A PATH FORWARD FOR PROGRESSIVES

I am troubled by the debate going on within the Democratic party on how to react to President Trump, his rhetoric, his policies and his supporters.  Specifically, the emotional reaction to certain administration decisions have increasingly invoked comments among those I know and respect like: “this is the last straw” or “my red line has been crossed.”  Progressives are threatening to end public discourse with family, friends and associates who continue to support the President on these “all or nothing” issues.  Examples (among many) would be the recent Trump policy to separate immigrant children from their parents; the President’s continued support for EPA Director, Scott Pruitt; and his vicious attacks on the lawful investigation of the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller.

My reaction to these emotional responses against the Trump policies (which is rational) and against Trump supporters (which is overblown) can be summed up with a simple truth: elections have consequences.  Millions of Americans voted for Trump and will continue to support the President for a variety of reasons. While the President and his political elite traffic in fakery and nativism to maintain power, those who voted for him reflect real problems which progressives in the past have ignored.

Progressives have two very different paths to consider leading up to the mid-term elections.  They can either continue to reinforce each other on social media and to focus on their personal moral outrage not only toward Trump but also his followers, much like Hilary Clinton did in her “deplorable” speech in October 2016.  Or Progressives can get out of their moral indignation funk and join in the very practical and sweaty grass roots work needed to take back Congress and to handcuff the President from causing incalculable damage in the final two years of his presidency.

My view is that preaching to the choir and becoming intolerant toward the opposition is the path toward certain defeat. I am not suggesting that finding common ground with Trump supporters will be easy, or even fruitful.  I am suggesting that respectful tolerance, where conflict is recognized, but reasonable debate is encouraged, rather than unfettered moral outrage, will win back enough blue dog democrats and independent voters to make a difference.

 In the end, developing sound policy positions and gaining votes will “Trump” rancor and indignation.  As Michelle Obama has implored on several occasions: “When they take the low road, we will take the high road.”  

 Progressives will never over take Trump on the low road. The high road is paved with sound political strategy, not useless moral rants against those who support the President.  The high road is finding positive solutions under a broad Democratic tent, not spending resources retweeting or posting derogatory comments about the Trump presidency to gain an emotional high. 

I offer my heartfelt encouragement to those progressive Americans who care enough about our democratic republic to replace the “Circe like” obsession of social media with political activism centered on justice and equality.

1968

It was truly an enlightening experience to watch all four hours of the CNN production: “1968, The Year That Changed America”.  Fifty Years ago I was 16 during the momentous events of 1968 and as I watched and tried to recall my thoughts of the time, memories kept flowing back of my teenage life.  The next year, 1969, would be the end of my childhood as I graduated from high school, attended the counterculture gathering at Woodstock and entered liberal, politically active Swarthmore College.  But 1968 was still a sheltered existence in rural Hunterdon County New Jersey.

My most vivid memories are of running through the fields and woods surrounding our home in preparation for the cross country and track seasons; becoming acquainted with the opposite sex and alcohol; discovering new music; and spending the summer at Bucknell University on a National Science Foundation Grant. While I loved current events and debating, the earth shattering developments of 1968 do not spring easily to mind.

It is not because the issues that would define 1968 were not in plain sight.  Although my high school was predominantly white, protestant and conservative, our proximity to New York City and Philadelphia meant that the counterculture, both political and lifestyle, were not far away.  One of our classmates ended up on the cover of Newsweek Magazine, after he dropped out of high school to live in Greenwich Village.  The social activist David Dellinger and his family lived nearby. Mr. Dellinger would become “the father” of the Chicago Seven, following the 1968 Democratic Convention.  Though the draft lottery did not begin until 1969, a draft was still in effect in 1968. I was aware that my Quaker heritage would provide me with conscientious objector status, if I chose to use it.

My sheltered existence in 1968 contrasts with the timeline of that year as projected by the CNN documentary.  The presidential campaign was no doubt the most raucous and suspenseful in our history.  After the horrors of the Democratic Convention, Hubert Humphrey found his anti-Vietnam War voice late in the campaign and lost to Richard Nixon by the slimmest of margins. George Wallace, an avowed racist, carried five states and won 45 electoral votes. 

