IN DEFENSE OF MODERATION

In this election year the label of “moderate” has been the kiss of death.  If a candidate was not willing to profess allegiance to left leaning progressive ideals as a democrat or to populist ones as a republican, there was little chance to gain the attention of voters.  Indeed, running for office and calling for incremental policy changes and keeping the ship of state on a steady course has been the most discredited of all positions.  Hillary Clinton tried this moderate approach early in the primaries but has moved significantly to the left in recent months as her support eroded.

What caused political moderation to lose its purchase, to be replaced by calls for revolution on the left and for anti establishment and controversial proposals on the right?

First, this trend toward the extreme is not limited to the American electorate.  As a direct result of immigration and state security issues, Europe’s far right is no longer on the fringe of the political process. In Austria the Austrian Freedom Party, founded by ex-Nazis, came within .6% of winning the recent national election.  In France, the far right candidate Marine La Pen is predicted to come in first in the initial round of next year’s presidential election. Right wing pluralities in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland are firmly in place. Sweden is not far behind.  Also in Europe the far left parties have gained in stature and undermined the moderate social democrats who have traditionally governed these countries

Second, angry calls for wall building, banning Muslims and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants seem like reasonable proposals to older Americans who fear for their personal and job security. On the other end of the political spectrum young Americans have bought into the theme of a social revolution that will provide free education, free medical care and a revived Social Security system for their retirement.

Lastly, the status quo of the last eight years is viewed by many voters as a time of stagnation rather than a period of growth.  The art of governing has ground to a halt.  Witness the recent energy bill (the first in nearly a decade) that easily passed the Senate but is now bogged down in the House over petty partisan politics. 

Voters are embracing the political extremes in the hope that anything is better than a do nothing, crisis driven legislative process.  It apparently never occurs to those seeking change that other extreme lawmakers have caused the impasse in the first place and that their candidates will actually make matters worse if elected to higher office.

So how can political moderates recapture the political playing field?  Congress is already well represented with moderates in both political parties.  Unfortunately, in this election year they operate under the radar and are afraid of an angry electorate who view them as the failed establishment and could vote them out of office.  They are patiently waiting for rationality to return after the extremists flame out.  This is not the right approach.

Moderates must realize that remaining silent about their ideals will not defeat extremism. The mantra should not be: “this too will pass” but rather “fight for moderation in government.”  Voters are eager to support politicians with clear values and sound ideas.  Moderates have both without the baggage of do or die ideologies.  Moreover, only moderates on both sides of the aisle and in the White House can reach the degree of cooperation necessary to pass long overdue legislation. 

Populists and left wing progressives seek to blow up our established two party system.  This is not the path to sensible governing.  Moderates must speak up to preserve and nurture our traditional political process.

If the moderate position is firmly and clearly presented to the voting public two facts will become obvious.  First, that the emotional positions espoused by the extremists are nothing but pipe dreams and will never be adopted once the elections are over.  On close analysis it will also become clear that the only certain result from electing extreme public officials will be divisiveness and partisan politics that will make the past eight years appear as tame as a church social. 

The second fact is that the strength of moderation lies not in the sound bites of campaigning but in the give and take of governing. Centralist positions open to compromise and not unbending fringe ideology make for a healthy legislative process.

 Moderates from both parties, those slightly left and right of center, tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Given the issues that must be addressed, there is no better political formula for moving our country forward.

THE YEAR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST

You parents who had doubts that a liberal arts education would pay off for your children; here is hoping you raised them to be political scientists and not lawyers or doctors.  

   

Over the past decade, economics has dominated the best seller list, speaker forums and overall American culture.  This has been necessary and predictable given the collapse of Western economies following the 2008 recession. Those experts who professed to be economists needed to explain what they got wrong, what happened and to set out their plan for the future.  Even Cinema took this normally undramatic “dismal science” and made a series of feature films highlighting ordinary citizens getting screwed by economic forces not easily explained.

The academic world must now prepare for a major attention shift from an enthralled public.  2016 and beyond will see a time that political scientists lead the academic discussions that matter in America.  We are not talking about the television pundits who jabber on endlessly about the election, but rather real academic heavy weights who are trained to analysis data before and after elections take place.

Political Science by its nature is observational. It seeks to reveal the relationships underlying political events and conditions and from these revelations it attempts to construct principals about the way the world of politics works.  Donald Trump has given these specialist something to observe, unlike anything in their collective lifetimes.  No political theory or hypothesis in our pluralistic democracy predicted his rise to capture the Republican Nomination.  Now the experts must figure it out.

