THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW

Many of us are looking for a path forward in our political leadership, work lives and long-term health.  We are in the middle of a highly charged partisan presidential election year, which just happens to be occurring during the worst economic and medical disaster in over a hundred years.

Anyone in authority who admits to knowing what they do not know, about the economy, the presidential election or the pandemic has been a breath of honesty and fresh air.  Conversely, elected leaders, scientists and journalists who have insisted on knowing all the answers to unknowable solutions and results are guilty of malpractice against the American people. These individuals do not deserve our attention or support going forward. 

The one trait that will define the winners of 2020 will be those with the ability to know that a certain result was unable to be determined with any precision. Once each economist, investors, scientist and politician   stopped dealing with certainty and began concentrating on what they knew they did not know it was a manageable task to apply what they did know to the pandemic and to maximize the best outcome.

Those investors who knew what they did not know prudently diversified their portfolios before the bottom fell out of the economy and kept a cash reserve. No one was prescient enough to predict a pandemic. However, those who viewed the economy as a “shoots and ladders game”, with a long struggle up the ladder followed by an unpredictable sharp fall to the bottom, were more prepared for the economic collapse.

Presidential politics is an excellent topic to consider the importance of knowing what we do not know. The worst economic and medical crisis in our history will dominate the election.  Those who are confidently predicting the outcome are wasting our time.

 At this point, no one knows how the president will be judged for his handling of the crisis. No one knows the course of the virus, the economic results from a patchwork reopening of the economy, or whether adequate safeguards can be instituted to dampen a reoccurrence.  The manner in which these unknowns are resolved will determine who our next president becomes.

Finally, I would like to examine the pandemic itself and draw some observations about the benefits of those who admit to knowing what they do not know.  To make my point, I will follow the recent public records of a politician, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and of an immunologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci. These two dedicated Italian Americans approached the pandemic from opposite positions early in the pandemic before coming together on their management of the crisis. 

Elected officials, like Andrew Cuomo, understand their role in a public health emergency as seeking to dampen panic and to be positive about the future.  The goal is to keep all aspects of society running as normally as possible.  On the other hand, scientists like Anthony Fauci, see their initial role as ringing alarm bells and making statements that compel the population to change behaviors before a major breakout has occurred.  What is remarkable to me is that over the course of two months these two irreconcilable positions would merge into one voice, as each realized the extent of what they knew they did not know.

In early March, Governor Cuomo took the standard “all is well” position of a politician and fumbled the New York response to the pandemic.  The Governors of California and Washington State listened to the scientists and instituted statewide shutdowns before there were many reported infections. Cuomo did the opposite and let the residents of his state, including the most densely populated city in the world, operate as if nothing was amiss.

 During this same period, in early March, Dr. Fauci was Cuomo’s worst nightmare.  He was taking whatever action he felt necessary to save lives, which included presenting models of worst case scenarios to the White House and to the media. His predictions of two million deaths finally convinced President Trump to call for a national response.  These dire forecasts, which assumed taking no action at all, are now the basis for right wing attacks against his professional credentials and his motives.

A dramatic change took place in late March that would see both Cuomo and Fauci singing from the same sheet of music. The Governor was suddenly faced with the collapse of the New York medical system as it responded to the virus.  While it was too late to avoid large numbers of infections, a complete shutdown of all economic activity was called for to mitigate the spread. Cuomo shifted from an elected official calling for calm and restraint to one managing the largest crisis of his career.

Cuomo began holding daily media briefings during which nothing was sugar coated.  Each day the number of new cases, hospital admissions and deaths were reported along with extensive analysis of what his experts knew they did not know. The results were (and are) unknowable. As a plan of action, it was rational to beleive that social distancing and staying in place for many weeks would lower the number of infections.  New Yorkers (and a nation of shut-ins) appreciated the governor’s candor and followed his instructions.

