THE ATTACK ON RATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

I thought Dave Ball was on to something important when he posed the question, Totalitarianism in America? in the commentary section of the 11/26/17 Observer Reporter.  His comments on the dangers of “eliminating independent thinking in society” were spot on and deserve consideration.  Unfortunately, his conclusion that progressive democrats and the “new world order” were the sole cause of the swing away from democratic principles, was a disappointment. 

Mr. Ball went from the profound to the partisan, ending his article with this reference to a popular right wing conspiracy theory (the new world order) in which a secretive liberal elite is dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties. In fact, all political ideologies in America have been responsible for eroding rational political discourse and responsible governance.

 Political discourse has been defined as the exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve societal problems.  Rational political discourse provides the framework that permits a pluralistic society to function. All political views should seek to find common cause to work within this framework and to achieve responsible governance.

For our democracy to function properly elected officials must work within an environment of ongoing negotiation which seeks to reconcile the views of citizens with different social, economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. 

  In the American political system, rational discourse is the referee that sets and enforces the rules for those with an ideology to pursue.  The game itself is messy and never ending.  But no political win or loss can be considered final because the ideas of the loser may become the wiser choice as the chess game continues, and opinions change over time. Only rational discourse and the need for responsible governance remain constant.

I could not agree more with Mr. Ball’s observation that there is a pervasive: “focus on eliminating critical and independent thinking at all levels of society.”  This troubling trend steps outside the rules of rational discourse which are based on “respectful tolerance” in which participants are in conflict but agree to listen to each other on a level playing field.  Instead the American public and its elected officials have too readily adopted both intolerance, where no discourse takes place and permissive tolerance where there is discourse, but unfair playing conditions placed on others, usually minorities.

How do we place the rational discourse referee back in the game and return to the playing field of respectful tolerance? First there must be the recognition that no political ideology is a replacement for rational discourse and responsible governance.  A political actor may hold an ideology within the democratic framework, but must be ready to listen and to compromise.  Unfortunately, each of our prevalent ideologies within American democracy are guilty of doing just the opposite.  This makes our polity operate more like an ongoing battle between fixed religions or one based on tribal loyalties and less like the pluralist system of conflict/compromise between competing views that was envisioned by our founders.

No political ideology can claim clean hands when it comes to undermining rational discourse.  I will start in my corner of the playing field with liberalism. Since the end of WWII and with greater zeal, since the end of Soviet Communism, liberals have sought to replace elements of nationalism with elements of “global equality” and “global democracy”.  Open trade, open borders and transnational legal systems seemed like the wave of the future in 1990.

Following a devastating recession, many Americans did not buy into this vision.  These voters were convinced that such policies attacked their civic identity and that liberalism no longer spoke to their needs. Similar opposition occurred all over the Western World as liberal policies on trade and immigration were vilified. Clearly for progressives to regain the high ground, not only morally in the age of Donald Trump (hopefully only a very strange and temporary outlier) but also politically as an active participant in achieving pluralist solutions, we must open our minds and find a new path that more voters can identify with.  Not unlike the philosopher Kings praised by Plato in the Republic, liberals thought the game plan was beyond reproach and that the country would follow.  We were wrong on both counts.

On a second point, liberals have been too open to embracing identity politics at the expense of overlooking policies that are attractive to all Americans.  For example, once Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton identified prospective Trump voters as “deplorables” there was little opportunity for liberals to engage them through rational discourse, either during or after the election.  Moreover, Clinton speeches praising and evoking the rights of Immigrants, minorities and the LPGT community were interpreted by many white Americans as a plan to leave them behind.

Conservative ideology has offered no better track record in encouraging rational discourse. The Republican party has welcomed tea party ideologues into their ranks, who by definition refuse to compromise on social issues, taxes or spending. 

Moreover, the Republican goal of staying in power over adopting respectful tolerance and a level playing field has resulted in their embrace of a populism that appeals to some of the worst instincts of their constituency.  This tendency has included the support of candidates and elected officials who are guilty of exploitation, dehumanization, cruelty and the abuse of power in order to achieve political goals.   Now there are few elected Republicans who are willing to seek bi partisan solutions on a level playing field. There is no willingness to utilize rational discourse in order to achieve responsible governance.

Lastly, there are libertarians, who perhaps are the most ideological of all voters. Under their worldview individual liberty trumps equality, the need for regulations and government involvement in many areas of social and economic life. Libertarians, once the forgotten sister of American politics received a huge boost when the Supreme Court issued its holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

Now political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and corporations have the same rights as individuals in providing unlimited political contributions.  Much of the funding contributed by billionaires and corporations has been earmarked for libertarian and conservative positions. The resulting media driven political propaganda is most often inflammatory and does nothing to encourage rational discourse.

