POLITICAL STRATEGY IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

I have often found it helpful to view events through the lens of strategy.  It is superficial and often misleading to read a headline or a quote and attempt to draw conclusions of the actors’ intentions.  It is quite another exercise to look behind the words and attempt to decipher a more complex strategy at work.

Leaders of armies, sports teams, major corporations and political parties all have strategies.  Having a strategy suggests an ability to look up from the short term and the trivial, to view the long term and the essential, to address causes rather than symptoms, to see the woods rather than individual trees. As important as having a strategy, is the ability to understand the strategy of an opponent and to incorporate that understanding into one’s own strategy.

In my view, classical Greek cultural has provided us with the most fundamental and still most valuable competing interests in developing a strategy, brute force vs. trickery.  These contrasting qualities sprang from Homer represented respectively by Achilles (strength) in the Iliad and Odysseus (cunning) in the Odyssey. These concepts were expanded on by Machiavelli as force vs. guile. On the one hand outsmarting an opponent risked less loss from open conflict, on the other it demonstrated an opponent that could not be trusted when ongoing negotiations were in order.

I often find myself comparing similar strategies employed by different actors over the course of history.  For example, a review of George Washington’s strategy during the American Revolution looks a great deal like the North Vietnamese strategy during the War in Vietnam.  In both cases the weaker combatant let the more powerful opponent occupy the cities; took control of the countryside; would strike the enemy through small skirmishes; and engaged in larger battles only when the conditions were right.  There was an overall strategy that the superior enemy, fighting far from its homeland, would become disillusioned with the war effort and call for an end to hostilities.  Both the American colonial and the North Vietnamese armies won their respective victories by exercising cunning against strength.  

Sometimes a strategy works exceedingly well under one set of circumstances but utterly fails in another.  The Marshall Plan must be considered one of the most successful rebuilding programs in history, following a major conflict.  Western Europe and Japan were given the economic assistance that permitted stable democratic societies to grow and flourish.  When a similar strategy was implemented in Iraq, a society with a history of corruption, tribal factions and religious differences, establishing a stable democratic society has proven next to impossible.

Strategy in sports is an American tradition that now occupies more commentary space than any other topic of the daily newspaper.  Managers and coaches try to create favorable match ups and the sporting public, writers and broadcasters spend hours dissecting and criticizing plays that took only seconds to perform.  Consider the decision by the Seattle Seahawks to throw the ball at the one-yard line at the end of Super Bowl 49. The pass was intercepted and defeat was snatched from the hands of victory.  That one play has attracted as much attention as any strategic decision of the last decade.

Which brings me to the state of American politics as it relates to formulating strategy. There is a tendency among those opposed to the Trump Presidency to react to every tweet and to take the moral inventory of every Republican who does not “stand-up” to Trump, without considering the strategy behind such behavior.

Each inflammatory word or action by Trump receives the full attention of the media and from political commentators.  This leaves little space to consider the less flashy but more important questions of:  What are Trump and the Republicans seeking to accomplish?  What federal programs are being dismantled, and who will be effected? What regulations have been revoked in the areas of finance, the environment, education and medical insurance? How many conservative federal judges have been seated that will control federal jurisprudence for decades to come?  What has the new tax law done to inflate the federal deficit?

In my view, the Republican party has a strategy that is crystal clear and must not be overlooked.  Ride the Trump train for all it is worth until its inevitable crash.  Undo all the achievements of the Obama years and then take aim at the accomplishments of the FDR and LBJ administrations as well. 

The Trump strategy is a bit different but just as evident.  Control the news cycle with as much noise as possible so that the dismantling of progressive achievements can occur in relative obscurity.  The phrase “crazy like a fox” gains new meaning once Trump’s strategy is understood.

If any political group does not have a coherent strategy, it is the Democratic Party.  Trump is playing the political game by a new and little understood set of rules.  But attacking the steady stream of Trump improprieties and hoping to take back the House of Representatives followed by the pipe dream of impeachment does not make a strategy.  At best, this approach will win some elections but fall far short of the mandate needed by the democrats to govern effectively.  Now that the paradigm has shifted a new strategy must be developed that informs citizens on a daily basis what they are losing, not what Trump is saying. 