During this same period, Dr Fauci became less of a fatalist and took the position that the results from all the models making predictions on the virus were actually not to be taken seriously.  He began explaining that there were so many variable inputs, depending on how well citizens followed his guidelines, that no result was knowable. Moreover, the virus began acting in unpredictable ways that were unknowable to medical experts.  The only real message was that each of us doing our part could flatten the curve.  We learned to apply what we do know to mitigate the unknowable.

Once the elected official became a manager and the alarmist scientist became focused on mitigation, their goals were aligned.  Neither can tell us how things will end.  Both can prescribe the same course of action.

We are now in the crucial months leading up to the presidential election. The pandemic will spawn a boatload of theories, counter theories, conspiracies and after- the- fact analysis.  Most of it will be self-serving and misleading.  Anyone who claims they know how the course of the virus or the presidential election will play out is either a fool or a manipulator.

THE PLAGUE

President Trump is fond of referring to the Covid-19 pandemic as the plague during his marathon press conferences and in tweets.  Like many of his science related pronouncements, this is a misstatement. Plague is an infectious disease caused by a bacterium.  Covid-19 is a novel coronavirus.

If the President’s intent is to frighten citizens, using the term plague is certainly more ominous than infectious disease.  The black plague killed 50 million people in the 14th century, or 60 per cent of Europe's entire population. In biblical terms the ten plagues that struck Egypt and the seven described in Revelation are onerous enough to convince many of us to stay at home for a month or two.

To “be plagued” is defined as to vex, harass, trouble or torment. I find it ironic that Trump would employ this description to describe our pandemic when he has daily plagued the foundational institutions and accepted norms of our constitutional democratic republic.  When it comes to honoring the rule of law and filling the role of a modern president in representing all the people he serves, Trump has been the “plaguer in chief.”

Trump’s use of the word plague is but a symptom of the ill-conceived plan he is following to handle the greatest crisis of his presidency.  In keeping with his claims that he is smarter than the generals, the diplomats, the intelligence specialists and the scientists, the solutions to the pandemic had to be uniquely his alone.  Moreover, Trump’s mindset guarantees that his approach favors short-term political goals rather than sound medical or economic ones.  This led to a cascade of missteps that have threatened his presidency more than the Mueller Report or the impeachment proceedings.

His first plan was to protect the economy and keep the numbers of reported infections down by limiting testing and to dismiss the pandemic as a hoax. Next was the attempt to close the borders, while thousands of our own citizens hurried home from Asia and Europe with coronavirus in their systems.  He followed this by blaming the outbreak on the Chinese, the World Health Organization and states with Democratic governors.

According to Trump, at all times any action taken by the White House was “the best.” Trump has insisted that the governors who received uneven doles of federal aid praise him for his ideas and solutions.  Any media attempt to question a task force policy or Trump statement was dismissed as partisan politics.  Finally, Trump began improvising from the White House press room and proposed untested and quack cures for the disease. He was looking to take personal credit, if his controversial theories proved useful.  In addition the medical community roundly criticized him and his presidential bully-pulpit was reduced to a laughingstock.

For years Trump has been able to control his political base by convincing them that his version of the truth was of a higher value than the media’s fact-checked truth.  Now his version of the truth is often at odds with his own task force and scientists.  Moreover, during the crisis he has often changed his position one hundred eighty degrees from day to day, leaving his supporters to wonder what policy represents the party line.

What is amazing about the President’s approach to the pandemic is that other elected officials around the world, both democratic and authoritarian, have used the crisis to demonstrate leadership, consolidate power and silence criticism of past behaviors. In our country, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo has become a symbol of a steady hand guiding citizens through this medical and economic tsunami. His daily press conferences have become must watch television for a country of shut-ins and his political capital has soared.  Before the pandemic Cuomo was considered an old school, charmless power broker, despised by progressives and tolerated by everyone else.

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has used the pandemic to strengthen his hold on the world’s largest democracy.  In his bid to make India a “Hindu first” country, Muslims and members of the lowest castes have been accused of being super spreaders of the virus.  Taking advantage of the chaos and fear, Modi has used the police and army to enforce the lockdown.  His government has utilized archaic laws against sedition to arrest and silence its critics, including members of the press.