The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy lead many to question the ability of our democracy to survive. The riots and destruction in cities across the country mirrored by eruptions at college campuses, where radicals took over buildings and brought academia to its knees, seemed to foretell a political revolution.

  There was no question that a social revolution was sweeping the country as black power, feminist causes and anti-war sentiments came to the forefront.  But in the south, segregationists formed a coalition that would hide under the banner of conservatism to fight integration, political equality and social liberalism.

The two questions that spring to mind are: How do the events of 1968 compare with the political and cultural story that is playing out in 2018?  Second, what did we learn from 1968 and how much progress have we made as a nation, over the past 50 years.?

When comparing 1968 to 2018, present events seem a bit superficial.  How could any drama from the Trump White House come close to the symbolism of the three most famous widows in American history, Jacqueline Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy and Coretta Scott King, returning on the same plane with Robert Kennedy’s body following his assassination.  Or the race riots following King’s assassination, leaving 39 dead and 2600 injured. Or the 16,600 American soldiers killed in Vietnam, in 1968. Or the Chicago police force and Illinois National Guard gone mad and attacking the youth of America at the Democratic National Convention.  Or the worldwide student protests, characterized by popular rebellions against military and bureaucratic elites.  2018 seems tame when juxtaposed with 1968.

Of course there was no 24/7 news cycle in 1968.  The three networks and major newspapers all reported the same facts, once a day, for public consumption.  Commentary was limited to the editorial page, usually with only two well-rehearsed points of view, one party line Democratic, the other Republican.

In 1968 the role of every journalist was to report the news, not to take a position. When Walter Cronkite broke this tradition and gave a personal editorial, calling for a negotiated end to the war in Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson was so shocked he commented that: ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”  A month later Johnson announced he would not seek another term as President.  Vietnam peace talks began shortly after.

In today’s media world every political and social nuance, no matter how insignificant, is immediately reported by hundreds of sources, many of whom are not trained journalists and who have a personal axe to grind.  Moreover, politicians, corporations and celebrities not only make news, they manufacture it, in order to drive public opinion in a favorable direction.

One can only imagine how the events of 1968 would be media driven in the information age of 2018.  No doubt it would truly feel like the world was falling apart. Following each shocking development in 1968, institutions and individuals would not be given the time to absorb, consider, understand and to heal.

Some would argue that my second query, what did we learn from the upheavals of 1968 and how much progress have we made as a nation, depends on who is responding to the question.  For example, older African Americans who grew up not being able to vote, obtain a proper education, or find meaningful work and who have now witnessed eight years of an Obama presidency would argue that important changes have occurred.  Their grandchildren would probably disagree, pointing to prevalent racial profiling and systemic white intolerance.  The same can be said for the different points of view among older and younger women and those in the LBGTQ community.

In truth, progress has been made on cultural values and race but much more needs to be done.  The focus has shifted from the granting of legal rights, now more or less completed, to changing attitudes, which lag far behind.  This latter goal is a multigenerational process.

Not all problems have improved and new ones have surfaced.  Without question, the equality gap between rich and poor is even wider than what existed in 1968.  Immigration, border security, religious fundamentalism and terrorism were not issues of national concern in 1968.  Western democracies were united against a common ideological enemy, communism, with no one focused on a resurgence of tribal or nativist self-interests.  Today, climate change threatens to cause massive disruptions to agriculture and coastal communities.

Regrettably, some problems have remained the same. America is involved in a war that has lasted twice as long as the Vietnam conflict, costing billions each year in national treasure.  Gun violence has moved from political assassination to our schoolyards as the United States refuses to follow the rest of the civilized world in placing controls on the proliferation of the deadliest weapons.

 In 1968 the country elected a President who resigned after the exposure of massive criminal actives.  In 2018 the country is dealing with a President who has no respect for democratic institutions or the rule of law.  Thankfully, the Watergate era of Richard Nixon has provided us with a roadmap on how to deal with presidential improprieties. 

The country survived 1968 and it will survive 2018 as well. While I will not be alive to review the state of the union in 2068, I have no doubt we will be a more diverse and tolerant nation, living up to the challenge our founders placed before us.