 Libertarians generally believe that all forms of property rights should be beyond the reach of the state and that state functions should be limited to such matters as national defense, law enforcement, curbing infringements on property rights and operating a judicial system.  Less state involvement changes the rules of rational discourse by seeking to eliminate many issues that other voters care about from the political arena.

Democracy by itself can never guaranteed rational discourse and reasonable governance.  The citizens must demand such conduct from their political leaders.  The world is full of absolute majorities that appear democratic but impose their will on minorities without any sense of respectful tolerance.  The Unites States has avoided this outcome only because our founding fathers had the foresight to insist on The Bill of Rights and such institutions as judicial review, separation of powers, supermajority voting rules, and federalism. These checks and balances have greatly reduced the danger of a majority espousing a single ideology from turning the nation into a kind of totalitarian state.

Even with these constitutional safeguards, we need rational discourse and responsible governance to weed out morally unacceptable lawmakers, avoid stagnation, and to minimize partisan law making. Ideologues may not like the rules of open rational discourse, but they do need to follow them if we are to return to governance that encourages all views to be shared, considered and voted on. After all, the ideology in the majority, will someday be in the minority and be thankful the referee is overseeing the playing field.

In the end, a good, just and fair society depends on well thought out insights into our ever changing culture and the world around us. Open discussion, delivered by elected officials with competence and clarity, not conformed solely to ideology, will guarantee rational results and the survival of our constitutional democratic republic.

WHY I AM GRATEFUL THAT DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT

There is a ritual that I perform each evening as an attitude adjustment and to maintain some balance in a world full of uncertainty. The ritual involves simply recalling the best and worst event that I experience each day and to be grateful for both.  I try to give back the best event to the deserving source and not take credit for myself. (My wife usually gets the nod) With greater difficulty, I try to find something rewarding or a teaching moment in the worst event of the day that might support some positive gratitude.  In viewing the Trump presidency through this lens I surprisingly found several reasons to be grateful for what the country is enduring, despite the anger, disruption and scandal our President invokes.

Over the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats lost, on net, more than one thousand elected offices, including thirteen Senate seats, sixty-nine House seats, twelve governorships, and more than nine hundred state legislature seats. Republicans dominated Congress and state governments, and then Donald Trump became president.  Clearly, Democrats were heading in the wrong direction well before Trump was elected.  Moreover, while President Obama was in office, much of the time his party was not able to govern.

While I supported Hillary Clinton and mourn the damage that the Trump presidency has wrought to progressive policies and democratic principles, I am not sure that a Clinton presidency would have done much to turn the tide of Republican gains.  I fear her election to our highest office would have resulted in years of rancor and calls for investigations, uniting the Republican Party as never before.  With a Clinton victory, Republicans could have quickly moved past Trump and added to their number of elected officials across the political landscape, all the while blaming her for problems both domestic and foreign.

 Clinton did not win and a man with dubious Republican credentials, questionable moral character and no interest in party unity, now heads the Republican Party.  Whether he is replaced, impeached or remains the laughing stock of the civilized world for the remainder of his term, the Trump presidency cannot end well for Republicans.  I believe the traditional pendulum effect that moves the electorate away from the party in power will be magnified because of the Trump presidency and his party’s inability to coalesce around him or to move the country forward.  Assuming that Democrats stop gloating over Trump gaffes and get to work with grass roots campaigns, the fall out will give democrats a distinct advantage in 2018, 2020 and well beyond.

Second, I am grateful that the Trump election has performed a valuable service in compelling the reorganization of the Democratic Party.  It has united both moderate and progressive Democrats (and some Republicans) with the singular goal of replacing Trump and his nationalist-nativist views. The Trump election has provoked serious soul searching among Democratic Party officials as to whether the party made fatal errors in forsaking previous supporters, most notably white high school graduates.  It has forced the party to begin a new post Clinton era where fresh faces must be groomed to carry the banner in upcoming national elections. 

Thanks to Trump, while no one knows who will lead the Democratic Party out of the wilderness, I am certain there will be plenty of qualified candidates to do so.  This is one of those moments when one step backward could easily result in three steps forward, as the next FDR, JFK or Barrack Obama comes into focus.

Third, race relations, LGBT rights, women’s issues and religious tolerance all appeared to have made significant gains over the eight years Obama was in office.  I am grateful that President Trump has exposed this fallacy and has shined a bright light on how much work remains to be done. 

