POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP IS THE NEW FUNDAMENTALISM

  

Fundamentalism has long been part of religious and political thought.  For centuries, faith was an all or nothing proposition. Strict adherence to religious texts and dogma were maintained. There could be no compromise as the great monotheistic religions sought to rule the world. Within faiths, Catholic fought Protestant and Sunni fought Shia because of fundamentalist schisms.  The Jewish people were persecuted by everyone. 

In political thought, the 18^th and 19^th centuries are remembered for ideological battles between those who favored conservative monarchies versus fledgling liberal democratic leadership. The 20^th century featured fundamentalist battle lines drawn between fascism, communism and democracy.  This was followed by the all or nothing cold war battle for world domination played out between Soviet communism and democratic states.

On the other hand, American political parties in our pluralist democracy were most often open to divergent views and welcomed large tents which could accommodate both moderates and ideologues.  As an example, Northern Democrats proceeding the Civil War were divided into war Democrats who followed Lincoln and peace Democrats who sought a complete accommodation with the southern states.  

Recently, things have changed. The democratic tension between individual freedom on the right and equality on the left has hardened the political parties into fundamentalist like organizations.  

A new type of political zealot has replaced the moderate actor willing to considerate alternative positions. Partisan tribes have been formed that demand allegiance to a narrow set of ideological political views. Within this context facts and rational thought are unimportant. 

There is a party line and the partisan members willingly accept the rigid dogma it entails. In my view the irrationalism of Donald Trump and his followers has much in common with Abbie Hoffman and the 1960s new left, with an opposite ideological spin. Even Ronald Reagan was not above compromise with his political opponents.

 Partisan ideology is encouraged, reinforced and made more reasonable by cable news and social media.  Mass media provides the fire and brimstone sermons of partisan politics. Within both the Republican and Democratic parties, it is more important to win each conflict, which is non-negotiable, than to understand the positions of the other.

The modern day political partisan is unwilling to think rationally.  Remaining partisan requires little effort and is emotionally satisfying.  Conversely, rationality involves stepping outside one’s comfort zone to view the big picture, in all of its messiness and shades of gray.  Rational political thought is choice with a conscious, not a blind eye toward conflicting positions.

Social science studies have shown that even a smarter, better-educated electorate does not produce less partisan views.  Instead, political participants armed with facts are simply better equipped to argue their own side of the conflict.  In one study this was true for both progressives and conservatives. See Dan Kahan:  Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, 4 Judgment & Decision Making 407 (2013)

I have decided that avoiding political partisan fundamentalism is largely an individual decision and requires some effort.  For my part, an exercise in respectful tolerance of the views of Trump supporters, with whom I generally disagree, is the key. I begin by making a list of Trump positions that are rational, including the following:  1) Trump has taken steps that have improved the economy. 2) The Mueller Report has detailed a strong case in concluding that the President and his campaign were not complicit in a conspiracy with Russia. 3) Democrats need to cooperate with Republicans to solve the border crisis. 4) The United States should withdraw from further engagement in the Middle East.  5) Taking a strong stand against China is in America’s best interests.  Taking the time and effort to understand these positions does not mean I will ultimately agree.  It does make my decision making more rational.

Once I have completed this exercise it is easier to resist the Washington generated bitter war between the two well-funded, sharply defined tribes.   It becomes clear that each has their own partisan machines for generating evidence and their own enforcers of orthodoxy.  I choose to make up my own mind and stake out my political positions from a more rational place.

My progressive friends would argue that such an exercise gives credence to the “others” and gains no respectful tolerance in return.  My answer is that politics should not be an all or nothing proposition. Trump voters and progressives alike share many of the same goals and we all love America.

If we seek to understand those who disagree with us, even if a final accommodation seems difficult to achieve, something valuable has been gained. If the Trump administration adopts a rational policy with which, after careful reflection, progressives agree, we should not attack the policy in the name of partisan politics.  Rationality must begin somewhere.