THE BIG PICTURE

The political climate in 2018 serves up enough action and surprises to rival the new Avengers movie. The emotions it invokes are so over the moon, no matter what ones’ political allegiance, that it feels like history is being made each day, if not each hour. 

The President’s supporters believe the dark state is working to bring down his term in office.  His detractors are convinced Trump is undermining the foundations of our democracy.  But while the daily media output may be the outline of history, it is not the final determination of what will one day be considered historically significant. There is a danger in getting overrun in detail and losing sight of the big picture.

Lately, I have been trying to force myself to view the barrage of information and new political developments within the framework of Google Maps.  The closer I zoom in on the news of the day, the smaller, more intricate things I learn about the political climate. However, to gain perspective and really determine what is important, it pays to zoom out, sometimes very far out, to place current events into an historical time frame covering decades.

My task in searching for a larger context was helped along when I recently read a feature article in Foreign Affairs by Walter Russell Mead. (The Big Shift: How American Democracy Fails its Way to Success) Mr. Mead sets the stage with the following observation:

“As Americans struggle to make sense of a series of uncomfortable economic changes and disturbing political developments, a worrying picture emerges: of ineffective politicians, frequent scandals, racial backsliding, polarized and irresponsible news media, populists spouting quack economic remedies, growing suspicion of elites and experts, frightening outbreaks of violence, major job losses, high-profile terrorist attacks, anti-immigrant agitation, declining social mobility, giant corporations dominating the economy, rising inequality, and the appearance of a new class of super-empowered billionaires in finance and technology-heavy industries.”

What is being described above by Mr. Mead, with a great deal of convincing historical accuracy, is not 2018 America but rather the 35 years between the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and that of President William McKinley in 1901. Clearly our present political turmoil offers little that is new to the history of our country.  We have seen and survived it all before.

However, Mr. Mead is not seeking to highlight another period in American history much like our own.  His premise is that the earlier historical period was a time when the United States “failed its way to success” by making the difficult transition from an agricultural society to an industrial one.  He sees a similar dynamic at work today, observing that: “The information revolution is disrupting the country’s social and economic order as profoundly as the industrial revolution did.”

In my view, Mr. Mead is spot on in focusing on the effects of rapid change that will lead to a major transformation in the United States rather than to become overly concerned with day to day political events. Not many Americans well versed in today’s tribal politics can name the Presidents, senators or representatives who passed through history in the latter part of the 19^th century.  One hundred years from now the same will be true of today’s leaders and turbulent events.  The years from 2016 through 2020 will be best remembered for the advances in technology and information sharing, not for Russian election meddling, special prosecutors, or payoffs to porn stars.  The history books will discuss Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, testifying before Congress on issues of internet reform, not the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey discussing Presidential conversations.

One might ask why it is important to reserve resources for the big picture rather than commit all on day to day events.  First, political capital is limited.  If well-meaning progressives spent it all on attacking the President rather than on developing policies for the information revolution, they will miss a valuable opportunity.  Second, as pointed out by Mr. Mead, our American brand of democracy is messy but well suited to grow and develop and not decline and fall when faced with what appear to be periods of insurmountable dysfunction.  When under attack American institutions (the courts, the press, the bureaucracy, the rule of law) are strong and have always been able to withstand temporary setbacks. 

Third, elections matter in our representative democracy and have always protected us from the extremes on the left and right. Over time, elected officials on the fringes are consistently voted out of office.

If Mr. Mead’s thesis is correct, that American democracy will prevail and that as a country we will fail our way to success in the information revolution, much like we did in the industrial revolution, what steps can be taken by concerned progressives to help matters along?

Similar to our experience during the industrial revolution, the most profound changes will occur to the American worker.  President Trump was wrong in assuming that resources should be spent in recapturing the past glory of industrialization.  This may have garnered votes in 2016 but is a false hope.   No one could imagine in 1890 that only 2% of the American work force would be employed in agriculture in 2018. Similarly, old line industrial jobs will continue to disappear. But the information revolution will provide a wealth of new jobs, many as yet undefined. As the information revolution gathers momentum, education and job training must be ever changing to provide qualified workers.