The story is the same in numerous illiberal democracies and authoritarian regimes.   Other right leaning leaders, like the president, who depend on populist supporters to stay in power, have found ways to seize the moment and become more entrenched.     

Somehow, the President squandered his opportunity to bring the country together against a common nemesis. With this opportunity to demonstrate leadership, he should now be the odds on favorite to win the upcoming election.  Instead, his lack of empathy, self-serving statements and dangerous medical suggestions to overcome the disease are flattening his popularity curve faster than the disease curve itself.

I recently revisited Albert Camus’s classic novel The Plague as part of my reading while staying in place.  The book depicts the trials of ordinary citizens in the costal African city of Oran during a new infestation of the bubonic plague.  In the background of a wonderful allegorical story is the development of Camus’s philosophy of “ordinary heroism.” Camus describes the citizens of Oran, who insist on a “dedication to ordinary life”, through a thousand acts of decency and respect for each other. The doctors, nurses, mail carriers, and even the bureaucrats demonstrate heroism as ordinary citizens, not through acts of super human greatness.

As I read the novel and considered the American experience over the past weeks, ordinary heroism seemed the perfect description of what we are most proud of as citizens. We have witnessed millions of heroes from the hospitals, to the grocery stores, to mass transit all doing what they are trained to do, with great risk to themselves, bringing out the best in humanity.

When this life-altering episode is behind us I hope I continue to remember the plague.  Not the President’s image of fire and brimstone that he has sought to conquer through his own individual efforts, like a modern day Moses.  I want to remember Camus and his beautiful missive that reminds me that it takes an entire population of heroes fighting for normalcy to conquer a disease that threatens all of us with equal indiscrimination.

In the words of Mother Teresa: “Small things done with great love will change the world.” 

A ROAD TRIP TO LOOK FORWARD TO

At some point domestic travel will be permitted by governors across the country.  Many of us will be looking for a diversion after months of staying at home.  The more adventurous may be ready for a road trip to the South where the tourists will be fewer due to the hangover fear of a resurgence of Covid-19.  However, gas will remain inexpensive and lodging/restaurants will be offering deals not seen in decades. (We usually employ Groupon Travel or Trivago to land a good deal on brand name motels). 

This journey will outline one of our favorites; a round trip excursion to Asheville, North Carolina; Savannah Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and a small Bed and Breakfast in Grassy Creek North Carolina, before returning to Washington. Travelers looking for some beach time or excellent Golf could easily add a stay at Hilton Head Island.

The key to this trip was breaking up long drives into manageable legs with great scenery. An 8 AM start will easily get you to Asheville by 4 PM with plenty of time to enjoy the famous Sky Line Drive.  In recent years Asheville has been transformed into an upscale retirement destination.  This has not diminished the charm of the arts and crafts community and excellent restaurants in downtown Asheville.

The major attraction in Asheville is the Biltmore Estate. Biltmore House, the main residence, is a Chateauesque-style mansion built for George Washington Vanderbilt II between 1889 and 1895 and is the largest privately owned house in the United States, at 178,926 square feet (135,280 square feet of living area).  Still owned by George Vanderbilt’s descendants, it remains one of the most prominent examples of Gilded Age mansions.  While the tour of the main floor is excellent, we especially enjoyed the separate opportunity to explore the upper floors and roof top statuary.

As of this writing, the Biltmore is closed, but attractions in the South appear to be opening up quicker than those in the Northern States.  My guess is that a July/August excursion will be within the Covid-19 safety guidelines.

The next leg of our journey was a pleasant five hours of drive time, out of the mountains of North Carolina into the low country of South Carolina, arriving at Savannah, Georgia.  We stayed in one of the many motels, directly off the interstate.

Savannah is a designed walking town, ideal for leisurely strolls through the numerous squares.  It is full of horse drawn carriages, antebellum architecture and oak trees covered with Spanish moss.  Highlights include a visit to the historic district with its old homes (Owens –Thomas House, Andrew Low House) and museums (Telfair Academy Complex, Modern Art Museum).  There is also the city market, historic churches and cemeteries. 