Having a President who: belittles women, openly supports white supremacists and the Confederacy, has no regard for the civil rights of immigrants or refugees, calls for the exclusion of transgender individuals from the military and who attacks the rule of law, has caused a national debate to open up on each topic.  These rigorous and informative debates have been focused on the most important social issues of our day and in some cases achieved positive results. 

Confederate statues have been removed from public display and moved to museums; more urban areas have declared themselves sanctuary cities; immigration restrictions have been denied by the courts following Trump’s incendiary comments; and women in business, the arts and in elected office have declared themselves the victims of sexual harassment.  In the case of women’s rights, a sea change is sweeping the country as dirty secrets are exposed and powerful male abusers fall faster than dead trees in a high wind.

Fourth, I am grateful that political scientists, journalists and historians have quickly weighed in on the Trump election and presidency. Books on the meaning of impeachment; the 25^th Amendment which deals with removing a president from office; and writings on the separation of powers are appearing with great frequency.  Elected officials are writing tomes on what it means to be a republican, or a democrat in the age of Trump. Experts are pouring over the 2016 election results to gain insight on the Trump victory.  The general public needs to be informed about the Trump fallout, beyond what cable news and sound bites can supply. These books and articles will help.

Lastly, as a progressive Democrat, I must admit there is a certain perverse gratitude in being “outside the walls” and placing those in power under constant siege after eight years of surviving unrelenting bombardment from “inside the walls”, defending Obama.  And now I get to laugh at all the political cartoons and late night comedic jokes directed at a president who each day provides new material, like no other in history.

Of course, I would not wish the disaster that is Trump on any of us.  While his missteps are laughable, the progressive advances in policy he has erased may not be recovered for decades.  But Trump is giving us valuable insight into the elasticity of our democratic institutions and how they function under stress. 

When I can agree with the commentary of conservatives George Will and Peggy Noonan and see them making some of the same points as liberals Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof, I know that there is hope for the American political system. I am truly grateful that we are learning from all that has transpired so that we can work to prevent it from happening again.  

REAL PATRIOTISM STARTS WITH SUPPORTING HIGHER TAXES

Demanding to pay less and receive more is the new normal. The colonial battle cry that helped form our nation: “no taxation without representation” has morphed into the new taxpayer creed: “I want the government to provide for all my needs while taxing me and regulating society as little as possible.”  What I will call the Amazon effect has replaced all rational thought when it comes to Americans paying their fair share to support a vibrant democratic society.

The Amazon effect permits the largest retailer in the history of the world to plough all profits back into its business to avoid taxes, and advertise a lower price for goods and services than a brick and mortar store is able to charge.  Down the block is a family owned shoe store that has always carried my unique size with excellent service. 

  I can now purchase the shoes for 1/3 less on Amazon and have them delivered the next day. I eagerly do so and the shoe store goes out of business.  Amazon is costing me less and taking care of all of my retail needs.  Americans are now asking, why can’t the government do the same and provide security, roads, schools and social services with fewer tax dollars?

Unfortunately taxing authorities, unlike Amazon, do not have the ability to provide more for less.  Taxpayers end up getting less for less. We conveniently forget that hard choices must be made as to what societal needs will be funded and which will be cut or eliminated.

Income taxes are at their lowest rates in years. But Republicans have chosen to exacerbate the problem and are proposing to lower taxes even more, bringing the corporate rate down to 20% from 35% and the highest individual rate down to 35%, from the present 39.6%.

One of the newest conservative schemes to lower taxes below the historic floor and to fund social services with less tax funds involves a fascinating sleight of hand.  It is called “the block grant” and challenges the intelligence of the American taxpayer.  Pennsylvania’s citizens first became acquainted with this plan when former Governor Tom Corbett offered County officials less state funding for social services in the form of block grants. In return, local officials had the discretion to spend the funds as they felt appropriate for each county.  Lower taxes, less funding with less regulation and a greater burden placed on the local government, the conservative dream come true.

The centerpiece of the most recent attempt to repeal and replace Obama Care was, again, block grants. The proposed legislation called for dividing up the Medicaid funds already committed under Obamacare among all 50 states, even those that had rejected the federal funds when they were first offered.  Under the block grant to each state there would be wide discretion on how to spend down the grant.  The problem is that those states that had previously accepted Medicaid funds would now be billions below what they previously received.  More discretion with far less funds did not strike the effected Governors as a good plan.  While this plan has initially failed to pass in the Senate, use of discretionary block grants to offset lower taxes and less funds for social services are here to stay as long as Republicans control federal and state elected offices.