The next two national election cycles will not be won or lost based on morality, civility, character, outrageous conduct or removal from office.  That is the narrative Trump is hoping will be adopted by the Democratic Party.  Such an approach will harden Trump’s support and permit campaigns to be decided by gutter politics, according to his rules.  Rather, the elections must be about the electorate gaining a clear understanding of the republican strategy, what is being taken away and what must be done to win it back. 

To return to the Greek concept of strategy, democrats ultimately are in a position of strength if the party is able to unite all elements of the party and bring them to the polls. This should well outpace the Trump strategy based on fewer republican voters and cunning. But for this to work, democratic strategy must about policy and not simply about attacking Trump and his supporters.  Democrats must avoid the Trojan Horse which seeks to divert from the real issues and to flip the narrative. Meaningful victory with a mandate to govern will be achieved by sticking to the facts and to the economic, social and international issues that concern voters.

BE THANKFUL FOR HOMETOWN GOVERNMENT

Those who believed that the federal government would be less dysfunctional after the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election have been disappointed.  Despite the concentration of political power in one party, fractures within the Republican ranks and the heavy turnover of personnel and other uncertainties within Trump World at the White House have resulted in little cohesion in setting policy or passing legislation. If anything, the sorrowful business as usual, as members of Congress continue to hurl ideological abstractions at each other and the inability to exercise bipartisan compromise, has led many elected officials to resign or not seek reelection.

Governing within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not been much better.  Over the past decade, a Republican Governor, Tom Corbett, backed by a State House and Senate controlled by Republicans were unable to reach consensus on any major issue confronting Pennsylvania.  When Corbett was replaced by a Democrat, Tom Wolf, things got worse. Last year Pennsylvania was forced to go without a State budget for 267 days—the longest period without a full budget in Pennsylvania history.

Citizens have a right to be discouraged and to wonder whether our American experiment in democracy is destined to fail.  In recent years political discourse has morphed from the art of “getting to yes” into an all or nothing blood sport of brinkmanship and blaming the opposition.

Thankfully there is a bright spot in American governance and it is happening in our own back yard. As David Brooks pointed out in a recent column: “Localism is thriving these days because many cities have more coherent identities than the nation as a whole. It is thriving because while national politics takes place through the filter of the media circus, local politics by and large does not. It is thriving because we’re in an era of low social trust. People really have faith only in the relationships right around them, the change agents who are right on the ground.” (NYT 7/19/18)

In order to put this observation to the test, consider our local County government in Washington County.  While cities, counties and municipalities are not without their own share of crises (the near bankruptcy of the City of Pittsburgh; the Mayor of Monessen in Westmoreland County boycotting meetings) such examples tend to be short term and ultimately solvable.  In Washington County, while I am hardly a lifelong resident, in the few decades I have lived here I cannot recall I major crisis in local County government.

Certainly, when I look around there are issues I would address, sore spots I would improve and projects in full swing I would not have undertaken.  I have ranted on about such matters in the past and will continue to do so.  But on the whole our three County Commissioners appear like Solomon, Cincinnatus, and Winston Churchill when compared to the elected officials in Harrisburg and Washington.

I am not here to be an apologist for Washington County Government, but when something is working well it deserves to be singled out.  It is clear to me that local knowledge and a feel for how people think and how to get things done is a key to success.  Local power is more relational and less based on rigid rules and regulations.  County elders, many not elected to anything, are revered for their knowledge and are the glue that help hold our community together.

There are two arguments I frequently here, both involving our Commissioners that I think are misplaced and short sighted.  First, that the work of a Commissioner, when the electioneering is over, involves little more than attending a meeting each month and lots of photo ops at events around the County.  The second, mostly expressed by County Republicans, is that a shake-up in County government would place us on a better footing.

In rebutting the first assertion, I would point out that when our Commissioners stay out of the news, delegate wisely to Department Directors and are able to reach a consensus on major issues, they are exercising responsible governance.  Conversely, when a former Pittsburgh Mayor and members of City Counsel attacked each other daily as the City went bankrupt, it certainly seemed like everyone was working hard, in the middle of a circus atmosphere in which little was accomplished.

There are many complex moving parts to consider in placing Washington County on a sound economic footing.  Be thankful for three elected officials that work well together in accomplishing this goal.

Regarding the second assertion, I have lived through a good example of why replacing qualified elected officials is not something the voters will come to be proud of.  In Allegheny County, such was the mood of the heavily democratic electorate, in placing two Republican Commissioners in power in 1996, for the first time in six decades.