AMERICA IS NOT MOVING TO THE FAR RIGHT

Much has been made of the Trump presidency and of illiberal democracies around the world resurrecting the menace of far right political views.  Under this theory, voters in this country and abroad have been converted to the ideology of the far right, including the rebirth of political institutions from the 1930s that favor authoritarian leaders and permit them to undermine the press and the courts.  Some liberals are even espousing the age-old default position that the masses asserting populism are “up to no good” and can no longer be trusted to deliver equality, liberty and justice for all.

I believe this position is overblown and misses the point of how Trump and others have won elections.  First, it is important to remember that no right wing populist has come to power anywhere in Western Europe or North America without the full cooperation of traditional conservative elites.  In our country, Republican voters did what they always do and voted for the representative of their party. For Republicans and many Independents, Hillary Clinton was unelectable. What took place was predictable and normal.  It was the candidate who was not normal, not the electorate.

Second, the election of Donald Trump was not the enthusiastic endorsement of a Ronald Reagan or an LBJ. Those who voted for him were compelled to overlook character flaws in favor of their anti-abortion or other conservative policy positions. Many of Trump’s illiberal attacks against the media and the courts did not appear until after the election.  There is no evidence that many of those who voted for him support these authoritarian right wing views.

Third, the mid-term elections demonstrated a strong moderate and left of moderate current in the American electorate.  The trend in American political history has always been that following any period of extremism the pendulum swings back toward the middle. It is my view that the 2020 election will follow this inclination and elect a moderate Democrat to the presidency.

Fourth, In America, the appearance of acts of right wing violence and rhetoric since Trump’s election are representative of the perspective of a small minority, unlike troubling reports from parts of Germany and Eastern Europe.  The incidents in America, fueled by domestic and foreign social media and by the President’s own conduct, have encouraged America’s fringe right wing to take action.  There has not been a significant shift in public opinion in support of right wing views.

Lastly, the American democratic experience of a constitutional republic balanced by three branches of government, runs deep and strong. There is no appetite to permit Trump, his family and wealthy political supporters to gain economic advantage through the presidency, or to label non-Trump supporters as “enemies of the people”, or to permit the executive branch to brazenly act in unaccountable ways.

Progressives would do well to stop trying to analyze what caused Trump and to plan for the future, post Trump. Moreover, the average voter is not interested in hearing about revisionist history and how our founding fathers got our institutions all wrong because of racism and sexism.  While there may be some historical truth to these claims, it is counterproductive.  We need to stress what the founders got right and why it is worth preserving for the next generation of Americans.

Trump alone is responsible for breaking the office of the presidency into an unrecognizable institution.  Much of the damage can be traced to his self-promotion and to self-preservation, not a grand plan of right wing authoritarian takeover, as was the case in Russia, Hungary and Turkey.  The American electorate will soon make things right.

PUBLIC TRANSIT SHINES IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

For those of us who travel everywhere by personal vehicle, it is easy to miss the public transportation system humming along each day in Washington County.  The truth is that without mass transit serving our elderly and many others who lack the ability to drive, thousands of our County citizens would have no means of getting to work, shopping or keeping medical appointments. 

Recently I stopped by to chat with Shelia Gombita, Executive Director of the Washington County Transportation Authority, at the new offices on Chestnut St.  What the Authority has been able to accomplish is astonishing for our semi-rural area.

Local citizens in need of public transportation are on track to take over 100,000 trips in fiscal year 2019, an increase of 20% from 2018. The Authority services the City of Washington, Houston, Canonsburg, McDonald, Monongahela, Finleyville, McMurray and points in between.  Each weekday there are ten inbound trips to Pittsburgh and ten outbound trips to Washington.  Incredibly, the fare is only $5.00 each way. On Saturday, there are three outbound and inbound trips to and from the South Hills transit Station.

Funding is always the major issue in developing a meaningful public transportation system. For decades, the Pennsylvania Lottery has provided the means for anyone age 65 or older to ride fixed route public transportation at no cost and to utilize shared ride services at a reduced rate. Disabled citizens can ride at ½ the regular fare. 

This is critical because studies have shown that senior citizens make up 44% of all transit riders in rural Pennsylvania and over 17% of the rural population is disabled.  Moreover, 53% of all rural disabled citizens work each day, with public transportation the only means of access to their places of employment.

