MONUMENTS TELL US LITTLE ABOUT OUR HISTORY

A public library is the most enduring of memorials, the trustiest monument for the preservation of an event or a name or an affection; for it, and it only, is respected by wars and revolutions, and survives them.

Mark Twain

I listened carefully to President Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore on the evening before our July 4^th holiday. In between the cultural war comments to his base, he slipped in some historical facts concerning each of the four Presidents represented in the monument behind him. The factual descriptions were accurate though rudimentary.  A young person would have learned more American history by watching the film version of Hamilton, which was running at the same time on the Disney channel.

After the President concluded his remarks, I started reflecting on what historical monuments teach the American people about our past.  I concluded that these numerous slabs of well-designed granite fall into distinct categories. On the one hand, war monuments or those that memorialize a national disaster like 9/11 inspire us to reflect on lives taken too soon or in defense of the nation.  These monuments are universally beloved and often serve as a destination to a place of personal and spiritual significance.

 On the other hand, monuments of historical figures are crafted and set in place to invoke a specific feeling of national pride in celebration of a life well lived.  These edifices are tributes to individuals who in some significant manner moved the nation forward to a better place.

The problem with southern Civil War monuments is that many were erected in the 1930s, not to celebrate a national story, but rather to further the aims of white supremacy. The question is not why Southern States are finally getting around to taking down these symbols of civil war traitors, suppression of Black citizens and hate. The question is what took so long.

The monument at Mount Rushmore and those in in our nation’s capital are designed to invoke patriotism and national pride.  The President is wrong when he claims that the debate over historical statutes is a sign that: “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children.”

Our national monuments were never intended to teach history in and of themselves.  Quite the opposite was true.  It was the hope that Americans would come to these symbols of the past with a comprehensive learning of what they represent including important milestones to be praised and mistakes not to be repeated.

The problem with Trump and his core of loyal followers is that they see the world in simplistic terms and have no desire to gain a more in-depth understanding of America’s history. For his supporters, monuments and the flag are themselves American history, the literal meaning of the Bible is true in every respect, evolutionary biology and climate/pandemic science are left wing lies and Fox News is all they need to hear regarding national and world events. 

Once an individual decides not to step outside this tight circle, all information received reinforces long held beliefs. Nothing new is learned and no opinion is challenged.  Well-respected historians that teach us American history, including the blemishes, are labeled as socialists or worse; history based Biblical scholars are heretics; investigative journalists propagate fake news and removing a monument makes it impossible for children to learn our national story.

Returning to Mount Rushmore, gazing at the monument tells one little about the complex lives of these four Presidents. The greatness of each was flawed because each was human.  George Washington was a slave holder and never a scholar or a brilliant general.  Thomas Jefferson could not keep his carnal urges in check to stay out of his slave quarters.  Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist and was cautious about freeing the slaves until the last years of the Civil War. Theodore Roosevelt was a colonial imperialist who wanted to plant the American flag around the world.

Does being exposed to the complete biography of American historical figures dampen our love of them or of our nation?  I think not. First, historical perspective is required.  It is important to escape from our own time and place to orient our thinking about past leaders to colonial America, or to the Civil War decades, or the age of American expansionism.  Second, knowing our important historical figures as human beings rather than superficial heroes helps us truly understand them and to make sense of our complex national history.

Modern America is blessed with some of the most gifted historians in the arc of civilization. Rather than build a national park containing pigeon perches of monuments representing American historical figures, as proposed by the President, why not drawn on their knowledge to build a national library and museum.  A building that expounds on the four themes of Mount Rushmore: the nation’s birth, growth, development and preservation.  

Let our gifted historians and museum curators fill the rooms with our national story. A place to discuss our founding, America’s original sin of slavery, manifest destiny and our military engagements, as we teach our children well.  Such a building would be a memorial for all of us to share together.

IT IS TIME TO LEARN MORE ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY

“There is really nothing more to say—except why. But since why is difficult to handle, one must take refuge in how.” Toni Morrison

In 1968, a dedicated group of black students at the San Francisco State College staged a protracted student strike and were the first to demand a black studies program as part of their curriculum.  Since then such programs have become commonplace at colleges and universities across America. 