The Republican majority quickly moved to replace long time civil servants with their own political appointees.  This resulted in confusion and bad decision making throughout County government.  Moreover, the two Republican Commissioners soon had a falling out on taxes and other issues.  More than one political analyst concluded that the chaos, bumbling, bickering, financial problems and lower bond ratings were a direct result of the Republican takeover.  The political mess led directly to the voters of Allegheny County adopting an executive form of local government in place of three Commissioners.

Washington County is fortunate to have a County Government that functions well.  The grass is not greener out in the political wastelands.  Those that are advocating a change in leadership are asking for plenty of crisis headlines and dysfunction.

TIME TO TRY SOMETHING NEW

Let me be clear.  I have a love-hate relationship with social media.  On the one hand, I think the proliferation of Facebook, twitter, internet news sites and blogs has encouraged many individuals, not otherwise inclined, to become more active in politics by choosing sides and expressing opinions.  But, on the other hand, social media has opened and intensified a partisan animosity which often make rational and reasonable arguments impossible.

It is not that the poison pen has not existed throughout history when it comes to biting political rhetoric. Consider this opinion from a conservative in the early 19^th century, not pleased with the socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who was against England’s involvement in the first World War: “The hag sedition was your mother and perversity begot you. Mischief was your midwife, and misrule your nurse. You are a freakish homunculus, germinated outside of lawful procreation.” The author, Henry Arthur Jones truly gave some thought before publishing this elegant way of calling his political adversary a bastard.

Consider also Cicero and his scathing attacks against his opponents in the Roman Senate.  Both his writings and his oratory left no political adversary unscathed.  Lastly, consider the inflammatory pamphlets circulated before and during the American and French Revolutions.  The content was not only scandalous against the ruling monarchies, it was treasonous and came with a death sentence if the phamphleters were arrested.

The difference, between then and now, is that prior to the internet, biting political opinion was accompanied by background information that supported the opinion.  Moreover, many days would pass between the time a thought was developed, pen was put to paper, the publication of the written material and ultimately the distribution to the public of a partisan point of view.

Today, the 280 characters permitted by twitter can release an opinion to the world without much thought and with little factual basis to support the assertions.  Sound bites are re-posted millions of times with no supporting documentation.  Images are photo shopped to make a point that has little to do with the original image.  Social media participants are being made angry and returning fire, based on emotion, with little or no fact based research or time for reflection to consider their positions.

 Our problem is not that citizens disagree and argue.  Red Sox fans will never become Yankees fans no matter what facts are placed before them.  Republicans are not likely to become Democrats simply because the latter are upset over comments made by a Republican President. The problem is the tone and quality of our interactions, made worse by the speed and content of social media and by cable news.

I was intrigued by a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal: To Get Along Better We Need Better Arguments by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of ethics at Duke University (WSJ 7/14/18).  The author’s thoughts are a summary of his new book: Think Again, How to Reason and Argue.

The professor starts from the premise that: “if your primary goal in arguing is just to stir up people who already agree with you, you might be happy to use rhetorical tricks.”  He recognizes that “not every audience will listen to reason” but that if we want to improve our political climate: “good arguments can help a lot when presented in the right way.”

The essay points out three qualities to develop good arguments: “be candid”, “be respectful” and “be patient.” A candid speaker or writer will spell out assumptions that are not facts and carefully articulate each premise leading up to a conclusion.  Respect is gained through rational conflict that recognizes the established facts made by the opponent.  Patience abhors twitter and sound bites.  It recognizes that a rational argument takes time and work to develop.  Listening and then responding to the opponent is an important part of the process.

Sometimes to be credible it is important for the commentator to walk the walk.  This would be one of those times. Accordingly, I propose a formal (or Parliamentary-style) debate challenge, with the Observer Reporter providing the political topic, the Judges and choosing a location accessible to the public.  There would be two debaters on each team representing the conservative and progressive positions.  Following the debate there would be a discussion with the audience.  I volunteer to be one of the members of the progressive team.

I am not sure anyone would show up to listen or that the public cares to participate in a formal debate where facts matter.  I do know that it cannot be detrimental to try something new.  Dave Ball, are you listening?