On the other hand, President Trump was partially correct in calling for deregulation of business, but only for small businesses that are becoming prevalent in the information age.  Startups in the “gig economy” struggle when competing with large corporations and deserve more governmental assistance and less governmental interference and nuisance paperwork that inhibits them becoming established. 

Well placed small business regulation reform in taxes, health care, overtime rules, and licensing requirements contrasts with the ill-advised tax reform which permitted Apple (which may soon be our first trillion-dollar company) to repatriate billions in overseas profits.  The Apple corporation just announced a 100-billion-dollar share repurchase plan for investors that will do nothing to aid the American worker or the economy.

My point is that once progressive political forces step back and see the big picture, the Donald Trump Presidency, as earth shattering as it may seem, has little to do with our future.  The future is the information revolution.  We must harness its potential by electing officials who understand the transformation and who will utilize the public sector to improve the lives of all Americans.

 For those who believe my assessment is overly optimistic, please consider historian John Meacham’s new book: The Soul of America.  Mr. Meacham reviews a large swath of American history to prove his point that the “better angels of our nature” have, without exception, prevailed.  Following periods of intrigue and dysfunction the country has always looked forward rather than back, to assert hope over fear.  It is time to stop wasting time and effort attacking the latest Trump tweet and to begin planning for the information revolution.

THE DARK SIDE OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS

In 2018 Washington County voters have had a unique election cycle, with two special elections packed into a busy primary season leading up to the mid-term elections. I have been paying close attention to the special election process as it has unfolded in South Western Pennsylvania.  On the whole I have decided that special elections are not designed to foster open democratic pluralism or participation.  Quite the opposite, special elections were constructed to favor a narrow political elite and provide committee members of both established parties with unreasonable control over which candidate will appear on the special election ballet.  As a result, the power that local committee representatives have lost in the primary process (endorsements from party officials mean less and less in open primaries) has been partially regained through the closed special election procedures.

First up on the 2018 election schedule was the congressional special election to replace disgraced Congressman, Tim Murphy.  Under Pennsylvania election law, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf had 10 days to call for a special election which resulted in a proclamation setting the voting date for March 13, 2018.  Because there is no election law requirement that primary elections be held for special elections, the Republican Party held a special convention on November 11 and the Democratic Party held a nominating convention on November 19, 2017.

I attended the Democratic Party affair at Washington High School as an observer.  It was clear from the packed galleries that only two candidates were in the running to win the nomination.  One portion of the bleachers were packed with supporters from Allegheny County on behalf of Conor Lamb.  Another portion was overrun with supporters of Commissioner Gina Cerilli from Westmoreland County.  The other candidates, all of whom had invested a great deal of time and shoe leather to secure the nomination, were window dressing.

 

Party bosses had taken the full measure of the field and determined that Conor Lamb offered the best opportunity to win a special election in a voting district that favored moderate to slightly conservative, Republican candidates.  Mr. Lamb’s well connected political family and Allegheny County Chief Executive Rick Fitzgerald rounded up the needed votes among their political supporters and the nomination was assured.

While the general electorate and national media were well pleased with the Lamb nomination they were disgruntled on the Republican side with the convention choice of Rick Saccone.  The well-orchestrated Republican Party procedures gave the edge to a Trump clone rather than a candidate who could actually win the traditionally Republican district, which was developing doubts about Trump, with a more acceptable platform.  Notwithstanding campaign appearances by the President, his family, and the Vice President and millions in Super PAC contributions, Lamb won by a narrow margin.

Ironically, the Democratic Party bosses seemed to lose control of the Lamb campaign after assuring he would be the candidate. Rather than hook his wagon to the Democratic or Congressional leadership, Lamb ran a grass roots campaign designed to paint himself as a new and independent voice, beholding to no one.  In my view, this independence was responsible for his victory.

The second special election confronting the residents of Washington County will take place on the same day as the May 15^th primary. This election was mandated by law after Representative Brandon Neuman was elected to serve on the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, last November.  While this contest has none of the national limelight or nonstop political advertising of the Lamb affair, it will have an important impact on Washington County citizens.

Democratic voters will face the daunting task of voting for a candidate chosen by party officials in the special election (with the winner serving in Harrisburg until the end of the year) while weighing the merits of two democratic candidates in the primary (with the winner facing off against the republican candidate in November).