As a result of this trend to offer African American studies, many black graduates since the 1970s and a smattering of white students know Afro-American history well.  Many of them are now in the vanguard of the efforts demanding social change against all forms of racism. Unfortunately, much of white America has not been exposed to black history. Relying on secondary sources and historical myth, white citizens continue to have a misguided view of slavery, the political history of the civil war, reconstruction, white supremacy, white privilege and modern institutional racism.

 It is my view that before white Americans can effectively join the debate on the state of race relations and what to do to improve them, some education on our complex African American history is an imperative.  It is no longer acceptable to claim there is nothing to be gained by revisiting past injustices against black Americans without knowing the history.  It is equally wrong to argue the reverse, that reshaping public places by removing symbols of the civil war destroys our heritage without first having a working knowledge of the path from slavery to our present racial dilemma.

Learning about Confederate atrocities against Blacks helps one to understand the urgent call for removing southern symbols of the civil war. For example, Confederate leadership issued an edict to shoot captured  Black Union soldiers. Thousands of former slaves, captured in Pennsylvania during the Gettysburg campaign, were returned to slavery.

Post Reconstruction, a lack of political will on the part of the North failed to solve the sectional wounds from the war. The elimination of the freed slaves' newly gained civil liberties by Jim Crow laws guaranteed that long-term racial integration was impossible.

During the Jim Crow era, thousands of African American citizens were killed in public acts of racial terror to establish white supremacy and segregation across the South. The influence of the Ku Klux Klan extended well into the North with KKK rallies being held in Washington County into the 1990s.

Before as well as long after the Civil War northern states encouraged legal codes that promoted racial segregation and black disenfranchisement.  The New York Times conducted a poll in 1964 that found a majority of White New Yorkers thought the civil rights movement had gone too far.  Well into the 1960s, Washington County industrial concerns refused to hire Black workers, except as janitors.

The Federal Government was an active participant in perpetuating institutional racism.  Southern Senators, often with a wink and a nod from their Northern members, made sure that all affirmative action was “White.” Social Security benefits were denied to domestic servants and agricultural workers, many of whom were Black.  The Federal Housing Administration allowed banks to refuse mortgages to people who lived in black neighborhoods, a policy known as redlining.  The Federal GI Bill was locally administered which gave racist local officials every opportunity to discriminate against Blacks. 

American colleges and universities do not have clean hands when it comes to racism in America. Most American colleges founded before the Civil War relied on southern money derived from slavery to grow their campuses.  Yale University inherited a slave plantation, which it used to fund its first graduate programs.  The Jesuits of Georgetown University sold slaves to stave off bankruptcy.

The above examples offer a few illustrations of a complex and tangled history.  For those who wish to begin their personal journey of discovery, I will offer some possibilities. First, unlike efforts to modify uncomfortable history in other countries, hundreds of history books and thousands of articles have told the unvarnished truth about the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.  Scores of them have been on bestseller lists and won awards. Many may be purchased for a pittance in the used book section of Amazon or are available at the local library.

Second, for those who prefer fiction as a path to learning about past abuses against Black citizens, the selections are plentiful.  My sister has found the work of Toni Morrison to be helpful in her journey to understanding black history.  

Third, there is the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C.  It is a place where all Americans can learn about the richness and diversity of the African American experience, what it means to their lives and how it helped shape this nation.  When we visited in May of 2019, most of the patrons were African American.  Hopefully, this will change as White America discovers a rich and thought provoking addition to learning about African American history.

The discussion over racism in America has never been more focused than in 2020.  A little history goes a long way toward being an informed participant.

WHY WE SHOULD SUPPORT BLACK LIVES MATTER

In December of 2016, I submitted the following commentary to the Observer Reporter.  It did not surprise me that the OR declined to publish. The Black Lives Matter movement and white privlege were seen as radical concepts by white America at the time. Much has changed in four years, and what I wrote then, including the 50^th anniversary of the Kent State killings, have new meaning today.

WHY WE SHOULD SUPPORT BLACK LIVES MATTER

Recent newspaper commentaries and discussions with black friends have focused my attention on the issue of “white privilege” and compelled me to take a fresh look at the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.  I am convinced that white privilege colors the way many whites view BLM.  Moreover, BLM is in many ways a direct attack against white privilege by those who understand that the killing of blacks through institutional violence was not eliciting the same response as the killing of whites

White privilege is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people.  These privileges have been defined as “an invisible package of unearned assets.”  Many of the advantages that whites enjoy are passive and not obvious, which is why white privilege is not necessarily overt bias or prejudice.