We were treated to some memorable dining experiences such as an eatery specializing in wild game including buffalo, kangaroo and alligator.  Before leaving, we purchased some outstanding wedding gifts from the numerous specialty shops along the Savannah River.

Moving on from Savannah you need to decide whether to take a short detour to Hilton Head, perhaps to lunch in Harbor Town, before landing in Charleston South Carolina, a mere two hours away.  In recent years Charleston has become the number one travel destination in America and one of the top in the World.  The history, restaurants, nearby beaches and Southern charm all combine to pull in millions of visitors each year.

We have visited Charleston on several occassions and our accommodations have varied depending on the trip.  For a weeklong stay we rented a condo at the beach on the Isle of Palms. For this shorter visit we stayed in one of the numerous motels in North Charleston, directly off the interstate.

If you are a first time visitor, Charleston deserves a 3-4 day stay. Activities  include a walking tour of the historical district; a boat ride on the harbor including a stop at Fort Sumter; and a tour of several historical homes.  One could easily spend a day purchasing mementos and gifts at the historic downtown city market and numerous specialty shops throughout the shopping district.  Daylong excursions outside of Charleston are popular, especially to one or two of the well-preserved historical plantation complexes.

Charleston has a restaurant scene that rivals urban areas ten times its size.  Hopefully the establishments will be able to reopen in all their glory when the guidelines permit.  Everything from traditional southern cooking to French cuisine is represented. Two of our favorites are the internationally famous, locally food sourced, “Husk” and well named “SNOB” (Slightly North of Broad).

Completing the circle back to Washington deserves to be broken up into two segments to cut the long drive in half and to prolong the enjoyment. There are many destinations from which to choose.  Our recommendation is an out of the way bed and breakfast (The River House) on the north fork of the New River near West Jefferson in the northwest corner of North Carolina.  Your travel time passing through over the moon scenery will be five hours.

The establishment features a gourmet chef and many rooms are out buildings behind the main farm house.  On site was a world class porcelain studio and gallery which drained the last dollars from our wallets.  The artist features pieces made from Belgium lace and imported clays unlike any work we had ever seen.  A tour of West Jefferson provided an afternoon of entertainment including a magnificent train display at the courthouse and numerous antique stores.

With a car full of memories and purchases, the final leg of the journey home will be a leisurely six hours.  Let us hope that we will soon be out and about and able to travel.

COVID-19 CREATES A MODERN DAY SOPHIE’S CHOICE

The crisis management of coronavirus (COVID-19) has devolved into a debate between the scientists (more specifically the infectious disease experts and frontline physicians) and the economists (more specifically the conservative think tanks and leaders of corporate America).  The scientists have dedicated their professional careers to developing schemes to mitigate and control public health emergencies like the coronavirus.  The possibility of a total economic collapse was not on their radar. 

Conversely, the economists have spent a lifetime building economic models to maximize prosperity through market-based capitalism.  Shutting down all economic activity, to protect a vulnerable portion of the population, knowing that a deep recession would result, was never a consideration. 

Welcome to the newest incarnation of Sophie’s Choice: save lives or save the economy. As in the novel and Oscar winning movie, both results are desirable and the alternative is fraught with human suffering. Our initial reaction is rightly to save as many citizens as possible. However, no one knows the long-term economic hardships of an extended dislocation that requires paying people not to work.

Such a dilemma did not exist a hundred years ago, at the time of the flu pandemic of 1918. In the early 20^th century, the economists trumped the scientists because epidemiologists were in short supply.  The population was largely rural and agrarian.  In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 675,000 died (0.48 to 0.64 percent of the population). Because the pandemic passed relatively quickly, there was little hysteria or media coverage and the economy suffered minimal damage.

 Some historians believe the most lasting effect of this pandemic was the substantial increase in the number of nurses entering the medical profession. Physician training alone proved inadequate in addressing the needs of large numbers of infected patients.