The Washington County Democratic Committee called for a caucus of committee members: “for the purpose of recommending a candidate to the Pennsylvania State Democratic State Executive Committee.” To keep tight control over the process, on a bitter cold day when all of Washington County was either attending or watching the Steelers-Jaguars AFC Playoff game, the caucus was held in the local VFW Post 191.  Not surprisingly, only 27 of the estimated 58 qualified committee members showed up for the vote.  To seal the deal, vote by proxy was not permitted.  

This special election caucus was even less pluralistic than the Conor Lamb nominating convention by taking steps that guaranteed a low turnout of non-committed committee members.  As a result, there were few eligible caucus members with an open mind who were willing to listen to the candidates speak before casting their vote.

The favored choice of Party Leaders, political neophyte Clark Mitchell Jr. won the caucus, with the narrowest of votes, garnering 14 supporters. All other opponents bowed to party pressure and did not file to run in the May primary against Mitchell, with the exception of attorney Joseph Zupancic.

As the campaign winds its way to the May primary I have noticed the same grass roots swing toward the unendorsed candidate, Zupancic, that Conor Lamb experienced in the earlier special election. While Party bosses are supporting a candidate they can control, voters are examining the bonafides of both candidates to determine who will best represent them as an elected official over a full two-year term.

Independence appears to be a virtue as Zupancic goes out into the community and explains why he is running and the goals he hopes to accomplish. (all voters are urged to review the websites of both candidates) Moreover, there is a developing apprehension among knowledgeable democrats that unless voters decide to split their vote and favor Zupancic in the primary, that Mitchell could lose the special election and win the primary.  This would all but guarantee that Republicans would control the 48^th district for the first time in many years.

What could be done to make special elections more democratic? It is not a good result to have lawmakers chosen by their respective political party’s rather than by winning through open competition.  It is not a good result to foster confusion in the electorate by holding a special election and a primary for the same position on the same day. 

In smaller races involving fewer voters I would recommend an open caucus procedure, organized and run by each state/local party, to permit all registered voters to participate. This would insure wider voter participation and avoid the expenses of holding a government run primary to determine each candidate in the special election.  And I would not hold the open caucus on the day of a Steeler game.

For larger races where the organization of a caucus is untenable, I would permit the Governor to appoint a placeholder from the same party as the displaced lawmaker.  The placeholder would not be permitted to run in the primary at the end of the term, giving no individual or party an undue advantage when running for a full term.  This would provide representation for citizens without an elected official until the end of a lawmaker’s term, save public funds by not requiring a special election, avoid all the confusion to voters that special elections invoke, and reset a level playing field at the time of the primary.

My suggestions are not the only solutions to insure open special elections with maximum participation. But back room politics filled with cigar smoke and back slapping should be a thing of the past in American politics.  Even the appearance of such is an affront to the modern voter.  There are better ways to fill vacant positions than party dominated special elections. 

(Disclosure: I serve on the Joe Zupancic campaign committee. None of my views on special elections have been vetted by or adopted by the committee or the candidate)

THE YEAR OF THE VULCAN

Last year I wrote a published commentary about the American electorate.  Borrowing from an excellent book Against Democracy, authored by Jason Brennan, a political philosopher from Georgetown I made the following comments: 

“Mr. Brennan divides the electorate into three groups.  First, are the hobbits that do not bother to learn about politics.  Second are the hooligans who follow political news with the partisan zealotry of sports fans.  Hooligans support their candidate or party under any and all circumstances. Lastly are the cream of the voter crop, Vulcans, who investigate politics with rational objectivity, respect all views and adjust opinions as the facts warrant.

 The problem is that there is no strong evidence that Vulcans exist in great numbers or that they would actually do a better job in choosing elected officials.”  

After the recent special elections in Alabama (for a Senate seat) and in our own 18^th District (for the House of Representatives) I have changed my mind.  Vulcans are alive and well in greater numbers than our political culture would suggest and are capable of making wise, informed choices.  What Mr. Brennan did not investigate in his book and what I did not consider is that we need Vulcan candidates for office as much as we need Vulcan voters.  Where was Mr. Spock when we needed him to explain such an obvious logical point to us?