One can almost predict the topics of the best selling tomes that will hit the book shelves by early 2017, after the data is complied and theories developed: “America’s move to an illiberal political order thriving on anti-immigrant sentiment and Islamophobia”; “Trump’s success and the new media”; “The demise of America’s traditional two party system”; “Celebrity and politics in America.”;.  No one would have predicted these trends a short time ago.

In many respects this election season, which is now remarkably longer than the NFL season, is similar from an analytical perspective.  In football the goal is to deconstruct the winning team in order to mimic or defeat it.  In 2016 it appears that copying or defending against the Obama formula from 2012 will not be enough.  Trump has jumped the shark, not unlike a good NFL Patriots team, sending all participants back to the drawing board.  This is what makes 2016 such an exciting time to be a political scientist.

For all the attention it gets, American politics is normally a case study in incremental change. Not only Trump but also the Sanders phenomenon has guaranteed that 2016 is different. Dwight Eisenhower who once said: “I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center,” would be appalled. The center is under attack from angry isolationists on the one side and progressives on the other.  The only thing that is certain is that political scientists will figure it out after the dust has cleared.

BABY BOOMERS…….START CLIMBING

Last week I came across the quote: “I am so far over the hill that I am half way up the next one.” This could be interpreted as a call to action for all baby boomers in their sixties and seventies to rethink their golden years.  In short, we need to begin climbing the next hill by understanding and helping millennials, aka our children.  With a blink of the eye they are coming into their own and dominating the political, social and economic culture. If we pull up the rocking chairs rather than put on the walking shoes boomers will exercise little positive influence over the future of our country.

Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to around 2000 in defining millennials.  The signs of the changing of the guard are everywhere.  Our new family vehicle is basically a mind numbing computer on wheels, designed with millennials in mind.  It should come with a 30 year old in the back seat to explain the radar, cameras, bluetooth, wifi, navigation, i phone and voice recognition interfaces.  When I sarcastically told my age challenged friend that the car was equipped with an Amazon app that dropped packages through the moon roof via drone, he believed me. Ironically, while many millennials turn down a new vehicle  purchase in favor of Uber, mass transit and short term rentals, boomers will never fully understand the technology packaged to attract their children.

Statistics disclose that for the first time, more millennials than baby boomers are eligible to vote in the presidential election. Many are educated minorities and white Americans with increasingly liberal attitudes.  They are more likely to support economic policies based on equality, same sex marriage and legalization of drugs. As the Bernie Sanders campaign has revealed, millennials want their own issues addressed by elected officials.  These concerns include the prohibitive cost and debt service of higher education, the ability of the wealthy to buy elections and real progress on fixing the national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

The economic habits of our chidren are changing America. Purchasing a home or a car (see above) are no longer top priorities.  Frequently changing employment is common in search of a job that actually makes them happy. Malls and department stores are passé and all of brick and mortar retail is in a funk because there is nothing that they cannot  purchase on the internet.  Important news events are picked up on twitter and few read print newspapers or magazines. Chain restaurants that cater to their eating habits, gourmet coffee and tattoos have become prevalent.  They are among the few luxuries many millennials can actually afford.  Cable television, land line telephones and desk top computers are as unnecessary to millennials as typewriters were to baby boomers.

Socially, studies show that millennials tend to be less religious, better educated and slower to get married and/or start families than their boomer parents.  What effect this will have going forward is unknown.  Either there will be a rush to produce children as biological clocks wind down, turning boomers into grandparents in their 70s, or the country will begin aging.  Because we  boomers will live longer and many have already depleted savings for a number of ill advised reasons, a sizeable number of millennials will not inherit wealth when their parents finally expire.  But they will, no doubt, be saddled with taking care of us, as many boomers hang around past the century mark.

We over the hill boomers have a choice.  We can start climbing the next hill with vigor and moral clarity along with our children and be part of the solution by understanding their world and cooperating on solutions.  The alternative is to keep our title as the “me” generation and double down along with AARP to defend our entitlements to the last dollar.

There are simply not enough resources for boomers and our children to both move ahead unhindered.  Better for older Americans to sacrifice a little and seed the future with higher taxes and entitlement benefits that vest later and in lower amounts.  Better to volunteer and help our children with the multitude of economic and social issues they will face.  Better to take a deep breath and start climbing the next hill.  Along the way we may even learn what Bluetooth is and how it works.

A PROPOSAL TO HELP MOVE FROM “BEING RIGHT” TO “UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER” IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with each other.  Indeed it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, angry white male). When we associate one of these labels with another, we often jump to invalid conclusions about that person’s political and/or social views.  This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more difficult and at times more antagonistic than it needs to be.  Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic democratic society, misunderstanding each other is not.