Other funding is a combination of local, state and federal dollars. A Pennsylvania plan enacted in Act 44 of 2007 was a major restructuring of funding for transit.  It dedicated 4.4% of the Sales and Use Tax and Turnpike payments ($450 million in 2019) to a new Public Transportation Trust fund. Recently, two groups have brought a lawsuit claiming that the Turnpike payments are illegal causing a potential funding crunch.  Currently the City of Washington contributes $98,000 and the County $130,000 toward public transportation.

Why should those of us with two cars in the driveway care about a vibrant public transportation system?  Transit reduces congestion and pollution, improves the quality of life in the community, brings employees and customers to local businesses and adds to the local municipal tax base.  Most importantly, making public transportation a priority is an example of what good government should provide for its older and less fortunate citizens.

Notwithstanding the funding challenges that are a constant concern for the Washington County Transportation Authority, there is room to improve the service and make it even more accessible.  First, the weekday service could be expanded past 7pm to accommodate late shoppers and employees with non-traditional work schedules.  Second, Sunday service could be implemented to permit attendance at religious services and to provide more opportunity for shopping and weekend employees.  Third, more on demand service, along the “Uber model” could be unveiled as an added convenience for public transportation patrons.

In order to ensure uninterrupted service and to expand the schedule, it is my opinion that local government needs to ante up a larger share of the financial burden.  Public transportation is good for Washington County. At a time when the County tax base is growing, with low unemployment and a vibrant Marcellus Shale industry, an increased commitment to public transportation makes good economic sense.

SECOND POT OF COFFEE THOUGHTS

I have noticed that baby boomers and millennials are now sporting the same Velcro headgear.  The boomer version is attached to c-pap machines.  The millennial’s are using the same straps to hold virtual reality displays in place.

Those who believe that issues will be important in the 2020 presidential election are wrong.  All that will matter for Republican voters is the persona of Donald Trump and for Democrats the desire to remove him from the White House.

 One would expect very low voter turnouts in Washington County for the May 21, primary.  The one fact that may garner some interest is contested Democratic races for County Treasurer and Register of Wills.  Otherwise, we must wait until November to see some election excitement.

I recently attended a performance of the Edgewood Volunteer Symphony in Pittsburgh, the oldest regional Symphony of its kind.  It was satisfying to learn that our own Washington Symphony Orchestra has ticket sales of more than double those of Edgewood for a typical performance.

It is difficult to determine what the long term effect of the President’s trade wars and tariffs will be on the American economy.  As prices on many consumer goods begin to rise, no one seems to know if sales will be impacted.  The greatest fear is that farmers will lose contracts to export crops to China. China will seek out new relationships with sellers in other countries, leaving the farmers out in the cold when the trade wars are resolved.

I am addicted to Starbucks ice coffee after finishing up at the gym at 4 pm.  My car cannot avoid heading up the hill from route 19 to get in the long line at the drive through lane.  I often see the same vehicles in front of me indicating that a late afternoon caffeine fix is all the rage.

Our group of Washington County patrons had dinner at the Squirrel Hill Eat & Park prior to the aforementioned Edgewood Symphony Concert at the Jewish Community Center.  The ethnic diversity of people both within the restaurant and on the street was a beautiful thing and reminded me of what I miss most about living in Pittsburgh.

What I do not miss about Pittsburgh is the traffic, difficulty parking and the potholes.  Those who complain about such matters in Washington County should realize how good they have it.

Now that Game of Thrones is on its final episodes and the NBA playoffs are winding down there should be plenty of time to attack my stack of books, before football season returns in September.

A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION (PARTS I & II)

 PART I: THE BROAD CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

“We need comprehensive immigration reform. Dr. King wouldn't be pleased at all to know that there are millions of people living in the shadow, living in fear in places like Georgia and Alabama.”

                                                                        JOHN LEWIS

 In the middle of a southern border immigration crisis and other diversions like the release of the Mueller Report, passing legislation to fix immigration in America is not on the radar of the United States Congress. Many politicians seem to believe that this is not the time to address immigration reform because of the extreme partisan bickering. Moreover, to fix immigration might interfere with the political calculations being made by both major political parties leading up to the 2020 election.

