dismantle much of the public good that Roosevelt accomplished. Trump is determined to create an authoritarian nation in his image. In addition, his actions would return America to the 1900 tariff, protectionist, isolationist world of President William McKinley.

To illustrate the damage in Trump’s first one hundred days, commentators often prepare a long list of each illiberal action Trump has taken. The problem with this approach is that if the reader is consumed by the next outrage, you cannot look closely at the last one. Instead, I will focus on only two debacles that have developed since Trump took office.

Abuse of the National Emergencies Act. In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act to limit the circumstances under which a president could declare a national emergency. The three Congressional safeguards included (1) expiration of an emergency after one year, (2) the ability to pass a concurrent resolution to terminate the emergency by legislative veto, and (3) a Congressional review of any declared national emergencies every six months. Congress has not shown a willingness to exercise any of these powers to limit Trump.

In his first 100 days, the President has declared more national emergencies (nine) — more aggressively — than any president in American history.  Trump has invoked national emergencies to impose world-wide exorbitant tariffs on trade, to accelerate energy and mineral production, and to militarize federal lands at the southern border. He has also invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to deport Venezuelan migrants who the administration claims are participating in an “invasion” of the United States.

While the courts may eventually have the last word, much damage has already been done. For the time being, the supposed supremacy of the rule of law has been replaced by an authoritarian bully who has abused his executive powers by declaring multiple “state of emergencies” as “exceptions” that overrule established law. What we are witnessing is an out-of-control ruler who decides what constitutes each legal exception, based on ideology, not crises, and who then declares an unjustifiable emergency. More troubling, the ACLU has warned that Trump is also considering invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, in order to deploy National Guard troops on domestic soil without state consent.

Termination of Arts & Cultural Organizations. Under the false pretense of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” the Trump administration is reorganizing or terminating many of the most important federally funded arts and cultural organizations in America. First, in what appeared to be a petty matter, but was far more sinister, Trump installed himself as chair of the John F. Kennedy Center. Thirteen bipartisan board members were fired and replaced by compliant ones.

This was followed by Trump executive orders against Smithsonian Museums, designed to control the historical narrative of the United States.

Next were budget proposals to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump wants to cancel most of their existing grants and layoff a large portion of their staffs. The budget cuts came after both organizations acquiesced to Trump’s demands to restrict federal funding for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “gender ideology.” As history has demonstrated, such institutional obedience only leads to worse authoritarianism.

Trump is following the well-worn path of autocratic actors around the world who censor cultural endeavors that promote ethnic diversity and freedoms. In his mind, there can be only one cultural message of a nationalistic creative expression that is both white and Christian. These actions have had a chilling effect on local cultural organizations that traditionally receive federal funding.

Most recently, on May 2, Trump took the next step and announced he was ending federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System.

Underneath Trump’s inflammatory politics in skirting the law on national emergencies and his attack on our cultural and arts organizations, real people are being economically and emotionally damaged. We must help them recover and then join them to fight back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO THE CITY MISSION

  

Those of us who have experienced serendipity in our work lives often count our blessings. To begin one career and remain employed for many years, only later in life to unexpectedly fall into another position that satisfies our personal goals and aspirations is a dream come true.

Former county commissioner, Diana Irey Vaughan has experienced such a transition. At the pinnacle of her political career in county government as Chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners, she decided not to run for reelection. There were no plans on where life would take her. Vaughan’s future suddenly changed when she attended the annual “Sweet Sunday” affair sponsored by the Washington City Mission. She was approached to take the place of the retiring President and CEO of the Mission, Dean Gartland. After some reflection, she eagerly accepted.

The bare outline of Vaughan’s story from governing Washington County to running what is probably our area’s best-known faith-based non-profit played out in public. Prior to her retirement, Vaughan had different policy objectives than fellow Republican Commissioner Nick Sherman and the local Republican party. After Vaughan joined the City Mission, it was scheduled to receive $500,000 in LSA grant funding. Without explanation the grant was removed from the final list. Public outcry in support of the project and objections from minority commissioner Larry Maggi resulted in a reversal and approval for the funding.