While there are not many examples of institutional violence against whites, the Kent State killings on May 4, 1970 is considered a major event in our nation’s history. On that date, national guardsmen fired 67 rounds into a crowd of white students killing four and wounding nine, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

In the aftermath of the killings, the largest student strike in American history involved two and one half million students on seven hundred campuses. Many refused to go to classes or take final exams. Thirty ROTC buildings were firebombed.  The governors from 16 states ordered the occupation of 21 campuses.  Almost all the protesters were white.  Their parents could not understand how organized National Guard could kill white students.  Many parents reconsidered their position on the Vietnam War and turned against it.

Following Kent State on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State College, an African American school in Jackson Mississippi, state police, breaking up an anti war rally, randomly shoot up a college dorm killing two and wounding 12 others.  Few remember this incident and it provoked little outcry when compared to Kent State.

In 1970, white privilege determined which killings would draw the attention of the public and shape the anti-war movement until Nixon was forced to resign. Today, white privilege minimizes police killings of African Americans and ignores the broader issue of institutional racism in the criminal justice system.  

What is to be done? First, BLM deserves the vocal and financial support of all those who care about social equality and justice in America.  It has morphed from its early growing pains as an idea/slogan protesting against the killing of young black men by police and developed into a strong and vibrant movement that can make a difference in this year’s elections and beyond. 

Second, it is important to understand what BLM is not. The title was never intended to degrade the lives of police officers or non blacks.  Such an interpretation was always an easy cop out for whites, exercising privilege, who do not take the time to understand black activism in light of institutional racism in America.  

Third, the movement has expanded and now seeks to insure that people of color be given the same respectful tolerance as the rest of us in all stages of the criminal justice process.  For those families that have lost a young man in a police shooting, a life matters. Equally, for those families that have lost a young man because of drug abuse, incarceration, or a gang shooting, a life matters.  The movement encompasses all of this and more.

Fourth, BLM is not the reincarnation of the Black Panthers.  Its black liberation message is about ideas, not armed violence. One of its posters shows a young black man with fist in the air holding a flower not a weapon.  Neither is it about Black Nationalism, supporting “blackness” for its own sake and encouraging isolation from society.  It is about:  “…broadening the conversation around state violence to include all the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.  We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity.” This is a powerful and worthy call to action to unite Black America.

Fifth, if BLM can motivate young African Americans to get politically involved in urban areas, college campuses and local politics across the country, they can become a motivated interest group with real power to facilitate change.

In a recent address at Howard University, President Obama’s remarks included his impressions on BLM: “It’s thanks in large part to the activism of young people like many of you, from ‘Black Twitter’ to Black Lives Matter, that America’s eyes have been opened — white, black, Democrat, Republican — to the real problems, for example, in our criminal-justice system,” But to bring about structural change, lasting change, awareness is not enough. It requires changes in law, changes in custom.”

Much more needs to be done regarding racism and BLM will be a potent, positive force going forward.  It has earned the support of white Americans who care about social justice and equality.

THE DEATH KNELL OF REPUBLICAN CONSERVATISM

 I miss the conservative political ideology I spent most of my life opposing.  I miss the principles of conservatism that I vigorously argued against.  I miss framing responses to the commentaries of conservative journalists. I miss debating the policies of past conservative Republican Presidents.  To the detriment of the American polity, classic conservatism, which was such a formidable opponent to any opinionated liberal, no longer exists.

According to George Will in his new book, The Conservative Sensibility, the fundamental principle of conservatism is deceptively simple: to conserve the “American founding”.  Traditionally it achieved this by emphasizing the authority of family, church, tradition and local association.  The intent was to control change and slow it down.

There is a “new right” in America. However, with Donald Trump at the helm, it is not an evolution of traditional conservatism, it is a full-throated repudiation.  What was once pragmatic and measured is now a zealous populism mired in white nativism.   What once protected foundational institutions now attacks them. What once valued experts and well-researched facts now trades in images and slogans designed to stir up outrage and tribal prejudices.  What once saw change as something to avoid, now seeks a headlong rush toward illiberal democracy.