Republicans have labeled Democrats as supporters of open borders.  Democrats claim that Republicans and the President are ignoring immigration law and creating a humanitarian crisis at the border for political advantage.  This commentary will argue that despite the political rhetoric there is no better time than now to initiate a bipartisan fix of our immigration system.  Moreover, there is a middle road that would require some compromise, but would address concerns raised by both Democrats, Republicans and to avoid a veto, the President.

Part I of this commentary will present the components of immigration that require congressional attention. The American immigration system has been broken for decades with multiple year backlogs waiting for processing and millions of undocumented workers.  Now there is a new immediate crisis, well beyond the long standing chronic problems, caused by large numbers of Central Americans seeking refugee and/or asylum status into the United States.

To understand the extent of the issues raised by immigration and to weigh possible solutions, one must first consider the three distinct streams of immigrants seeking to enter the country: economic, family and humanitarian.  After our elected officials determine a revised realistic number for admitting new immigrants, judgements must be made on how to divide that number into these three groups.

First and most important is the economic calculation in a reformed immigration system. Few disagree that there is a need for new immigrants in agriculture, the food industry, health-care, the hospitality industry and construction, on the low-skilled end of our economy, or for professionals in the medical and scientific fields, in high skilled areas. The sensible way forward is to involve prospective employers in identifying the need.  Then the government would conduct studies with local unions and business leaders to determine that the number and type of new immigrant were not putting pressure on local services or hurting domestic workers.

Most experts agree that the economic stream of immigrants should be the largest component of a reformed system.  Anyone with a job and a clean background, who fits into a category of needed workers, should be given an uncomplicated path to work and a well-defined path to citizenship.

 Both New Zealand and Australia have adopted innovative systems of worker immigration that can serve as templates for the United States.  The systems that are effective are designed to change the numbers of immigrants without bureaucratic delay as economic conditions warrant.

The second group of immigrants to consider is the family stream.  Because the benefits of immigrants moving to join family members are less tangible than those who move to fill needed work positions, a different set of criteria is necessary.  The immediate dilemma for Congress to consider is to define what is a family: the nuclear family?; does it include parents?; adult children and siblings?

It is difficult to argue that intact families are good for society.  Moreover, a network of family members is invaluable as a support group, providing skills necessary to assimilate and to provide intra family employment. Over time, family members contribute to the economy.

Lastly, is the humanitarian stream.  In the past, refugees and asylum seekers were a small percentage of American immigrants.  This was due to geography, as most of the world’s refuges live in camps near their respective third world countries. An exception was the resettlement of thousands of Vietnamese following the Vietnam War.

The recent tide of immigrants from Central America seeking to enter the country has changed this reality.  Deteriorating living conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have compelled many families with small children to risk the dangerous journey north, to our border.  In 2018, 162,000 Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border seeking legal admission.  This year the number has increased dramatically with 92,000 presenting themselves to the border in March of this year.

The two legal pathways available for humanitarian immigrants, refugee status and asylum are inadequate under existing law.  There is a cap for refugee admissions from each region of the world.  For Latin America the cap number is a paltry 1,500.  Under existing law, to apply for asylum, a migrant must only set foot anywhere on U.S. soil, either by legal or illegal entry.  This has encouraged many Central Americans to cross the border illegally and skip the long lines at ports of entry.  They then turn themselves in to border authorities and claim asylum.

 The present crisis at the border is simply the result of outdated and unworkable United States law and regulations.  The recent words of acting Homeland Security Chief, Kevin McAleenan, summarize the refugee/asylum problem: “Without action from Congress, criminals will continue to profit from human misery along our border. It is clear that all of our resources are being stretched thin. The system is full and we are beyond capacity.  We don’t have the room to hold them, we don’t have the authority to remove them, and they are not likely to be able to remain in the country at the end of the immigration proceedings.”

The last issue that must be considered and resolved by Congress is illegal immigration. The illegal population in our country peaked by 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population. Billions have been spent to enforce the existing dysfunctional law with little improvement. Similar to prohibition in the 1920s, the war against illegal immigrants spawned an underground economy and criminalized what was otherwise peaceful behavior by those seeking a better life.

