THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

The passing of John McCain and the public discussion of his life and legacy has left me contemplating an issue that is 30 months away. What type of presidential candidate would I support for the Democratic party nomination in 2020?  If pressed, who would actually be my choice?

My view is that Trump has little chance of being impeached and will most certainly be the Republican candidate in 2020. With this in mind, there is a tendency in this age of Trump to nominate a Democrat who mirrors some of Trump’s characteristics. That is, to consider potential presidential candidates who are not career politicians, who are independently wealthy and who present out sized egos to confront the President on his own terms.

Prospective candidates who fall into this bucket now include entertainer Oprah Winfrey; Entrepreneur, TV personality and owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban; and former President of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.  I would also place in this category former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg because I do not consider him a career politician and attorney Michael Avenatti, who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels.  Avenatti is by no means a billionaire but he meets the other criteria.  He is becoming a recognizable face on cable news and has expressed an interest in running for president, urging democrats to: “be a party that fights fire with fire.”

 In this group of potential candidates, Michael Bloomberg would be my clear choice.  But his candidacy is problematic.  First he is a registered Independent.  Second his track record as Mayor of New York, while admirable, is not the stuff to attract progressive democrats.  Third, he would find it next to impossible to survive primary challenges from those to his left.  To his credit and to ingratiate himself with democrats, Bloomberg has spent upwards of 80 million dollars to help Democrats retake the House in 2018. Still, his best chance of becoming the candidate might be to accept the nomination at a hopelessly deadlocked Democratic Convention.

 If a candidate other than Bloomberg were to emerge from this group, it would be a clear sign that the Trump presidency has opened a new era in presidential politics.  Celebrity name recognition and personal wealth would have replaced years of earned political acumen as the ticket to the White House.

The second bucket of potential candidates I will label as the young Turks.  In this group would fall a number of possibilities, many of whom have already expressed some interest in running.  There is New Orleans Mayor, Mitch Landrieu, a dark horse to be sure.  A bit more viable in ascending order are: Ohio Senator, Sherrod Brown; New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo; Connecticut Senator, Chris Murphy; Former U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr.; Former Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe; former Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick; New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand; New Jersey Senator, Corry Booker; California Senator, Kamala D. Harris; and the leader in this group, Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

My view among these candidates is that the first consideration should be to favor a qualified woman candidate.  Much of the pain of the Hillary Clinton lose would be repaired if the democratic party were to rebound four years later and be the first Party to place a woman in the White House.  This would advance Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala D. Harris and Elizabeth Warren to the top of my list.

Of these three, Elizabeth Warren has the better name recognition and national organization but is somewhat of a lightning rod.  Her sharp rhetoric and attack dog style might actually help Trump to frame the debate in the Twitter wars that would surely dominate the general election.  My feeling today is that either of the other two would make a better candidate, although neither is as dynamic as Warren.  Much would depend on how deep a following either of them could attract over the course of a congested and hard fought primary.

This brings us to the third and most likely bucket to produce the next democratic nominee for the presidency, the old political warriors.  There are two potential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

 Sanders would seem to hold a strong grip on the leaderless Democratic Party because in 2016 he won at least 40 per cent of the primary vote in 37 States.  But in back of his dedicated, progressive young following his ceiling for support is low. I am not convinced that the country is ready for an Independent and avowed socialist to be elected president.  Moreover, his election would guarantee another four years of gridlock that would make even the Obama years seem tame.  In order for Democrats to govern, the next president must be part of a wide tent solution and not be the issue that invites partisan attacks.

Biden, on the other hand offers up a wider appeal in his liberal, but more fiscally conservative positions and voting record.  After a long Senate career and four years serving as Vice President, he is far and away the most well-traveled and knowledgeable statesman in the pack.  He knows how to campaign, he knows how to bargain with Congress and he knows how to govern.

Recent events have proven that there is no longer a McCain following of note in the Republican Party.  That is, elected Republicans are no longer inclined to follow their moral compasses or independent views rather than an uncompromising party line.  The truth is that but for McCain’s larger than life persona, he would not have won his last election to the Senate in Arizona. 

It does not follow that there is no longer a Biden following in the Democratic party.  The progressive left is more forgiving than the tea party Trumpian right. I believe the Democratic goal of recapturing the White House with the strongest unifying candidate will win out over pure ideological considerations.  If Biden were to win the nomination, Sander’s supporters would fall in line with greater urgency than they did for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

At the recent McCain memorial service in Arizona, Biden was among the last to provide a tribute. His remarks began with the words: “My name is Joe Biden.  I am a Democrat. I loved John McCain.” 

It is my view that this attitude of bipartisanship, along with Biden’s long record of service and blue collar roots is exactly what the country needs to begin the long road back from four years of turbulent tribal warfare.  Biden could enhance his candidacy by declaring he will only serve for one term in the White House (he will be 78 in 2020 as will Sanders) and by choosing early in the campaign, a progressive young Turk, to serve as his vice president. 

Joe Biden and one of the woman listed above would make an excellent ticket to ensure that Donald Trump is sent packing, back to his penthouses, golf resorts, indictments and lawsuits.

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.