Most recently, what are the Republicans up to?  During the 2016 election they promised their donors and supporters both the repeal and replace of Obamacare and tax reform (lower taxes).  The hope was to save tax dollars on the former in order to implement the latter.  The problem is the Amazon effect.  Voters are all in for paying less taxes, but against taking away a benefit they have received for almost 8 years from the federal government. Taxpayers want more for less but elected officials cannot figure out how to turn less tax revenue into health benefits that Americans are not willing to surrender.

The second problem with block grants is that no rational taxpayer believes that giving states discretion to spend Medicaid funds with little oversight will increase efficiencies.  Many state legislatures are as tied in knots as our own Harrisburg crew and cannot pass budgets let alone make intelligent choices on Medicaid funding.  More likely the block grants would end up plugging other holes in state budgets having little to do with social services.

Apart from block grants there are many other results from lowering taxes that simply do not make sense in terms of sound governmental policy. First, unless there are drastic cuts across the board, an impossibility because of commitments to Social Security, Medicare and the military, income taxes will explode the deficit. One estimate is that the proposed tax reduction will add 1.5 trillion to deficits over 10 years. It is important to remember that at the time of the last significant tax cuts, implemented by George W. Bush, the federal government ran a budget surplus for several years in a row, while today we are facing the largest deficit in the nation’s history.  

Second, lowering taxes for corporations both at home and for multinationals who have billions in profits parked overseas has never had the desired effect. Instead of using the windfall to expand and hire, corporations have used the tax savings to buy back stock or raise dividends.

Third, lowering taxes for the wealthy has never been shown to increase productivity.  Instead, the savings are invested in the stock market, creating more wealth and asset bubbles that eventually harm the economy.

Fourth, in times of war, Americans have traditionally recognized that a tax increase was necessary to fund expensive military operations.  The continuing 16-year-old undeclared war in the Mid-East has been the exception.  In Iraq and Afghanistan 2.4 trillion dollars in taxpayer funds have been spent on the hostilities without a tax increase to help defer the costs. Now, in addition to the strain that war places on tax revenue, 2017 has saddled the government with three large natural disasters, requiring billions in unanticipated spending.

Lastly, the Republican plan to lower taxes will encourage social unrest by increasing income inequality while decreasing funding for our full blown national crises involving addiction, mental health and the cost of higher education. This is especially true when low income workers realize the lowest tax rate of 10%, currently in effect, is being raised to 12% under the Republican proposals.

The Amazon effect may or may not be an appropriate model to run a business. The Amazon corporation will either collapse under its own weight or continue to grow and prosper and eventually return acceptable profits to its stake holders.  But expecting more for less is no way for Americans to view their government. The economy is doing well. The stock market is at an all-time high.  Inflation, interest rates and the unemployment rate are at historic lows.  This is the time to raise income taxes, not lower them.  Keeping the sequestration in place with higher taxes will attack the deficit and permit our most pressing needs to be addressed.

I am not one who believes that only the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates.  All Americans with income, both earned and unearned should share the burden under a progressive tax scheme, that charges more taxes as the income of a taxpayer increases. It is time to show as much respect by paying our fair share to support the public institutions and infrastructure that are the building blocks of our democracy as we do for other symbols of patriotism. Standing tall against the Amazon effect is more important for the future of America, than standing for the National Anthem.  True patriots will support tax increases and know that they are insuring the health and welfare of future generations.

SECOND POT OF COFFEE THOUGHTS

·      As the brutal weather competes with President Donald Trump for top billing in the headlines, one can only conclude that the latter is as much a force of nature as the former.  Both are incapable of precise analysis. The predictive ability of meteorologists, often criticized for getting the weather wrong, have a far better batting average than the political pundits who seek to provide guidance based on the daily tweets, actions and pronouncements of the President.

·      For those looking for weekend entertainment beyond watching football, Washington County offers fantastic alternative activities every weekend this autumn.

·      Replacing Brandon Neuman with one of their own in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 48^th District will be a strong test for the Washington County Democratic Party.  It is significant that Mr. Neuman, as an elected Judge, will not be available to provide campaign assistance to the Democratic candidate who wins the primary in 2018.

·      The East Washington traffic signs that warn of “speed hump” rather than “speed bump” have generated more discussion than the humps (or bumps) themselves.

·      The excellent bestseller, SAPIENS, provides many interesting factoids about the history of the human race.  But the author cannot convince me that early hunter gatherers were a healthier happier lot than what would later become organized human civilization.