In hindsight, our modern day Sophie’s Choice could have been largely avoided. I have previously discussed the initial missteps of the Trump administration, which insured a disastrous outcome, and will not repeat them here. At this juncture, finger pointing at government’s failure to act appropriately is not helpful and should be left for the voters in the upcoming election.

The fast moving reality on the ground must now be addressed in a rational manner.  The first meaningful effort by the White House was a call for a lockdown that would last for 2 weeks, with a quick V-shaped economic recovery. Within days, the scientists had data from other countries and more testing from urban areas. They determined that the most positive outcome was a 2-3 month lockdown followed by a much slower U-shaped recovery.  

President Trump initially resisted the science and used his daily press conferences to push for a reopening of the economy on a rolling basis in areas less affected by the virus.  Over time, he has reluctantly come to accept the need for a longer lockdown in order to avoid mass fatalities.

It would be a mistake to not consider our Sophie’s choice between the science view of saving lives and the economist view of saving the economy in political terms.   Democratic states with highly vulnerable urban populations like New York and California rushed to lock down their populations.  Conversely, governors from less populated red states initially took little or no action to isolate their citizens. Liberty University, the private evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia, was the only large academic institution to welcome students back from spring break to the horror of local officials.

Traditionally, conservatives worry about massive governmental intervention and its long-term impact on the economy.  The pandemic has been no exception.  Many Republicans believe it is better to suffer some immediate casualties (It is only the flu.) rather than to risk the consequences of economic meltdown. 

On the other side of the political spectrum, those on the left are all in with the scientists.  Why wait to save lives? Moreover, shutting down the economy for an extended period has lead to government intervention in the form of a massive rescue plan and social safety net package.  Progressives know it is difficult to remove benefits that favor workers once they are in place. 

Helping the scientists to win the day over the economists has been the undeniable fact that hospitals and medical staff were unprepared for the onslaught of infected patients who require long ICU treatment on ventilators. Eventually, the President and the economists conceded that a more aggressive lockdown was necessary.  When the hospitals gain the upper hand, the economists will seek to shorten the lockdown and resume economic activity.

The nonpolitical response going forward would be a national effort to optimize public health while minimizing economic harm. This thinking often seems in short supply. To succeed, scientists and economists must get on the same page and be prepared to compromise on their life’s work to help the nation recover.  

There are two critical non-partisan governmental actions that now make sense. 

First, as we make our way through the lockdown period, there must be a national consensus on what economic activities are the most essential to getting the economy back on track.   

Second, we must assume that the virus will return later this year as other pandemics have done in the past.  This will require an “all in” testing, contact tracing and isolation program that can quickly be implemented across the country.

Our early missteps from January must not be repeated.  Following an initial recovery, the only way to avoid a return of Sophie’s choice will be to avoid a recurrence of widespread infection.  This must be the singular goal until a universal vaccine is developed.

THE NEW NORMAL

It is difficult to write about our new virus driven dystopian life as the reality changes by the hour.  The fear guided daily routine now revolves around staying at home with our families, watching our investments bleed away as the paper loses cascade downward and listening to the media talking heads describe our descent into a social and economic apocalypse. 

There is one undeniable fact.  If we cannot quickly solve the underlying health problem caused by the coronavirus, the prospects for solving the economic problem will spiral out of control.

Optimists are in short supply.  The world economy has shut down and entered a recession.  A depression mirroring the 1930s becomes more likely by the day. 

 As coronavirus testing increases, the news on disease spread gets worse. Millions of retail and food service jobs may not exist on the other side of the crisis. Fear of the unknown has many Americans expecting the most dismal of outcomes.  Toilet paper hording and the purchase of firearms reflect the mood of the country. 

Americans do not do well staying at home for extended periods.  I would not be surprised if the number of fatalities caused by domestic violence, alcohol/drug abuse, and suicide fostered by isolation, greatly exceed the number of coronavirus deaths.