Prior to the most recent crisis involving Central American refugees, the overriding immigration issue in America was resolving the fate of young immigrants who had arrived illegally as children, now known as “DREAMers”.  The back and forth political discussion over DREAMer deportation versus a path to citizenship has created a mountain of animosity and no solution.

Part II of this commentary will expand on my original premise that now is the time to fix all aspects of immigration.  I will propose a path forward that could find support in all corners of our political universe.

A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION

 PART II: WHY NOW IS THE TIME FOR CONGRESS TO GET DOWN TO

BUSINESS

“Our Nation depends on immigrants’ labor, and I hope we can create an immigration system as dependable as they are.”
Luis Gutierrez

In part I of this commentary the essential elements of the immigration problem were reviewed.  In part II, the recent past history of attempts to reform immigration will be summarized, followed by a proposal for comprehensive overhaul of our immigration system.

President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986. This legislation provided for: legalization of undocumented immigrants who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and resided here continuously; required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status; and made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants.  Employers found a loophole in the law by using subcontractors to supply them with workers.  There are now in excess of 12 million new undocumented immigrants living in the United States since the passage of the 1986 legislation.

The next significant step occurred when the “Gang of Eight” in the United States Senate wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.  The 9/11 attacks on our country radically changed many of the calculations on immigration and there was now an increased emphasis on security.

 The policies proposed by the Gang of Eight included: a restricted path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the United States, including “DREAMers”; substantial business immigration reforms focused on reducing backlogs and fast-tracking permanent residence for professionals in the STEM fields; an expanded and improved employment verification system;  and more realistic work visa options for low-skilled workers, including an agricultural worker program.

In June of 2013, the immigration bill passed the Senate with a strong majority- 68-32.  Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats.  Unfortunately, the anti-immigration Freedom Caucus was too strong in the House of Representatives and no House action was taken on the bill. While not perfect, this bill would have gone a long way to address those policy issues discussed in part I of this commentary.

Since Donald Trump has been in office the outlook for immigration reform appears to have dimmed and conditions at the border have deteriorated.  Trump’s immigration agenda, most notably building a wall, is untenable in Congress.  Not even shutting down the federal government for more than a month gave Trump his funding.  He was forced to declare a national emergency, where most observers feel none exists, to obtain the financial ability to proceed with the wall.

While the wall remains Trump’s central goal, other proposed policies and threats have continued to emanate from the White House.  First, there was the announcement of “zero tolerance” and the separation of migrant children from their parents, before losing them in foster care. This was followed by ultimatums to close the border to all legal commerce; announced policy to withdraw financial aid to those Central American governments that are the genesis of the migration; and an executive action to deploy thousands of U.S. troops to southern Texas.

With all of this partisan disagreement and a national election on the horizon, why do I believe that now is the time for Congress to place immigration reform front and center?  There are three reasons.  First, the President is correct on one important point.  There is a true humanitarian crisis at the border that requires immediate attention. The breaking point has been reached, which should encourage rational debate and compromise.

Second, while the immediate crisis is Central American migration, comprehensive reform would guarantee that the concerns of all political actors would be addressed. The demands of conservatives who want a wall and enhanced security, progressives who want expanded legal immigration along with more humane treatment of illegals, employers who want work programs that meet their needs, individuals with temporary immigration status (TIPS) that have not been renewed and DREAMers who want a path to citizenship can all be accommodated.  Legislation that gives something to all interest groups provides political cover and is good government.

Third, immigration as a topic, encapsulates many of the value conflicts we have in our society. These include hot button topics like security, law breaking, inequality, equal opportunity, nationalism and what it means to be an American. I believe only a global omnibus legislative effort will win over all participants.

So, what is to be done? Below are proposals for each of the areas I pointed out in Part I that must be considered and reformed under new legislation.

The Number of Legal Immigrants Admitted to the Country Each Year.  The one thing that stands out when reviewing immigration systems that work from those like ours, that do not, is flexibility.  Countries that have enacted quota systems that can quickly change along with economic conditions are far more successful.  I would propose an appointed non-partisan immigration commission made up of diverse interest groups to set quotas each year, within wide parameters set by Congress.