·      With not much excitement in this year’s November elections, the magisterial district contest that covers Nottingham, Peters, Union Township and Finleyville has enough intrigue to make up for all the yawns. Long time District Judge James Ellis, led potential candidates to believe he was running for re-election, to discourage all possible opposition. After circulating nominating petitions in February, Mr. Ellis retired the day of the filing deadline, assuring that his alleged handpicked replacement, Jacob Machel, the only other candidate to circulate petitions, would win the primary. Both democrats and republicans were so incensed at the apparent trickery that they each organized write in campaigns for the May 2017 primary.  Despite these efforts, Mr. Machel was the only candidate to appear on the democratic and republican primary ballot and he won both.  Now, a democrat, with a well-known political pedigree, Jesse Pettit Esq. (son of the former District Attorney), has changed his registration to “independent” and will challenge Mr. Machel in the November election.

·      With all the recent natural disasters caused in part by climate change I feel guilty at how much I am enjoying my lawn being as lush and green in September as it was in April.

·      It was a feel good moment to read about the naturalization of new citizens at the Washington County Courthouse.  Whether this will result in citizens showing more empathy for Roma refugees making a new home in the California area, or spur our elected officials to finally appoint a diversity commission for Washington County remains to be seen.

·      If millennials are responsible for the new economy of “stay at home” and “avoid human contact” when purchasing everything from clothes to meals, my bet is that their children will embrace the old school model of brick and mortar, face to face contact, when shopping for goods and services.

THE ENCHANTMENT OF TRAVEL

It hit me full force on a recent Sunday evening watching the epic HBO show Game of Thrones.  The gorgeous scenery and castles along the Irish coastline, depicted on screen, were places I had visited only weeks before.  I felt like I was closer to the story and characters than at any time in the previous ten years, time spent reading the original George R.R. Martin Fire & Ice novels and following the Thrones drama on television.

What is it about travel that captivates us?  Why do we put up with all the inconveniences of leaving home to spend a brief portion of our lives with foreign people places and things up close? What part of the human condition is satisfied by wanderlust when books and documentaries could easily instruct on the faraway places that most interest us?

The word travel and its etymological twin, travail both originate from the name of an ancient Roman instrument of torture.  When one considers the nasty, brutish and long hardships endured by early travelers this derivation makes sense.  During the Middle Ages there was no leisure travel but still a great deal of movement to foreign lands among diplomats, merchants, soldiers and religious pilgrims.

While difficult and dangerous Medieval travel came with a purpose, the subject of travel fascinated those who could dream and read.   The most celebrated poems of the age were travel narratives.  First among equals, Homer provided the greatest travel epic in recorded history with the Iliad and the Odyssey.  Next was Chaucer’s baldy trek from London to Canterbury, The Canterbury Tales.  There was also the written works of Marco Polo, penned with the help of Rusticello da Pisa, a composer of romances, who no doubt embellished the tale of journeys to the court of Kublai Khan.   Many other journals, diaries and written accounts whetted the travel appetite of young Noblemen and Clerics for travel into the unknown.

It is awe inspiring to consider the results of travel through history. From the great warriors: Alexander the Great, the Vikings; to the explorers: Columbus, Magellan; to our own colonial diplomat Benjamin Franklin’s twelve trans-Atlantic voyages; to the scientist, Charles Darwin aboard the H.M.S. Beagle; and to the great twentieth century authors: Hemingway, F. Scot Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound and Gertrude Stein together in Paris.  What inspired each to start their individual trek?  What did each take back in return to influence or enrich our culture?

Things changed with the evolution of the train and the great steamships.  Travel became a leisure pursuit and pastime of the wealthy.  The hotels, museums and beach resorts of Europe were eager for American dollars.  The trip abroad became a honeymoon or summer vacation status symbol.  Americans without means to travel were enthralled with the travel experience of others.  It was no accident that Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad, published in 1869, a humorous account of his cruise through Europe and the Holy Land, was his bestselling book during his lifetime.

Once air travel became readily available and less expensive, all of us could satisfy the urge to expand our firsthand knowledge of the world.  Now, each year brings new “hot-spots” to challenge us. There is little that cannot be explored by climbing, diving, skiing or simply walking down the paths of history.