DEMOCRATS MUST DEVELOP A COHERENT TRADE POLICY

Democrats missed the boat when it came to trade policy as an issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. Donald Trump sealed an election victory by forcefully coming out against trade agreements and winning the support of Midwestern states devastated by the loss of its manufacturing base. This was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who argued that lost industrial jobs were gone for good but that the information age would create opportunities elsewhere in the economy.  Affected voters saw these new opportunities as a pipe dream and voted for the candidate who promised to bring the jobs back to their communities.

 Now, Democrats are losing yet another opportunity to make fair trade an issue in the 2018 mid-term elections.  President Trump, in an attempt to make good on his campaign promise, has begun to attack nations, friend and foe alike, in the name of fair trade. Democrats are sitting back and hoping that trade wars will upset the financial markets and anger enough farmers who have seen their produce slapped with tariffs, to work against Republican candidates. This approach is short sighted and demonstrates the lack of a long term strategy to formulate a lasting policy based on equality and justice.

Ironically, Republicans have traditionally been the bastion of free trade which on the whole favors capital at the expense of labor.  Corporations would prefer to utilize all global markets in building and distributing products, to maximize profit.  For this reason, the National Chamber of Commerce, a major Trump supporter on tax cuts and a campaign contributor has launched a campaign against his trade policy. 

But Trump has hitched his wagon to a populist ‘America First” view that anti free trade and anti-immigration policies are the key to maintaining his base and winning elections.  Traditional Republican objections will be futile as long as Trump controls the party messaging and apparatus.

Historically, Democrats were the party that sought to limit the negative aspects of free trade.  Since the FDR presidency, Democrats have followed the principle that it is a fundamental responsibility of government to ensure that a free market is managed in such a way as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Somehow this view began to lose its importance as liberals seemed to downplay labor interests and to support globalization. 

In its eagerness to leave the industrial age behind and to enter the information age, the Democratic party forgot that many of its blue collar supporters were also being left behind.  Instead, identity politics with the view that struggling Americans could only be labeled as minorities or female or non-heterosexuals or the disabled and did not include healthy white males dominated the 2016 campaign. Bernie Sanders was an outlier on this view and was roundly criticized by liberals during the Democratic Primary for proposing that the party adopt protectionist policies that favored blue collar workers.

The Democratic Party must not make this mistake again. What is needed is a new paradigm in setting trade policies that achieve two goals: (1) build and maintain a strong middle class; (2) serve and strengthen U.S. foreign policy. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, “A Trade Policy for All” (June 26, 2018), two Vanderbilt Law School professors, Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman offer what appears to me a responsible starting point.

The premise of the article is that liberalizing markets should be a means, not an end. The authors point out that tariffs are simply taxes on imported goods, economically beneficial to certain groups and detrimental to others.  They offer sound statistical evidence that from 1988 through 2008 free trade agreements overwhelming favored the corporate elite and middle classes in emerging markets at the expenses of the middle classes in advanced economies.  During this period the American middle class stagnated.  The conclusion is that these economic imbalances must be recognized and addressed, head on.

What is to be done in formulating a responsible trade policy?  First, take existing programs and fund them properly.  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been around since 1962 to retrain and help relocate displaced workers.  It has never been given priority status and has been labeled “burial insurance” by labor unions.

Second, trade agreements themselves need to address the imbalance between winners and losers within each agreement. Taxes can be imbedded in regional trade agreements such as NAFTA with the proceeds going directly to the communities negatively affected by each treaty.

Third, for other free trade agreements that overwhelmingly benefit multi- national corporations, an appropriate tax must be applied that goes directly to subsidize those national industries that suffer from an open trade environment.

Like so many of President Trump’s executive decisions, his implementation of trade policy is misplaced and dangerous. Trying to bully other political elites into dropping tariffs, which will in turn threaten their own political constituencies, is a fool’s game and is contrary to international law and order.  Creating new tariffs by haphazardly throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks will hurt as many Americans as it helps.  Moreover, such a “bull in the china shop” approach unravels the fabric of political alliances that have taken decades to weave together.

There is a better way forward.  Trade policy is the province of Congress.  The U.S. Constitution grants the legislative branch authority to regulate international trade including establishing tariffs, drafting and implementing trade agreements, and other provisions affecting commerce within the United States. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters.

The Democratic Party must make it clear to the voters that a fair and lasting trade policy will be a top priority once their members obtain a majority in Congress. They must articulate a trade policy that taxes the winners to help subsidize the losers within the terms of each Agreement.  In short: “A Trade Policy for All.”

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.