What does a Vulcan candidate look like?  Examine the Connor Lamb campaign and the answer is clear. A Vulcan candidate does not identify with the lightning rods of his party. Nancy Pelosi was rejected outright and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were not invited to speak at rallies. Joe Biden was welcome.  A Vulcan candidate puts his ear to the ground of his district and listens to what the voters are saying.  He takes to heart the sage words of Tip O’Neal that: “All politics are local.”  He does not criticize the President, sticking with local issues.  He carefully articulates his moderate positions.  He refuses help from Super PAC propaganda machines because to accept their help is to lose his message. 

Conor Lamb was all these things and more.  Because the special election did not involve a primary challenge, local Democratic leaders were able to carefully vet and choose their candidate.  They wanted a Vulcan moderate to enter the contest in what was largely a Republican district.  It helped that the opponent, Republican Rick Saccone, was a right wing hooligan, claiming that he was “Trump Before Trump was Trump” and relying on visits from the White House to put him over the top.

Of course under normal circumstances the bane of Vulcan candidates (and Vulcan voters) are the primaries. To return to Mr. Brennan’s terminology, primaries are controlled by ideological “Hooligans”.  It is difficult for a candidate to maintain a moderate, measured portfolio in a primary race that includes tea party candidates in Republican races and progressives in Democratic ones.  The hooligans control the process and the message.

I would argue that an excellent example would be Hillary Clinton who started out as a candidate acceptable to Vulcans but who was forced to the left because of the Bernie Sanders primary challenge.  As a result, she lost Vulcan voters to Trump.  Only 14 months later, the same voters refused to be swayed by two Trump visits to the District. Vulcans voted for the Democrat, Conor Lamb, because he better represented their views.

 Vulcan voters are turned off by the ideological battles that surface in the primaries. Because many are registered Independents, they could not vote anyway.  As a result, general elections often feature Hooligan candidates that are not attractive to Vulcan voters.

So what are Vulcan candidates and voters to do?  The 2018 mid-term elections are shaping up to make this the year of the Vulcan.  If Democratic leaders are to learn from the Conor Lamb experience they must rethink the primaries and offer grassroots support to those candidates who are a good fit for the local Vulcan electorate, not the Hooligan ideological base.

After watching progressives support Conor Lamb in large numbers I believe placing moderates in general elections will garner more votes than any alternative. Constructing a congressional ring-fence around the Trump presidency and not ideology must become the primary goal.

I am mindful that because all politics are local this is not a winning prescription in traditionally progressive Urban areas. But for the rust belt congressional districts that saw Trump capture a majority in 2016, the Conor Lamb formula may be the only way for the Democratic Party to regain a majority in the House of Representatives.

To my progressive friends, I would remind them that I share their pain that the independent electorate is not yet ready to be “all in” with progressive positions.  Our time will come as the country’s voters continue to change in age and ethnic composition.  For now, the social and economic havoc caused by the Trump administration must be curtailed and every moderate Vulcan must be given a reason to join the cause.  While progressive hooligans may be our favorite voters, Vulcans are not far behind.

A TOUGH TASK FOR VOTERS

These are confusing times for Washington County voters.  In a matter of weeks, the March 13^th special election in the 18^th congressional district has morphed into the hottest election story in the Country and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a redistricting map recasting all Congressional Districts in the Commonwealth.  

The result is that both candidates seeking the voters favor in the 18^th district, Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone will not reside in the newly constructed 18^th district. By all appearances both will run for office in congressional districts other than the 18th in the 2018 primary later this year, no matter which candidate wins the special election.  The effect is that on March 13^th, voters will likely elect a representative who will spend the rest of 2018 running for a different office with different constituents.

If that were not enough, this entire election cycle is under the cloud of Russian interference, fear of hacking at polling places and new reports of electronic voting machines that cannot be trusted to deliver accurate results.

So what is a voter to do? I have touched base with some long established politicos from both parties.  They all agree that this election cycle will be the most challenging that any local voter is likely to face in his or her lifetime.  In my view there are three likely outcomes for prospective voters.