From personal experience travel has enriched my journey through life in ways I could not have predicted.  I continue to dream of the African Serengeti and to envision all the diverse wildlife as if from another world.  After walking through and considering the Minoan Palace of Knossos on the Island of Crete, classical Greek culture seemed a mere building block and not the foundation of Western Civilization.  Observing where Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Monet and Picasso lived and worked, brought new meaning to their art.  Experiencing firsthand the old City of Jerusalem and the Tower of London produced immense awe that so much history could occur in such small places. Not to mention the Holy spirits in the former and ghosts in the latter.

Each week an article I read, a blurb on television or a comment from another will spur a memory in my mind’s eye from these and other travels.  Dots are connected and the world becomes easier to understand. Political discontent in the Middle East, an attempted coup in Turkey and Scottish attempts to secede from Britain are no longer empty words in the newspaper.  The events are associated with real people in real places.  

The psychology of travel and the traveler has become a topic worthy of research. Experts have determined that for many, there is an intimidation factor to conquer before the tickets are purchased.  Fear of flying, foreign crowds, terrorism and losing a passport are enough to keep many within their safety zone.  On the other hand, those that dare to venture to exotic locations find a new purpose, broaden their horizons, learn to cope with uncertainty and often make new friends.  I always return from a trip, grateful to be home, but refreshed beyond compare.

Of course travel is a two-way street and what is mundane for us is often an adventure for travelers visiting our community. I could not help noticing the Observer Reporter article on German Fulbright scholars visiting W&J college in August.  One student observed: “It is very interesting how people are living here in this little town with this huge campus.”  These students will always remember the Frank Lloyd Wright 150-year commemorative with their visit to Fallingwater or Steeler football and the founding of Pittsburgh with their time spent at the Heinz History Museum.  Western Pennsylvania may not have castles but we have a great deal to share with the world.

Whether coming or going, travel provides a reset on our place in the scheme of human existence.  While the language, culture, architecture, and culinary habits may differ from place to place, travel confirms the universal truth, that we all share similar values, hopes and fears no matter what address we call home.

 .

THE CENTER DID NOT HOLD

The Irish poet W.B. Yeats wrote in his famous poem “The Second Coming”: Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.  Yeats was referring to the state of civilization in the aftermath of WWI. His words are indeed appropriate for the shattered condition of American politics in 2017.

In a two party political system, like our constitutional republic, being elected and governing from the center has always been the key to success.  We differ from a parliamentary democracy where numerous political parties, some with fringe views, are permitted to flourish and compete for power by forming coalitions to form a government. Our constitutional republic works best when only two conflicting ideologies compete for the center to win elections.  Third parties have never met with much success in America.

There are reasons why the importance of the center in modern American politics often gets lost in the fog.  First, political actors on the left (progressives) and on the right (tea party conservatives) have become unrelenting forces that control the national primary process.  This compels otherwise moderate candidates to move from the center in order to win the nomination of their party.  

Second, the Nixon era label “the silent majority” has always applied to the political center.  Even in our high octane 24/7 social media environment, almost all of the political chatter comes from individuals, print media and websites that are devoted to the two extremes of American politics and not the center.

Leading up to the 2016 presidential election, both democrats and republicans took the center for granted.  Moderate democrats were sure that their political tent was overflowing with young and minority voters, all of whom would enthusiastically vote to extend the Obama vision of America.  More progressive democrats were sure that the changing national views on social equality would automatically translate into the center favoring programs that adopted economic equality. Republicans of all stripes were sure that the center was fed up with stagnation in Washington and ready to give them control of Congress and the White House, with a candidate of their choosing.

All of the pundits, pollsters and political sages were wrong.  The center did not hold. It rearranged itself in ways that political experts could not predict or image.  As a result, Democrats were banished to the political wastelands.  Traditional Republicans are now forced to do business with a man and his movement that few understand or respect.

I believe the fact that the center did not hold decided the 2016 election and not Russians, the FBI or brilliant nationalist advisors working for Trump.  Figuring out the political views of moderate democrats in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan last November and the direction the center is now heading will determine which candidates succeed in upcoming elections. The analysis that follows is directed at progressive democrats, like myself, who want to see the democratic party get back in the game after a devastating defeat. The stakes are enormous because if left unchecked, this political, social and economic fiasco will undo much of the progress made during the Obama presidency.

First, it is a mistake to get caught up in the Trump circus and current investigations while gloating with other liberals about the newest revelation.  Such conduct feeds into the partisan divide and helps Trump hold his supporters together in a siege mentality.  The Trump Presidency is an outlier and will self-destruct on its own.  Time would be better spent grooming candidates and developing policy acceptable to the evolving center for 2018 and 2020.