The Economic Stream.   In return for more security measures, Republicans should be willing to give agribusiness a revised guest worker program because it favors employers and denies workers a permanent legal status. The conservative worry about taking jobs from able-bodied Americans is not an issue in our full employment economy.  The progressive worry about agri-workers being taken advantage of by under paying employers can be resolved through Labor Department regulations.

The new legislation should improve the “E-Verify” program to allow needed foreign labor access to American employment as needed and wanted. The Trump administration has actually looked favorably on a merit based system for professional immigrants, emulating the Canadian model.  Prospective immigrants are prioritized based on merit and evaluated by a point system.  In Canada, high scoring immigrants are admitted with little delay, giving our neighbor to the north the most educated foreign born population on earth.

The Family Stream. Our dysfunctional system is more liberal with the definition of family based immigration than many countries while being stingy in the number of visas granted for each category.  Many family member applicants qualify and wait 20 years for a visa to open. I propose eliminating siblings and married adult children from the family stream and dramatically increasing the visa numbers for spouses and minor children.  The first part would satisfy the President and conservatives, the later would unite more primary families, a positive for social engineering.  Notably, the number of visas for immigrant family members from throughout North and South Americas should be substantially increased.

The Humanitarian Stream. Prior to 2013, one out of every 100 migrants sought asylum. Now, that number has skyrocketed to one out of every 10. It is time for the Trump administration to stop trying to drive applicants away at the border (it has only increased the number of illegal crossings) and for Democrats to stop blaming the President for a manufactured crisis.

 Any new legislation should appoint more immigration Judges to quickly hear and decide cases. This would reduce bogus claims and not permit asylum seekers to disappear into the underground economy while waiting years for a court date.  Funds should be allocated to update the antiquated paper based immigration court system. Mexico should be pressed to control its southern border.  Rather than cut financial aid to the involved Central American countries, increase it to help stem the physical violence and improve economic conditions.

Illegal Immigrants. Lastly, what is to be done with illegal immigrants already in the country?  This issue has been a major obstacle in prior efforts to reform immigration policy.  Satisfying the needs of DREAMers has become a major political issue for Democrats.  Providing enhanced security to prevent future illegals from crossing the border is a primary campaign issue for President Trump and his base. 

The formulae to break this logjam is not difficult.  The obvious compromise has been close to becoming a done deal on several occasions. Trump should be given a portion of his wall funding and DREAMers should be awarded a rational path to citizenship.

It is time to put politics aside and to make 2019’s immigration crisis a focus to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.  This will not be easy, but it is what responsible elected officials do in times of crisis.

THE DECLINE IN LEARNING HISTORY

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”  Marcus Garvey

In 2018 a professor at Northeastern University, Benjamin Schmidt, published a research report on the study of history at American institutions of higher learning.  He concluded that for the past decade, history has been declining as a focus of study more rapidly than any other college major. (The History BA Since The Great Recession, Benjamin M. Schmidt/ Nov 26, 2018) This was the case even as more students attended college.  History accounted for between one and two per cent of bachelor degrees, a drop of about a third since 2011.

The casual observer would probably not find this fact surprising.  After all, many of the humanities have suffered in recent years as employability became the watchword following the 2008 financial crisis and recession.  A secure career path in nursing, engineering, computer science, biology and other STEM disciplines continues to drive the future of higher education.

To the business and scientific world, a female mathematician is worth 10 of her contemporaries trained in the classics, art appreciation or history.  The STEM community is also the major contributor of large grants to higher education, ensuring they get what they need from Universities and young graduates.

Does it matter if history professors are not offered tenure, if history departments cease to exist or if the history discipline is placed in new departments that combine history with other humanity topics? In my view it does.   

Once higher education is permitted to downgrade or dump the humanities in general and history in particular, we will lose a valuable resource.  I will present some sage advice gathered from the community of historians and offer my own experience in how history has enriched my life.

First, a nation with little knowledge of history is permitting its leaders to formulate and dissipate a false narrative.  I am the first to admit that fake news has always existed since the invention of the printing press. But only an educated polity who has been exposed to unvarnished historical events can expose a false narrative. 