On a beautiful late April morning, Vaughan invited me to her office to explain what guided her recent career change. She did not want to discuss past political battles or the present state of county government. Her focus was solely on describing the City Mission’s services to help those in need. It was an inspiring story, narrated by a self-assured, relaxed woman who is exactly where she wants to be.

First some background. For 28 years Vaughan served as county commissioner. Along with her two fellow commissioners, she was responsible for the preparation, adoption, and execution of an annual budget of over $253 million. The board of commissioners oversees 28 departments and the county jail. In order to govern, it was important for Vaughan to acquire an overview of many complex subjects with little opportunity to spend any in-depth time on individual cases.

Vaughan’s role at the City Mission is much different. She now reports to a dedicated board of directors on the activities of a focused non-profit organization. Vaughan must constantly work to manage and find funding to continue the work of a 174-bed rehabilitation shelter serving four in-need homeless populations — men, women, children, and veterans.

Her example in raising nearly $200,000 for the Mission by participating in charity marathons is an inspiration to other donors. Vaughan is now responsible for completing the $8.3 million project to construct a new 50 bed shelter for homeless women, initiated by her predecessor, Dean Gartland.

As commissioner, Vaughan was obligated to campaign for office every four years, build-up her achievements, and discredit the political opponents who wanted to replace her. While she enjoyed governing, she found that political infighting accomplished little.  Conversely, the philosophy of the City Mission, “To share Christ, to shelter, to heal, and to restore the homeless to independent living—without discrimination” was an excellent match for her principles.

While Vaughan was commissioner, circumstances in her personal life, and situations involving struggling single women that came to her attention, influenced her priorities. Reforming county human services became a top goal. She told me that the plight of the disadvantaged “touched my heart.”

As commissioner, Vaughan sought to bring all the human service agencies and non-profits together to develop a system where resources were easier to access by those in need. While a “single point of entry” made sense, there were many political and bureaucratic roadblocks along the way. Vaughan learned that in human services “top down,” centralized decision making was fraught with limitations.

For years, there was only so much that a minority commissioner could accomplish in an environment dominated by two majority commissioners. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Vaughan sought another avenue where she could make a difference. With little fanfare she approached the warden at the county jail and gained permission to meet with female inmates. Vaughan told me that while serving as commissioner, she valued the task of encouraging female offenders in personal development, more than many other responsibilities. Hearing their stories sharpened her understanding of how she could help. She proudly told me, “Occasionally, I hear from women I mentored who are still appreciative of the time I spent with them.”

As part of her work at the jail, Vaughan sponsored reentry conferences for female inmates no longer incarcerated. Housing, legal aid opportunities, probation issues, and behavioral health services were addressed. She discovered that the City Mission was in a critical position to help these women on their return to society.

When Vaughan’s experience, values, and goals are taken into account, her segue from commissioner to the City Mission makes perfect sense. She has learned that in human services, a “bottom-up” approach to problem solving based on the personal stories of the homeless has many advantages.

After the interview, I read Vaughan’s recent “President’s Message” in the City Mission’s 2024 Annual Report. It is a message of challenges, opportunities, and hope. There is no doubt that Washington County is a better place because of the City Mission and its new leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONGRESS?

 

“Congress has become a feeble debating society.” Fareed Zakaria

When the Gallup Poll asks its monthly question: “Do you approve of the way Congress is handling its job?”, as high as 80 percent of Americans answer in the negative. Our constitutionally mandated national legislature consistently fails to accomplish even its most basic obligations. On more complex national emergencies like immigration or election reform, legislation has not been introduced in decades.