Second, it cannot be assumed that young and minority voters will flock to the polls to vote for democrats.  We need to earn these votes by listening to their concerns and adopting specific policies to address them.  The assumption that millennials would tip the scales when they began voting was wrong.  Those that live and work in rural areas vote like their parents and do not share the views of their urban cousins. Black voters that went to any length to vote for Obama were not motivated to vote for Hillary. Latino voters, notwithstanding the immigration debate, are conservative on many issues.

Third, upcoming elections must be about a Democratic vision for America, not about how deplorable the President or his followers have been.  Millions of Americans voted for a man with no moral compass, not because of who he was or the horrible things he did, but because of the promises he made. It is true that some of the promises were based on racist and nativist themes.  These must be attacked with vigor. But many of the economic promises are ones that responsible democrats can actually work to deliver.  The center will hold for sound economic policy.

Fourth, there is a misplaced belief among progressives that the failures of Trump and the Republican Congress will usher in the promised land of social democracy.  For example, many hope that the death knell of the Republican health care plan will be the birth of a single payer health system. Unfortunately, American politics are not the all or nothing French Revolution and the evolving center is not prepared for an overnight sea change of that magnitude.  The history of enduring social reforms is one of Congress improving them over the years. The ACA was not perfect.  The center will hold to make it better, over time.

Lastly, we lost the election.  The road to regaining control of Congress and the White House will be complex, arduous and full of setbacks.  At best, progressive policies will be implemented incrementally as the center evolves.  This is the way democracy functions in America.  Eventually a new center will take hold and we must let it evolve and be part of the process.

Ironically, progressives living in Washington County are in the ideal place and time to begin the work.  Look around. We are in the middle of the center that did not hold.  Our friends and neighbors are the registered democrats that voted for Trump.  We must listen to their concerns and identify candidates and develop policies they can support.

Washington County does not have the mindset of the Northeast, or even Pittsburgh.  For example, our two Democratic Commissioners are more conservative on many issues then I would like, but truth be told, they reflect our community and unlike Washington D.C. or Harrisburg are able to govern with rational leadership rather than partisan rancor.  There is no better environment for progressives to analyze the center and help shape its future.

For others like me, who care about diversity, income equality, educational equality and projects designed to help our most vulnerable citizens, Washington County is a good place to start.  If we can get the center to hold here, with liberal leaning programs accepted by a majority of citizens, it can happen anywhere.  It is time to stop gloating over Trump failures and to get busy.

THE VIEW ON IMMIGRATION FROM EUROPE

After three weeks in Spain, France and the British Isles my knowledge of castles, medieval battles and the royal succession has certainly increased.  However the topic that most interested me in reading the European press, observing interactions in the places we visited and speaking with local residents was immigration.  I have learned that the European experience regarding Muslim immigration looks nothing like the American example.  It is a mistake to try and draw parallels between what is happening in Paris and London, including incidents of terrorism, with what has or may happen within our domestic borders.  It is a mistake to believe Europeans view immigration and terrorism as we do.

First the numbers.  There are approximately 44 million Muslims living in Europe.  Eight percent of the French population (The largest of any European Nation); six percent in Germany and five per cent in Britain are Muslim.  In the United States a little less than one percent of our population is Muslim.

In the major multicultural cities thirteen percent on Londoners (with forty percent of all British Muslims living in or near London); and ten percent of Parisians are Muslim.  In contrast, our most multi cultural urban area, the New York City Metro Area, is only three per cent Muslim.

The reasons for these large Muslim populations living in Europe vary by country.  In France for example, it is the legacy of the war in Algeria, Frances’ former Muslim colony.  Immigration to Europe has been steadily increasing since WWII because of its proximity to the Muslim world, the ability of families to easily visit their tribal homelands for marriage and other special occasions and most importantly, economic and social opportunities which do not exist in Muslim homelands. 

Until recently, Muslim immigration was encouraged by European governments because of declining birthrates.  Aging and shrinking populations have a pronounced negative effect on economic growth that can only be reversed by encouraging a new vibrant work force. This was a major consideration when Germany permitted over two million immigrants in 2015. 

In London and Paris the Muslim presence is everywhere and deeply embedded in the pulse of society.  One can only conclude that those of Mid Eastern and South Asia Heritage make up as important a segment of European society as the Irish, Italian and Jewish diasporas did in the United States during the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

The bottom line is that Europe has a large Muslim population that will only increase over time because of high birth rates and a younger population. Most recently this demographic fact has accelerated as the failed states in the Mid East and North Africa have resulted in Europe being overrun by immigrants seeking to escape the horrors of war and oppression.  Unfortunately, southern Europe, which has not yet recovered from the recent recession and has limited resources, has been forced to contend with the greatest portion of this migration.