 Why do I mourn the loss of my sworn opponents? Traditional Republicans came at you from solid ground, fortified with long-standing positions.  They believed in the integrity of their elected representatives. Politics was about judgment and reason.  While Ronald Reagan had charisma, no one accused him of forming a personality cult that was above Congress and the courts. 

The Republican conservatives of the past supported positions based on principle and did not bow to partisan politics. In the 1960s, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen could help write the Civil Rights Act while supporting the Vietnam War. Republican Senator John Tower supported legalized abortion. Republican leaders could go to the White House in 1974 and advise President Nixon to resign from office.

Old-line conservative patriotism was about the nation-state, not about the state of a nativist nation that shunned immigrants.  The key to commerce was viewed as free trade with sound trade agreements that fostered international economic harmony, not trade wars.  The key to good governance was getting on with the business of keeping the ship of state on a steady course, not seeking out storms and running the ship aground.

My battles were fought against a proud coalition of foreign policy hawks, libertarians, cultural advocates of family-first and pro-business Republicans. My view of the American dream differed from theirs in significant respects.  I believed conservative positions to be lacking in imagination and forward thinking.

I argued that economic and racial equality was as important a goal as liberty and that government regulation was required to dampen the ill effects of market capitalism.  However, no one could claim that there was not a democratic and constitutional basis supporting conservative views that saw the world differently than I did.

Donald Trump is the result of the destruction of traditional conservative values and not the cause. One must first look to the defection of the Dixiecrats from the Democratic to the Republican Party from 1948 through 1970. The baggage of states’ rights and white supremacy they brought with them placed the dark cloud of “the politics of exclusion” over the conservative movement that has only gotten more ominous over time.

The next great challenge to conservatism was the tea party movement that began as a response to the 2008 recession. The initial goals were to encourage lower taxes, a reduction in the national debt and smaller government.   Overtime, the tea party gained more political clout and morphed into the antithesis of traditional conservatism by becoming more populist and activist.  Mainstream elected officials were forced out of the Republican Party during tea party primary challenges across the country.

As the complexion of the Republican Congress became more radical, the freedom caucus in the House of Representatives replaced the tea party as the champion of right wing activism. The caucus made it impossible to compromise on legislation and forced moderate conservative, John Boehner, to retire as Speaker of the House.

Today, the Trump Republicans have largely abandoned the original tea party policies of debt reduction and shrinking the federal budget.  The freedom caucus has become the President’s “Pretorian guard.” Tea party populism has been transformed into a movement of “America First” and its activism into a vocal tribal outrage that mistrusts government with the exception of the anointed leader.

 I believe that the death knell of conservatism has placed the American experiment in danger of falling apart.  In an age of pandemic and national protest centered on systemic racism, politics has become a scorched earth affair with little room for compromise. Few rational politicians are left to draw up a truce and negotiate a path forward.

I nevertheless have hope that a significant number of younger Americans will rediscover the conservative ideology as envisioned by many of our founders and great political thinkers. This event could occur as they grow into adult roles that are consistent with conservative values. While I continue to believe conservative principles are on the wrong side of history in America, I would welcome them back to the national debate stage with open arms.

COUNTY HOME RULE IN THE AGE OF COVID-19

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.  For a variety of reasons, including local public health, now is the time to revisit home rule in Washington County.

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 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. All of the above have been economically impacted by the worst public health crisis in our lifetimes.

Clearly, the cookie cutter model for county government, mandated by Harrisburg, does not fit Washington County’s changing profile. Moreover, the public health issues raised by the recent pandemic make it clear that there may be times when the political decisions of future Commonwealth governors or the state legislature do not align with the health and safety of county citizens.

The often expressed 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 Pennsylvania home rule counties enjoy a greater level of government services yet do not pay higher taxes than the residents of non-home rule counties.” 

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 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 smaller operations.    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 council would also be elected to work with the executive in conducting county business.  The executive would be a single voice and the council would reflect the very different needs and priorities of Washington County’s diverse communities.

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.”  One executive is far superior to a three-headed commissioner system where finger pointing and blame shifting is encouraged by the form of government.

 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, including public health issues like the pandemic.