In some respects, these new vicissitudes of life do not differ much from our medieval ancestors faced with the plague.  When there is no cure, human nature, not science, prevails. The wealthy decamp to their country homes to escape infection, not unlike the nobility of Florence and London in the 14^th century. The internet is rife with prayer chains and group Hail Marys asking for relief.  The plague doctors of yore and our modern medical staffs place their lives on the line to tend to the sick.  Social interaction comes to a halt, including funerals for the dead.

The role of government in addressing the pandemic will be a much discussed topic. Early indications are that countries that were able to stay ahead of the virus (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) implemented massive testing to identify infected individuals and to quarantine these people in dedicated locations.  Others who were exposed to infected individuals were located by contact tracers, systematically tested and quarantined to prevent further spread.

Unfortunately, America found itself reacting to the outbreak rather than taking a proactive approach and listening to the experts. The New York Times reported on 3/19/20 that the White House was warned last year that it was not prepared to manage an infectious disease outbreak. A Health and Human Services simulation, called “Crimson Contagion” contained a draft report dated October 2019. It drove home just how underfunded, underprepared and uncoordinated the federal government would be for a life-or-death battle with a virus for which no treatment existed.

The initial American response to the pandemic was abysmal. Without explanation, many of the most qualified infectious disease experts in the country were terminated from critical positions in the White House, Homeland Security and the Defense Department when the Trump administration took office.  Moreover, the President was snail like and reactionary in accepting the gravity of the growing crisis.

Without massive testing and isolation at the onset of the pandemic, our government was forced to adopt the Italian response and to propose a countrywide “stay at home” solution.  The problem is that this approach does nothing to shut down the early spread of the disease, does not identify potential hot spots, and causes massive economic and social dislocation.

The Wall Street Journal in its 3/20/20 editorial began to question the efficacy of our national path to defeating the virus.  It concludes: “America urgently needs a pandemic strategy that is more economically and socially sustainable than the current national lock-down.” This would no doubt involve moving the country out of the present stay at home mode and back to work in the social distancing mode.  However, the hospitals need to be properly provisioned before this can happen.

The election will be a Trump versus Joe Biden Affair. It will be a one-issue campaign without political rallies or hand shaking.  If the President is able to recover from his gaffes and project any sense of leadership, with the pandemic ending with minimal long-term dislocations, he may win.  Conversely, if we are staying at home come autumn, he will be fortunate to carry one state. 

For those who are willing to look ahead, economic green shoots and positive results will eventually appear. First, the zombie companies surviving on cheap credit will be gone, replaced by well-capitalized enterprises.  Second, for those who had patience and did not sell into the teeth of the financial panic, retirement accounts will be replenished on the other side of a deep but hopefully brief recession.  Third, a valuable lesson has been learned on how not to prepare for a worldwide pandemic and we will be prepared for future outbreaks. Fourth, millennial couples, now forced to stay at home, will not escape their nesting instincts and will begin producing large numbers of coronial children.

Lastly, I am reminded of the excellent epic study, The Great Leveler, written by the historian, Walter Scheidel.  The premise was that over the arc of civilization, catastrophic events have done more to lessen inequality than anything else. While everyone suffers in times of economic collapse, the rich simply have more to lose and the large gap in equality becomes more manageable.  Let us hope that one of the byproducts of this disaster, hastened by actions taken by Congress, is a rebalancing of the economic scales in favor of the less fortunate in our society.

CATASTROPHIC EVENTS REQUIRE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS

Despite the rapid expansion of modern science and the new technologies of the information age, our nation remains subject to events that are unpredictable and catastrophic.  These events can destroy decades of economic, political and social advancement with little warning and devastating results.  They can challenge our democratic principles and send us into domestic tribal warfare as we begin to doubt who we are as a people.

 In recent years, such events have led to the rise of populist nationalism. Many in the American middle class have rightfully felt threatened by these unexpected events and betrayed by the solutions advanced by the political elites.  They have come to believe that retrenchment will offer them protection, limit the damage to their economic welfare and improve their social standing.