Moreover, those trained in uncovering historical truths know how to seek out reliable source materials.  They know the importance of reviewing the findings of respected researchers as opposed to ideological commentators. The latter often care nothing for truth or credibility and will manipulate the facts to make a point or achieve a result.

Second, consider the following quote from Alan Mikhail, the chair of the history department at Yale: “A study of the past shows us that the only way to understand the present is to embrace the messiness of politics, culture, and economics.  There are never easy answers to pressing questions about the world and public life.” (see The New Yorker, The Decline of Historical Thinking, 2/2/19)

History is never black or white.  When studying Napoleon Bonaparte, a military history, a political history, a cultural history, a life history and comparative history will each yield its own story.  When combined together a fuller understanding is possible.  As new source materials are unearthed, the facts change yet again and a deeper level of truth is obtained.

Revisionist histories are now quite common.  As new historians come to reconsider long accepted facts, different interpretations are placed on those facts.  In recent years we have been given new revisionist histories of the American Revolution, the Civil War and the place of western culture in developing post Hellenistic civilization.

Third, history helps us understand change and how the society we live in came to be. The past causes the present, and so the future. Any time we try to know why something happened—whether a shift in political party dominance in the American Congress, a major change in the use of alcohol or opioids, or a war in the Ukraine or the Middle East—we have to look for factors that took shape earlier. Sometimes recent history will suffice to explain a major development, but often we need to look further back to identify the causes of unforeseen events.

Fourth, History also helps provide identity. This is unquestionably one of the reasons all modern nations encourage its teaching in some rudimentary form. Historical data include evidence about how families, groups, institutions and whole countries were formed and about how they have evolved while retaining cohesion.  This is generally referred to as “patriotic” nationalism, a positive force in nation building as opposed to “ethnic/nativist” nationalism, which seeks to turn one group against another.

Lastly, history is useful in providing an excellent foundation for many professions.  Its study helps create good businesspeople, scientists, journalists and political leaders. There are also the history professionals  who teach at various levels, work in museums and media centers, do historical research for businesses or public agencies, or participate in the growing number of historical consultancies.

A few words on how the study of history has enriched my own life.  There are enumerable times where knowledge of previous events has helped me to “connect the dots” and understand important political, religious and social concepts. I have learned that principles we take for granted often took centuries to take hold.

To disclose one of many examples, I never fully understood the development of the separation of church and state until the 1076 dispute between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV of Germany was revealed to me. The two medieval leaders argued over who should have the power to name church bishops: church figureheads or government officials. Gregory was so enraged by Henry's position that he excommunicated the emperor. Henry was forced to travel to Italy to the pope's winter castle at Canossa in the Italian Alps to beg forgiveness. Gregory kept Henry waiting outside in foul weather for three days before granting him an audience. All was forgiven and the church now had unbridled control over its own religious appointments.

Skipping forward 600 years, the same issue was unresolved in Puritan New England. It took Roger Williams to push back against theological control of Puritan society. He would go on to incorporate the religiously tolerant Providence of Rhode Island, with the help of concerned men of letters from Britain. This gave the separation of church and state a chance to flourish in the new world. The concept would become a cornerstone of the new Republic.

I cannot imagine my intellectual life without an historical frame of reference.  My wife has become a student of British history and her analysis of current events often traces back to an historical occurrence where the parallels are similar. We both enjoy historical fiction and nonfiction studies of places where we travel.  Our recent trips to Paris and Cuba were greatly enhanced by reading a few recommended histories before we embarked.

The computer sciences along with other empirical disciplines and technical schools are gaining in popularity.  There are good reasons for this change. But the nation needs graduates well trained in the humanities. Most of all, It needs future historians to keep us in touch with our past as we plan for the future.

THE OTHER AMERICAN DISCRIMINATION STORY

  

 Over the past several weeks my commentaries have addressed the history of American ethnic immigration and the politics of “no”.  I will now turn to a religious discrimination story and the mid-19^th century politics of: “no” Catholics and “no” Mormons.