For those who wish to share ideas, either orally or in print, we need a better system for determining both political and social orientation in America.  The old labels are either too open to multiple interpretations or too ugly to withstand face to face discussion. An example of the former is labeling oneself a democrat or republican which in today’s political environment tells us little about a person’s views. Examples of the latter are to label someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding “political” orientation would be for actors to identify their standing by specifying a well know individual who shares their views or time period that represents their political orientation. Thus when we speak to or read an article by a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”, or “William F. Buckley Conservative”, or “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Senator Angus King Independent”, we would know much more of the positions held by the speaker or author. For example, describing oneself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative akin to Bill Clinton says much more than simply being called a democrat.

Such an adjustment to foster clarity would have several positive effects.  First, it would require those of us interested in political discourse to do our homework and learn more about political history, philosophy and thought.  Second, it would remove many of the unwarranted assumptions we make about another’s political views based on an over broad label.  Third, it would compel us to rethink our positions and make sure our overall orientation is consistent. Fourth, it would recognize that personality is often as important as positions in choosing a political orientation.

My suggestion regarding “social” labeling is a bit more complex than the political variety.  I would replace many of the negative social terms now popular in speech and print with three new classifications:  intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.  These terms are not my own and were developed by the contemporary German political philosopher Forst Rainer in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is rather self explanatory.  It would cover opinions most of us share including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who are responsible for conduct outside accepted norms. Intolerant would also be an appropriate label for an avowed racist, homophobic, or sexist.

The second classification, “permissive tolerance”, gives qualified permission to the members of a minority to live according to their believes or to be accepted on the condition that the minority follows certain rules, laws or conditions. For example Donald Trump has advocated permissive tolerance toward immigrants by excluding families who entered the country illegally.  Ted Cruz has advocated permissive tolerance toward Muslims by subjecting their communities and places of worship to surveillance.  North Carolina has passed permissive tolerance legislation that specifically targets transgender individuals in their use of public restrooms.  Many conservative evangelicals demonstrate permissive tolerance toward homosexuals by having no objection to civil unions but being against gay marriage.

When the above examples are viewed through the lens of permissive tolerance, the debate changes in a way that I believe is more manageable.  The majority granting permissive tolerance often feels the minority should thank them for being more accepting than in the past.  The minority does not feel it is enough to not be exiled or persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equal.  In many respects a permissive tolerance analysis makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the position of the other.

The last category is “respectful tolerance” where citizens may have fundamental differences between them but morally regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status.  Different ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different views on social issues, all tempered by respect.  Here there is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority and diversity is encouraged to make the whole stronger than its parts. Respectful tolerance is the sweet spot of political and social conflict resolution.

With respectful tolerance, conflict between competing interests remains.  However, a civilized debate takes place on a level playing field.  All actors recognize the healthy conflict as the basis for our pluralistic democracy.  Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise rather than all or nothing positions is more prevalent.

Where do I see these dynamic categories shifting before our eyes?  The  vestiges of passive racism as embodied in the “black lives matter” movement and minority incarceration, drug policy and urban education in America are examples of positions shifting from permissive to respected tolerance.  In international affairs, our changing foreign policy toward Cuba and Iran are examples.  The understanding and treatment of mental illness is also making this shift.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome our human nature to be right rather than to take the time to understand each other.  I am sure that others could propose classifications with more clarity. My goal is simply to start the conversation in developing systems to consider political and social conflict in a more positive and constructive way.

WASHINGTON IS IN THE RETIREMENT SWEET SPOT

Now that Forbes Magazine has placed Pittsburgh on its list of Best Places to Retire three years in a row and placed Morgantown on the list in 2014, Washington County is in the retirement sweet spot.  Washington combines the best of both locations with affordable housing, abundant shopping, proximity to an international airport and a thriving home grown senior population.  One could argue that we deserve a place on the list next to our neighbors.

Here in Washington, volunteer opportunities for seniors are numerous, taxes are low and retirees can take advantage of three Pittsburgh professional sports teams that regularly make the playoffs. Excellent college teams reside both south in Morgantown and north in Pittsburgh. Retirees quickly learn that it takes only a few minutes longer to drive to downtown Pittsburgh from East Washington as it does from Wexford or Monroeville.

The Forbes Magazine survey is focusing on retirees who have the economic means to move anywhere in the country to enjoy their golden years. These new residents have money to spend and time to lend a helping hand with no children to stress the public schools. Washington County should be promoting itself to attract these individuals.