Paradoxically, turning outward toward international solutions would offer better solutions to these events for the vast majority of Americans than turning inward with an “America first” prospective.  This commentary will explore my thesis.

First consider the attacks of September 11, 2001.  The early days of the George W. Bush presidency were an optimistic time of unprecedented American global growth and influence both militarily and economically. No nation was in a position to challenge our hegemony.  Liberal democracy was on the rise. Protectionism was being replaced by free trade and transnational integrated systems. Then a group of extremists operating from one of the poorest countries in the world successfully hijacked four planes and everything changed.

According to a 2018 report from Brown University the total cost to the United States from 9/11 was at that time $5.93 trillion. The attack also led to the War on Terror, the largest government spending program in U.S. history. In 2020 we continue to feel the economic and emotional effects of the attack as we attempt to negotiate our way out of America’s longest war in Afghanistan.

The next event to challenge the middle class was the great recession of 2008.  Subprime mortgage loans and lack of financial regulation were directly responsible for this destructive economic disaster.   

According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unable to obtain financing, major financial institutions either merged or declared bankruptcy.    

The country has rebounded in many ways from the Great Recession, but we are also more unequal, less vibrant, less productive, poorer, and sicker than it would have been had the crisis been less severe. Economists have found its aftermath remains most pronounced on the middle class where jobs were washed away, often by employers using the recession as an opportunity to fire workers and invest in alternatives.

 In recent weeks a third unpredictable event has caused further economic and social pain as we have experienced the worldwide outbreak of the coronavirus.  This epidemiological disaster has shut down large sectors of  the economy, sent us home to shelter in place and placed unprecedented strains on our medical system. For the third time in two decades, the middle class is under pressure from unemployment and loss of retirement savings.

In the face of these three outsized threats: terrorism against the Homeland, economic collapse caused by profit seeking financial institutions and now, a worldwide viral pandemic, it is difficult to blame Americans for supporting more isolation.

Unfortunately, this approach is short sighted and will further cripple the country in the long run. Building a wall at our Southern border will not make our country safer.  Fighting with our Allies over funding against terrorism and withdrawing from international organizations and treaties will not help prevent the next attack.  International cooperation offers the best prospects for homeland security.

On financial matters, it is impossible to ignore the integrated nature of the world economy.  It is a pipe dream to believe that long gone manufacturing and industrial production can be resurrected within our borders to provide domestic employment. Tariffs and trade wars injure middle class consumers and farmers.  Moreover, if Europe or China suffer economic reversals, the American economy will not escape the consequences of financial chaos.

Regarding the coronavirus the first response of our elected leaders to isolate the country from a growing pandemic did not work.  Infectious diseases do not honor national borders and by their very nature demand worldwide cooperation in order to limit their spread. Refusing to accept tests for the virus from the World Health Organization have place our response weeks behind the curve by making it impossible to target break-out areas.

My point in all of this is that the middle class has been harmed by a series of unlucky, “black swan” events. However, the way back is not to be found in attempting to turn America into a self-sufficient economy with closed borders.  When the coronavirus crisis is over, nuclear proliferation, the displacement of millions of people into refugee camps and climate change are but three other issues that require immediate United States involvement on an international scale.

 In the end open-mindedness on world events and leadership in International affairs will best serve the interests of the middle class and all future generations. I am not advocating an over the top globalist prospective that ignores the importance of love of country and the local communities that give our lives meaning. Nevertheless, to face the problems that threaten our way of life, we must also look outward and stay engaged.

In collaborating with other nations to save the world from terrorism, recession and pandemics, we will save America.

WASHINGTON COUNTY SHOULD RECONSIDER HOME RULE

In 1968 a new local government article to the Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the right of all Pennsylvania counties and municipalities to adopt home rule charters and exercise home rule powers. The constitutional change was hailed as a watershed in the history of local government in Pennsylvania.  The basic concept of home rule was straightforward. The power to act in municipal affairs was transferred from state law, as set forth by the General Assembly, to a local charter, adopted and amended by local voters.  