 In speaking with native Anglo Europeans, there are two distinct concerns.  The first is akin to the populist fear of latinization in the United States. As Muslim minorities increase in number and overtake native majorities, there is anxiety that both cultural traditions and political power will erode. 

This has become a voting issue for populist citizens, in rural and industrial areas all over Europe, not unlike the Trump supporters in the United States.  My observation on this issue is that these European nativists do not appear to view new Muslim immigrants as terror threats, but rather as a dilution of their European heritage and as a strain on scarce social services.

The second concern is related to Islamic extremism, but is actually a much broader and complex issue.  All over Europe, most strongly in France and Britain is the question of integration vs. isolation of Muslim populations.

France has long favored its republican model, that French citizenship should be easily granted but in return no group of people should keep their pre French identity. The long standing “head scarf” controversy is a case in point.

Britain, on the other hand, has been more tolerant in permitting Muslim communities to isolate and retain their cultural heritage.  Since the latest terrorist episodes, there have been calls to introduce legislation mandating that new immigrants must learn English, attend public schools and become “British”. 

Liberals in Britain are against this government intrusion.  They often point to the Canadian policy on immigration, which relies on the attitude and openness of the host community to make a difference rather than on tolerance with mandated conditions attached.  This debate, whether integration is a flattening process of forced assimilation or an equal opportunity defined by laissez-faire multiculturalism appears to me to embody the major ongoing public debate on immigration throughout Europe.

 Security concerns in preventing acts of terrorism are perceived much differently in Europe than the United States.  Our London Hotel was minutes away from the London Bridge attack on June 3, 2017.  The Manchester bombing had occurred only two weeks before.  Public opinion following the attacks did not seem to place any direct blame on the Muslim Community or immigration policy. 

The terror actors in these attacks were British citizens that had been radicalized.  London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, perhaps the most visible Muslim political leader in Europe, was at the head of the terror investigation and a voice of reason.  Other Muslim religious leaders were quick to condemn the acts of violence.  The media debate was centered on anti terrorism efforts, and whether the conservative national government had cut funding to address terrorism, not on immigration.

European citizens who join ISIS and other radical groups in Syria and elsewhere are seen as the greatest immediate threat and given zero tolerance.  Those that cannot be eliminated on the battlefield are immediately arrested upon return.  There is no question that because of the large Muslim population in Europe it is difficult to identify and keep surveillance on every individual with radical sympathies.  Open communications with the Muslim community has been the most effective security tool in uncovering planned acts of terrorism.

Does the European immigration experience and its response to terrorism have any lessons for the United States? We are clearly in a different place and time.  It is difficult to imagine a Muslim mayor of New York City or Muslims being a significant portion of our population, working with the rest of us to achieve a safe, democratic society. However there are several takeaways that would serve us well.

First, from the European perspective new Muslim immigrants seeking a better life apart from their war torn countries are not viewed as a terrorism threat.  It is understood that there is a humanitarian need to provide these individuals with basic food, shelter, a new start for their families and emotional support to heal both mind and body.  The adopting countries are prepared to offer social services in the short run to guarantee productive citizens over time.

Second, the manner in which second and third generation Muslim immigrants are integrated into society is of utmost importance in addressing terrorism. Rather than permit enclaves from Muslim countries to isolate, it is important that the larger community present an “open floor plan” so that the language, school and social barriers are as welcoming and accessible as possible.  Forced assimilation has not worked well in France or other places it has been attempted.

Third, when it comes to terrorism, Muslim communities must feel that they are part of the solution and not being harassed as part of the problem.  In Europe, because of large numbers and a longer history of immigration, Muslims have become enmeshed in the legal system, law enforcement, immigration enforcement, security and social services. United States authorities must make up for this deficiency by permitting if not encouraging Muslims to enter these fields.

Lastly, the Muslims I spoke to in Spain, France and Britain were proud of their heritage and proud to be European Citizens. I owe a special debt to Mr.Boualem Bessaih, manager of the café in the Tower of London, who found my eye glasses and contacted me a day later to make sure I retrieved them. This was one of many acts of kindness, professionalism and good citizenship we encountered from the European Muslim community during our brief visit.

Despite the terror incident on the London Bridge, our trip to Europe confirmed my faith in humanity in all of its diversity.  The American viewpoint is one of many and thankfully does not rule the world. Rather than build a wall perhaps it is time to light a flame under the American melting pot and gain some new insight on the foundation principles of our democracy.