When considering public health it would be important to frame the home rule provisions to permit Washington County to only take actions more restrictive than state procedures.  This would guarantee no interference with state efforts to control public health emergencies by region as warranted by the course of the disease.  Importantly, it would permit county officials to recognize “hot spots” detrimental to public health within the county and to postpone the lifting of controls.  County officials are best positioned to make informed decisions with our local public health and emergency management teams.

The Pennsylvania counties that have adopted home rule have taken local control of their futures.  It is time for Washington County to join them for the governmental, financial and public health benefits it would provide.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PUBLIC HEALTH

Opening up state economies is proving to be more problematic and politically charged than shutting them down and staying in place. This fact has fostered a lively debate over the role of government directed public health in a democracy.

There are those who are now calling for opening up the economy at any cost. These protestors will be a political force until a vaccine finally eradicates the virus.  There are bound to be reoccurring hot spots and new breakouts of disease that will compel policy makers to revert to staying at home.  Each time this happens, angry armchair libertarians will cherry pick quotes from the Bill of Rights and call for citizens to rise up and take back their foundational freedoms.

It is wrong to frame this debate in terms of freedom versus tyranny or right to work versus right to stay healthy.  In our constitutional republic, we elect officials to represent us as decision makers.  These officials are faced with the most difficult and important decisions of their careers. They must listen to expert advice on complex scientific, economic and social challenges and make commitments to resolve the problem. 

On the extreme libertarian side of the debate, populist government by public whim, in the midst of a crisis, is a dangerous fantasy.  The recent writings and speech of some partisan Republicans, standing on individual liberties to the exclusion of all else, remind me of the pamphleteers supporting the Committee on Public Safety during the later stages of the French Revolution. In my example the populists prevailed and the Reign of Terror saw democracy crumble as the revolution devoured itself under the guillotine.

Unlike the French experiment, the remarkable and elastic principles of American democracy were formulated to curtail both totalitarian and populist influences. Madison and the Federalist state builders generated a great deal of dissent in transitioning American society from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Several states refused to ratify the new document without a Bill of Rights. The Federalists finally agreed to include these individual freedoms to “conciliate the minds of the people” even though Hamilton considered the Bill of Rights “an excess of liberty.”

In return for their compromise the Federalists achieved what they wanted, a central state with the power to tax, raise an army, print money and set trade policy.  However, the American experiment would still not have succeeded without a “nation of joiners” in which our citizens demanded that they be involved in shaping the power of the central government as circumstances changed over time.

Today the central government is much stronger in terms of conflict resolution, regulation, a social safety net, provision of public services and as we have witnessed in recent months, public health. The concept of individual freedoms is also stronger, as constitutional law on liberty has evolved along with the increase in central power.

The recent political treatise, The Narrow Corridor, States, Society and the Fate of Liberty by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson is instructive on this issue. The book’s premise, after examining political systems throughout history, is that democracy is a delicate and fragile outcome.  It requires both a strong state and individual liberty in a strong society.  It can only endure when the two remain in perfect balance, on either side of the narrow corridor that exists between them.  The default political condition when the narrow corridor is breached becomes either despotism if the central state wins out or anarchy if the state is defeated.

The ongoing tension between the government and the individual has known no greater conflict than in the field of public health. Increased knowledge of how to prevent infectious disease brought with it the question of when to restrict human behavior to prevent harm to individuals and others.

A  Massachusetts smallpox epidemic in 1901 gave us legal precedent on the question of the state’s compulsory vaccination law.  The United States Supreme Court in the case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts established the government’s right to use its “police powers” in order to control epidemic disease. The Court affirmed the right of the people through their elected representatives to enact “health laws of every description to protect the common good.”

Since this important legal decision 100 years ago, the individual liberty versus public health debate has taken two paths. The government wins on  issues that present grave societal threats such as infectious disease. Individual liberty wins out on less serious paternalistic measures that inhibit personal freedom such as tobacco use and the regulation of motorcycle helmets.

In the final analysis, the view that public health policy during this crisis is a threat to individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is a false premise. Most Americans agree that public health is the road map and not the enemy of getting people back to work.

 Look behind the curtain of the angry protestors and you will find a Trump MAGA hat with a political axe to grind, an anti-vaccination group looking for a platform, or a shut-in watching too much Fox News.

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.