The last Congress passed only 274 bills, fewer than any deliberating body since the Civil War. In his first 100 days, Trump has largely bypassed Congress, signing a record breaking low of just five new bills and a record breaking high of 124 executive orders.

James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that opposing political parties would place their own interests ahead of the common good. Madison was concerned that an outlier political phenomenon in control of government, like Trumpism, could tyrannize the out-of-power party and tear apart the Republic.

Congress was the constitutional remedy created by our founding fathers to counter these fears. Its role was to provide a balance against winner-take-all elections in the executive branch and one-sided court opinions in the judicial branch. Only in Congress could those with opposing political views pass legislation through debate and compromise. This power sharing meant that Congress provided a check against despotism, even if the same party held the presidency and a majority in both Houses.

How did Congress become irrelevant at a time when our nation is most in need of its deliberative powers? 

Philip Wallach, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written a timely book, “Why Congress.” Wallach gives us a compelling historical portrait of Congress as a functioning institution. He points out that before the early 1990s it was common for lawmakers to debate issues. Committees actually drafted bills, and the two political parties compromised to tackle urgent problems. Congress sent Republican President H.W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton significant legislation on trade, crime, environmental protection, financial regulation, and civil rights. Its ongoing deliberations actually erased the national deficit and created a surplus.

In the modern era, prior to Newt Gingrich and a decade later the rise of the populist “Tea Party,” the model of congressional action is often referred to as the “textbook” Congress. Under this system, senior lawmakers ran committees specializing in various policy areas. Drafting of legislation occurred at the committee level, and Congressional leadership did not interfere with this committee-driven dominance. The good news was that policy was formulated, and legislation was passed. The bad was that committee special interests sometimes outweighed the common good.

Wallach writes that the turning point in the role of Congress was Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. Gingrich encouraged partisan warfare, and demanded party loyalty from committee leaders. For the first time, his leadership brought large amounts of national Republican Party money into district elections to influence Republican primaries.  

Wallach believes that Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” started the trend toward the deepening polarization of Congress. He concludes that the branch of government designed to address factional conflicts gave in to hyper-partisanship and made things worse.   Over time, leaders from both parties began to suppress dissent within their own ranks. They also assembled divisive agendas not subject to compromise.

Congressional committees were no longer the accepted method to draft bills.  Instead, party leaders formulated policy behind closed doors. With greater frequency legislation was brought to the floor, at the last minute, for up-or-down-votes, when there was a crisis. There was little opportunity for deliberation.

The Senate had a long tradition of unlimited debate. In addition, the “60 vote rule” forced Senators to compromise by blocking a simple majority from taking action without minority support. Today, this rule is ignored when convenient and debate in the Senate is almost non-existent. When a speech is made the chamber is empty, and no one is listening except a few reporters.

It was common past practice for Senators to propose amendments during floor debate. Wallach notes that in the 1991-92 Congress, the Senate adopted more than 1,600 amendments. In today’s Senate, individual Senators are blocked from presenting their own proposals. Only a limited number of amendments are permitted chosen by Senate leadership. The 2023-24 Senate session featured only 200 amendments. Senator Lamar Alexander famously said that serving in the chamber was like, “joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being allowed to sing.”

All of this leads to our unfolding constitutional crisis. Many would argue that the increased partisanship in Congress has led to its inability to address major challenges facing the country. This inaction frustrated voters who elected an autocratic strongman for president. Trump promised to take immediate action on immigration, trade policy, and against government agencies without Congressional input and by ignoring settled law.

The new normal is that fear of presidential retribution keeps Republican members of Congress in line. Alaskan Senator, Lisa Murkowski, admitted last week, “We are all afraid.” Those who believe that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority, are abdicating their constitutional mandate. They are counting on either the judiciary or the electorate to rescue them from making hard choices to preserve democracy.

Ultimately, our political future depends on Congress’s ability to deliberate.  It is an indispensable pillar of the American constitutional system. Congress must find its backbone and exercise its power.