 Change is never easy and in fifty years, only six Pennsylvania counties have adopted home rule as their form of government. In 2002 Washington County voters approved a commission to adopt a proposed home rule charter. Unfortunately, the work went for naught when the referendum to approve the draft charter was defeated in a subsequent election. Many believe the effort was doomed to fail because Washington County was not ready for major revisions in government structure.  For a variety of reasons now is the time to revisit home rule in Washington County.

I can hear the doubters as I put pen to paper: “We tried that already and Washington County turned down home rule.” “This is sour grapes after Democrats lost county wide elections in Washington County.” “Give the new Commissioners a chance to govern.” “Home Rule is about raising taxes.”

Washington County was a much different place at the turn of the century when home rule was first considered. We have now evolved from a rural farming district into one of the most unique local areas in the country. An urban bedroom community in the north, with a large industrial park, close to an international airport. A county with a destination entertainment complex at the intersection of two interstate highways, with a casino, race track and discount shopping mall. It is a modern industrial county at the center of the Marcellus Shale fracking industry. Our southern border blends into Appalachia, an area where the dying coal industry and years of neglect is still marked by poverty.  Clearly, the cookie cutter model for county government, mandated by Harrisburg, does not fit Washington County’s changing profile.

My position is not based on the recent changes in party leadership of the commissioners’ or row offices.  Had the Democrats retained control of county government it would still be time to revisit home rule. 

 The argument that home rule is only about officials seeking to raise taxes is not true for Pennsylvania counties that have adopted this form of government. According to a study conducted by Penn State: “the residents of home rule counties enjoy a greater level of government services yet do not pay higher taxes than the residents of non-home rule counties.”  I have no doubt that our fiscally responsible county officials can be trusted with broad based home rule taxing authority to fashion creative solutions for our citizens.

What is to be gained by adopting home rule in Washington County? First, the county row offices could be eliminated and replaced by a non-elected, modern Department of Court Records.  The small patronage-driven offices for civil filings (Prothonotary), criminal filings (Clerk of Courts), real estate filings (Recorder of Deeds) and wills and estates (Register of Wills) could be combined into one court-based administrative operation.

The new Department of Court Records would be organized in accordance with best record keeping practices and would save money by eliminating overlapping expenditures in each of the existing operations.  The small elected row office fiefdoms are anything but efficient.  Appropriate audit controls would eliminate fiascoes like the recent unexplained missing large deposits in the Clerk of Court’s office.

Second, Washington County could replace the elected office of Coroner with an appointed Medical Examiner who would be an experienced pathologist. At a minimum, Medical Examiners have completed an anatomic pathology residency and a forensic pathology fellowship.

Third, a county home rule charter would provide the opportunity to replace the three-commissioner system authorized by state law with a single elected chief executive.  Under this model, adopted by Allegheny County and others, a county-wide counsel would also be elected to work with the executive in conducting county business.  The executive would be a single voice and the counsel would reflect the very different needs and priorities of Washington County’s diverse voters.

The Romans taught us in 60 BC that a three party triumvirate, similar to our commissioners, was no way to run a Republic.  There was little that Caesar, Pompey and Crassus could agree on and much finger pointing when things did not go according to plan.  The experiment degenerated into a dictatorship.

When our forefathers considered how to organize the federal executive branch in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton carried the day in Federalist No.70 “The Executive Department Further Considered.”  He wrote: “Energy arises from the proceedings of a single person characterized by decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch, while safety arises from the unitary executive’s unconcealed accountability to the people.”  Washington County voters are entitled to vote for a single executive who alone is answerable for his/her actions.

 In addition to the above, home rule would make Washington County less dependent on state government in other respects. We would have greater control in addressing:  a) economic development needs; b) the demands on county government for local services; and c) such control would permit rapid response to address unique problems without waiting for Harrisburg to take action.

The Pennsylvania counties that have adopted home rule have taken local control of their futures.  It is time for Washington County to join them.