This topic could not be timelier. On March 25, 2019 a Christian Pennsylvania 

Lawmaker, Republican Stephanie Borowicz from Clinton County, conducted the 

opening prayer in the Pennsylvania House. The prayer immediately preceded an induction ceremony involving the first Muslim Woman, Movita Johnson-Harrell, to be sworn into the Commonwealth Legislature.  The prayer made no attempt to be ecumenical and was rife with religious references that were decidedly anti Muslim.  Many of those in attendance believed the prayer was a political statement against the Muslim faith.

In considering religious discrimination, it is instructive to consider how Protestant Americans received Catholics and Mormons as their numbers grew throughout the 19^th century. For American nativists and populists in the pre- Civil War period, the surge of Catholic European immigrants and the new Mormon religion created deep anxiety.  This anti-Catholic/Mormon movement coalesced into a major political entity, The American Party, commonly known as the Know-Nothing movement.

The Know Nothings believed a “Romanist” conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in the United States. They sought to politically organize native-born Protestants (many of whom were second-generation immigrants themselves) in what they described as a defense of Protestant religious and political values. There were expressed fears by Know-Nothing leaders that Catholic priests and bishops would control a large bloc of voters and pass laws against the interests of Protestant America.

These claims should sound familiar to those who follow Donald Trump’s tweets and the policies of his Administration.  ‘Make America Great Again” is supported by a strong anti-Muslim component.  It views Muslim immigration with the same contempt as Catholic immigrants and the new Mormon religion faced 150 years ago. 

Rather than encourage Muslim assimilation into American culture Trump and many of his followers seek to simply keep them out of the country. With no evidence to support the claim, they believe that the tenants of Islam and Shira law are designed to defeat democracy and the rule of law. (Ironically, Trump’s words and actions often appear to do the same)  The major distinction between “then” and “now” is that while Catholicism went on to become the nation’s single largest religious group and there are now seven million Mormons the number of American citizens who are devout Muslims is relatively small.

A recent article in the New York Review of Books (The Popery Panic, David S. Reynolds, April 18, 2019) reviews the historical literature concerning the backlash against Catholic immigration.  By 1854, the American Party had over one million followers. Similar to today’s Tea Party, the No Nothings at their pinnacle elected several governors, hundreds of state legislators, and the Mayors of Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. Political riots and deaths were common.

Fake News to attack the surge in Catholicism and Mormonism was prevalent.  Nativist newspapers included the following: The American Protestant Vindicator, Priestcraft Unmasked, The Anti-Romanist, and The Downfall of Babylon; or The Triumph of Truth Over Popery. Best selling books of the day were: The Escaped Nun, The Female Jesuit, Priests’ Prisons for Women, The Captive Nun, The Haunted Convent, The Convent’s Doom, and The White Nun of the Wilderness. 

Anti Mormon Literature included: The Mormoness; or, The Trials of Mary Maverick, The Prophets; or, Mormonism Unveiled, Wife No. 19; or, The Story of a Life in Bondage, Being a Complete Exposé of Mormonism, and the inevitable Awful Disclosures of Mormonism. Sexual bondage, infanticide, and the miseries of plural marriage were common topics in them. One novel, Mormon Wives, sold more than 40,000 copies in the 1850s. By 1900, over fifty anti-Mormon books were in print.

The question posed by history is always: do we learn from the past, or are we destined to repeat the past? Both Catholics and Mormons are today mainstream accepted contributors to the health and vitality of our nation. Both religious groups are prominent participants in industry, education and politics. It is impossible to discuss our heritage without including them. 

Learning from the past would lead us to a rational and moderate national policy regarding Muslim immigration and the welcoming of those of the Islamic faith into American culture. Unfortunately, we seem ready to take the other, darker road by repeating past discrimination.

As I finish this commentary, POLITICO reports that Trump is considering the nomination of, Julie Kirchner, the former head of an anti immigration group to head U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Her prior organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has ties to white supremacist groups and has made many racist statements. Its advertisements have often been rejected because of racist content. Its expressed policy is that America remain a majority white population by limiting the number of non-whites who enter the country.

 Because the White House is encouraging modern nativism, it is more dangerous than the Know Nothing movement.  Religious and racial discrimination is becoming institutionalized at the highest level of government.  It is time for all concerned citizens to speak up and support religious equality for Muslim immigrants and Muslim citizens alike.