First, voters can choose to throw up their hands in light of new election dates on the calendar, modified congressional districts, changing candidates and buckets of online negativity and not vote at all.  This would be a shame in light of the significance of these elections.  In the March 13^th Special Election, no two candidates could be further apart in their support/disdain of the Trump Presidency.  Think of this contest as the “Spanish Civil War” before the main event midterm elections in the Fall.  Whichever party wins will gain untold national momentum as the Democrats seek to take control of the House of Representatives.  

It is true that in the special election voters will be sending a message on their principles rather than electing an individual to look after their long term interests.  This is a good thing and not a wasted effort.  At this crossroads in our political life, such a referendum on the Trump presidency is necessary and valuable.

Second, voters may become caught up in the political crossfire between partisan actors over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to issue a remedial redistricting map this close to the congressional elections.  Any attempt to undue the Republican gerrymandered districts was bound to upset them and to please Democrats.  Not surprisingly in the present political climate, the redistricting has caused a firestorm, including immediate appeals by both the Pennsylvania and National Republican parties and calls to impeach all of the Justices who voted for the redistricting.

Voters will be unable to influence any of the turmoil over redistricting in the short term.  Most lawyers and political scientists believe the remedial map will stay in place until after the 2018 midterms. 

Nonetheless, I encourage all voters to read the two readily available Supreme Court opinions, the first ordering the redistricting and the second issuing the revised remedial map. The opinions are well reasoned and make a strong case for the unconstitutionality of the Republican prepared district maps.  It is clear that all points of view were considered and that the remedial map now in effect was the work product of nonpartisan experts from around the country.  The remedial map does not reflect any partisan bias. 

While some would take issue with the timing of the opinions, the State Supreme Court does not control when matters are brought before them. Not unlike the earlier challenge to reassessment in Washington County, when a government process is found to be unconstitutional, it must go, the sooner the better.  Moreover, our Supreme Court recognizes that it is ultimately the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth’s legislature and Governor to replace the remedial map with their own version that passes constitutional muster.

Lastly, voters can decide to not avoid these important elections because of the confusion, and not to get caught up in partisan diversions from their civic responsibility. The task of voters in these unique elections is the same as any other.  To study the candidates (even as their faces change), study the issues, make common cause with fellow citizens and to vote.

The unique nature of the March 13^th special election and midterm elections that will follow with unfamiliar congressional districts will require close attention and hard work on the part of our electorate and those organizations that have a duty keep them informed. This newspaper, the Washington County Bar Association and other civic groups are needed to explain the process and unwind the confusion. It must be carefully pointed out by respected nonpartisan entities that the election process is not being manipulated for partisan gain, it is being improved to meet the requirements of our constitution.

The upcoming elections are about more than simply getting out the vote.  They are a true test of voters doing their due diligence, of avoiding partisan noise and of maintaining trust in our most important democratic right.

“THERE IS SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE, WHAT IT IS AIN’T EXACTLY CLEAR”

There is something happening here when the attention of the national political juggernaut turns toward Southwestern Pennsylvania and will keep us in the spotlight until March 13th, 2018. What may not be exactly clear is that this is the day that has been set aside for a special election to decide who will fill the remainder of disgraced Republican Congressman Tim Murphy’s seat in the 18^th Congressional District. 

This unusual special election involves voters in portions of Greene, Washington, Allegheny and Westmoreland counties.  What is also not exactly clear is which voters will be voting in the special election and again in the May 15, primary in the 18^th District.

  On January 22, 2018 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order finding unconstitutional the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011.  The court held that the Act cannot be used: “In elections for Pennsylvania seats in the United States House of Representatives commencing with the upcoming May 15, 2018 Primary.”  But for March 13th an exception was carved out and the special election: “shall proceed under the Congressional Redistricting Act and is unaffected by this order.”  The end result is that voters for the March 13th special election may not be the same voters on May 15^th, the scheduled primary for the full two-year term in the 18^th District.  Confusing yes.  But the show must go on. 

To emphasize the importance of this contest President Trump flew into Pittsburgh on February 18^th to heap praise on the Republican candidate, Rick Saccone.  Mr. Saccone is in many ways Trump’s “Mini-Me” avatar who proudly boasts he was: “Trump before Trump was Trump.”