 Many retirees are “four season” people who love the climate changes that Western Pennsylvania has to offer.  Add to the climate one of the world’s best health care systems; a world class Symphony at Heinz Hall (and the local Washington Orchestra); an excellent Regional Theater at the O’Reilly (and the Off the Wall theater in Carnegie); and outstanding museums and parks throughout the area. The exciting restaurant revival in our region is another perk.  It is no wonder that Southwestern Pennsylvania did so well in the Forbes retirement survey.

If Forbes Magazine were to undertake a deep dive into Washington County as a place to retire, what would be the draw backs?  No doubt crime/drugs and lack of economic diversity would be high on the list. In regard to the former, District Attorney Eugene Vittone is committed to working with region wide task forces and showing no mercy to drug suppliers while treating addicts as patients first and criminals only when violent crimes are committed.  In regard to the latter, Commissioner Larry Magi has recently discussed the importance of diversification that lessens over dependence on energy, hopefully with a mix of advanced manufacturing, technology, health care and finance.  Both issues are receiving high priority by County officials and will be solved over time to make our quality of life even better.

No place is perfect.  Washington County is far better than most.  Contact your friends and family who are aging baby boomers in other parts of the Country and sing the praises of one of the best places to retire.

REPUBLICANS PLUNDER THE ROBIN HOOD MYTH

Most American workers are confused by economics.  While they certainly know when they are not doing well, working longer hours for less pay, it is the causes of this inability to get ahead that are not easily explained. 

This lack of certainty in economics has given republicans great leeway in blaming the wrong social and economic factors for lack of opportunity and frozen wages.  Unfortunately, many in the working middle class believe these unsupported theories that are circulated by conservatives.

The example that irks me the most is the conservative high jacking of the Robin Hood myth, as brilliantly described by James Meek in the London Review of Books (Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity, LRB 18 February 2016).   The conservative version of the Robin Hood Legend has all the same players as the original medieval tale but gives “robbing the rich to pay the poor” a whole new meaning. 

Under this conservative revisionist story of Robin Hood the great mass of heavily taxed citizens who work hard for little reward are identified as our disgruntled working class.  All but the ultra rich (the one percent), are included in this category including multi millionaires who work for a living.  The profits from their labor and taxes they pay go to support a number of arrogant lazy individuals who have no need to work, now identified as anyone receiving public benefits.  The vast liberal bureaucracy is identified as the Sheriff of Nottingham.  The ultra rich become the absent monarch, King Richard, who are cast as a kinder, more benevolent authority, insuring that capitalism, including inherited wealth, survives in its purest form.  Lastly, conservative politicians set themselves up as Robin Hood figures, seeking to right the wrong by knocking down the disabled, the single mothers, refugees and other assorted chiselers and cheats.  The new mantra becomes:”take back from the not working poor to give to working citizens, including the wealthy.”

While this economic model that excludes give backs from rich Americans seems preposterous, there is a reason why republicans are able to get away with it.  Many low and middle income working Americans prefer to align their economic interests with wealthy workers than with those who do not work at all.  How else to explain disgruntled American workers and small business owners throwing in their lot with a multi billionaire presidential candidate, who lives in the stratified air of penthouses, private jets, yachts and country clubs rather than with the progressive democrats seeking an end to income inequality from the top down.

In a recent cover story The Economist pushes back against this republican economic myth from a different angle. (Why high profits are a problem for America, The Economist March 26-April1 2016).  It becomes clear that there are additional hard facts to explain why the one percent continues to gather extraordinary wealth.  This probing comprehensive study finds that the profits realized by the largest American corporations comprising the S&P 500 have been too large for too long when compared with historical averages.  While these corporations employ fewer workers, now only one in ten, they have amassed over-sized profits through consolidation, productivity, lobbying for favorable regulations and arcane patent laws.  These giants suck up all the air in many sectors of the market economy leaving little room for small businesses and startups.  This places severe restrictions on competition and the hiring of new employees.

This well documented article makes clear that the enemy of the small and medium size employer is not the safety net created to help the most disadvantaged among us.  What are holding back new business ventures and new employment is our largest corporations that are realizing returns on equity 40% higher at home than abroad.  By in large these profits are not being reinvested, not used to increase wages and not returned to consumers by lowering prices.

Before a Republican Congress attempts to cut corporate tax rates, give amnesty to overseas profits, or permit further consolidation of large business interests it needs to understand this clear and convincing example of runaway corporate greed.  Perhaps conservatives seeking a more equitable America will even return the Robin Hood myth to its original intent:  to take from the rich and give to the poor.