 That is, Trump without the billions of dollars, golf courses or trophy wife. But Trump in all things political when it comes to: racist immigration policies that fly in the face long accepted norms; contempt for women’s rights; a tax bonanza for the wealthy and corporations; and a promise to cut social programs for the less fortunate. 

Mr. Saccone has further endeared himself to President Trump by introducing a Resolution in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives calling for 2012 to be declared the “Year of the Bible.”  During his tenure in the House he has received a 0% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 6% rating from the Sierra Club on environmental issues.

Saccone’s Democratic opponent is attorney Conor Lamb, a fresh political face with impressive credentials to bring to the table.  He attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate and earned his law degree from its prestigious law school. Lamb’s stellar professional career has been as a federal prosecutor, bringing to justice drug dealers responsible for the opioid crisis.  Prior to that he served as a Captain in the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserves, where he prosecuted and obtained a conviction from an officer charged with sexual misconduct.

Unlike Saccone who has hitched his wagon to the Trump party line, Lamb is running as a moderate Democrat with an independent voice to bring to Congress. He has said: “It is clear this Congress is not working for the people.  I think we need new leadership (including Nancy Pelosi) on both sides.”  The bedrock issues of his campaign include: bringing an end to the opioid crisis; seeking an immediate infrastructure bill; fighting for continuation of affordable health care; protecting Medicare & Social Security; finding a solution for student loan relief and supporting modern energy development.

Even though the special election is almost two months away, both Saccone and Lamb have bought up blocks of media to place their respective positions before the local voters.  Significantly, Saccone is relying on large conservative and corporate Super PACS to raise money while Lamb is counting on individual donations to fund his campaign.

So what is all the fuss about and why should voters trudge to the polls for a one off election in early March?  First and foremost, political pundits of all persuasions view this special election as an advanced preview of the all-important November 2018 midterm elections, where the Democrats hope to recapture the House of Representatives.

Many nationwide political questions will become clearer after our local March 13^th special election.  Can a moderate Democrat win in a conservative Pennsylvania House district?  What will be the Democratic Party’s appeal with white working class voters in the rust belt who voted for Trump in 2016?  Will these voters feel betrayed by a President who promised he would fight for them, but instead has favored corporate America?  Does the 58% of Americans who disapprove of the President’s job performance include a majority of voters in the 18^th Congressional District?  

The optics of this election are enormous and the result far outweighs the importance of this one congressional seat.

Apart from the campaign and the candidates, much work is still to be done by local elected officials, local newspapers and organizations like the League of Women Voters in getting the word out and explaining the background and need for this special election. It is not enough to leave voters with the idea that “something is happening here” without ‘making clear” the purpose and importance.

Luckily, voters need only look back to last month to understand the significance of special elections.  The historic Alabama Senate special election which saw another moderate Democrat and prosecutor, Doug Jones, capture the seat over a Trump supported candidate, Roy Moore, gained national attention in the weeks before Christmas.  While Moore had been accused of pedophilia and other improprieties, he was expected to win because Alabama had not elected a Democratic Senator since 1992.

Moreover, it will be hard to miss the fact that an election is taking place given all the media attention that will be focused on this race.  The outcome will be viewed as a referendum on President Trump’s first year in office.

 I have met Mr. Lamb and was struck by his calm demeanor and young vibrant Kennedyesque appearance.  You know right away that you are in the presence of the real deal.  Many voters will experience this face to face opportunity with the candidate as Conor schedules events and knocks on doors throughout the district.  Those who take the time to meet with him will find a candidate more than ready for the challenge.

 It is not often that local voters get to decide an election with such national implications and to make a statement to the rest of the country.  It is not often that the two candidates offer such a stark contrast on their views of the nation and how to address its problems.  But this special election offers more opportunity than simply meeting the candidates and voting.  

If you are depressed with the Steeler’s loss or the weather, bring some excitement your way and get involved in the process.  Become a volunteer for a candidate and see for yourself what is happening here.  Help clarify for your friends and neighbors why this special election is so important. 

 You will be helping to make history in this landmark political year of 2018.  And when the May primary and November midterm elections roll around, you can do it all over as Lamb again battles Saccone for a full two-year term as your elected representative in Congress.