MANY TRADITIONAL POLITICAL AXIOMS GET BROKEN

That sound you hear in our highly charged political biosphere is not unlike the sound of arctic glaciers falling off into the sea. This eerie crash is the collapse of golden rules that normally control our political processes.  Donald Trump and his supporters are to politics what global warming is to climate change. Other forces are at work as well as many traditional political axioms come tumbling down.

The first rule holds that: “Presidential Campaigns must be based on optimism and forward looking issues.”  This maxim is based on the thinking that a positive campaign is more likely to broaden a party’s base and help the candidate enlarge his appeal in the few swing states that decide most presidential elections.  Candidate Trump has shattered this rule by insisting that little is right with the Country and that only his bold unarticulated vision will “make America great again.”  Significant blocks of voters are viewed as part of the problem and attacked in order to hold together his angry coalition of supporters.

In previous presidential elections the axiom has been: “Be presidential on the campaign trail and in debates. Let the Super PACS do the negative campaigning.”  Again, Trump has fractured this rule by a) not having a PAC and b) showering competitors with degrading personal attacks at rallies and during debates

In the modern era of presidential politics: “developing a strong ground game in state and local party organizations” has been an indispensable maxim to ensure victory.  Trump has not only ignored this rule, he has successfully accumulated large numbers of delegates without it.  His success has been based on endless media coverage, name recognition and large boisterous rallies.  It remains to be seen whether Trump can be successful at the convention and/or in the general election without developing contacts down in the weeds of state and local party politics.

 Pennsylvania has its own broken maxim, not related to Trump. There is an unwritten political truism that:  “A Supreme Court Justice is the most secure, influential and above reproach elected position in the Commonwealth.”  This rule is supported by our constitution which seeks to place the judiciary above the political fray and as a check on other political institutions.  Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania almost half of the Supreme Court Justices have been replaced (3) since 2012 for criminal activity and for ethical conduct unbecoming of a Judge. The Supreme Court has been forced into a defensive position and its respect has been severely damaged.

The United States Congress has a rule that: “Once a congressional district has been reapportioned in favor of voters who are members of the Congressman’s own party, reelection will become all but automatic.”  This maxim (also called gerrymandering after Mass. Governor Elbridge Gerry who sought to redraw this Commonwealth’s voting districts in 1812) has been seriously undermined by the tea party. 

It has become common for republican office holders to be “primaried” out of office by candidates to their right, despite the incumbent’s own conservative credentials. The redistricting has backfired against the establishment republicans responsible for tinkering with the voting maps in the first place.  Representative Eric Cantor, Republican House Majority Leader from Virginia, is the most well known victim of this broken political rule.  Despite his high regard and position in the Washington republican hierarchy, he lost his primary contest to a non establishment tea party supporter.

Since the chaos of the 1968 democratic convention, leaders from both parties have stuck by the axiom that: “presidential conventions are to be well choreographed infomercials that place party and candidate in the best possible light.”  The 2016 republican convention in Cleveland is shaping up to be anything but.  The republican establishment is trampling on its own rule by pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on a first ballet.  If they are successful there will be a contested convention with demonstrations, back biting and meetings in smoke filled rooms that display anger and disagreement not unity.

Perhaps the most important liberal political maxim in recent years has been: “the Federal Supreme Court decision Citizens United is an abomination to the political process and must be reversed.”  This decision struck down limits on corporations’ campaign expenditures.  Liberals believe it permits billionaires to buy elections. In the present election, Citizens United has been a non factor and rarely discussed.  Trump uses his own resources and has not organized a PAC or sought out large donors. The democratic candidates are battling to accumulate the largest number of small donors.  Outsized contributions from billionaires and corporations are not encouraged and considered a negative by all the campaigns.  Instead, “Not being bought” is a major theme in all the stump speeches.

A significant political maxim in presidential election years is that: “under card party candidates for the House, Senate and local elections need a strong candidate at the top of the ticket to carry them to victory.”  Ticket splitting, even among independents in a general election, is not prevalent in modern American politics.  This leaves republican candidates in blue and purple states in a quandary. Do they support Trump with vigor, give him lip service only, or forge an all out attack against him, to remain in office? How this issue is resolved will determine whether republicans will be able to retain the majority in the Senate.

Many other political maxims are in danger of being broken in the general election.  Will we have an election where candidate personalities with the highest negative ratings in history will be more important than positions and/or principles?  Will voters who have a long track record of loyal party voting, instead vote their heart, their country or their moral beliefs? Will traditional conservatives and/or young progressives not vote at all? Will a third party emerge to not only challenge but defeat the established parties?

 Stay tuned for the sound of additional traditional political maxims crashing to the ground.