AFTER THE ELECTION

 It is the Friday morning following the election. I now feel confident calling Joe Biden our next President, notwithstanding the frivolous legal challenges. America was on the ballot, and we won. Citizens have voted in greater numbers than at any time in our history despite the pandemic   It is time to consider our brighter prospects under a Joe Biden presidency.

The post-election slogan after the inauguration in January will quickly morph from “Make America Great Again” to “With All Americans Pulling Together, We Can Accomplish Anything.”  Regarding the pandemic there will be a national mask mandate under the new Biden administration backed by a media campaign asking all of us to buy in. Notwithstanding the inevitable lawsuits and complaints from libertarian-minded citizens that will follow, new infection numbers will drastically drop and many lives will be saved.

Americans will discover that with most of us abiding by this simple mandate and wearing masks that we can work, attend school and otherwise attain a new level of normalcy until a vaccine is perfected and disseminated.  We will wonder what took so long.

The Biden presidency will not begin its term by pandering to the progressive left of the Democratic Party. The new president’s agenda will be practical and not ideological, organized to repair the damage to our institutions. The immediate focus will be on undoing the politicization and dismantling of the federal bureaucracy.  The State Department, intelligence network, Justice Department and other agencies will encourage irreplaceable career civil servants who were fired or who left in disgust under Trump, to return to their posts.

Several progressives will find a place in the Biden administration.  So will several Republicans as President Biden seeks to bring a sense of nonpartisanship to his cabinet. Unfortunately, the transition of government will be hampered by an uncooperative Trump administration who will “burn the files” and overturn the furniture on the way out the door.

There will be important policy initiatives in the first 100 days, unfortunately hampered by a razor thin Republican Senate.  First, assuming no stimulus relief during the lame duck Congress, Biden will negotiate a sizeable package with the Senate. Second, Biden will use an executive order to protect the millions of Mexican/Latin American “dreamers” from deportation. Third, the new president will roll back most of the offensive Trump executive orders.

Several major policy positions rolled out by Biden during the campaign will be placed on hold.  These include efforts to improve on Obama Care by giving Americans a new choice in the form of a public health insurance option, similar to Medicare.  In addition, revisions to the ill-advised Trump tax cuts for the wealthy will be postponed and the “green new deal” is off the table.  Hopefully these initiatives will be renewed after the mid-terms when the Senate can be turned Democratic.   

Several presidential commissions on the most pressing issues of the post Trump era will be empaneled to advise Biden on future policy.  These will include collaborative policing methods between urban communities and law enforcement; the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts; as well as America’s response to climate change.

President Biden has learned that Trump supporters have legitimate concerns that must be addressed. He will minimize regulations that hamper small businesses struggling to return after the pandemic.  He will seek to lower unemployment in the rust belt by tying new jobs in these areas to new infrastructure projects.  He will remain tough on China trade policy until fair balances are achieved. 

President Biden’s most important cabinet choice will be Secretary of State. Our foreign policy is in shambles.  Both friend and foe have been left with misunderstandings and uncertainties concerning the international role of the most powerful nation in the world.

At the top of the list to repair relations will be the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Latin America. Back door channels will be open with North Korea and Iran to make clear the policy of the new administration.  Other illiberal and authoritarian regimes will receive the message that liberal democracy is alive and well in Washington and that human rights abuses will not be tolerated.

Globalization will make a comeback with respect to the United States participation in international forums, but much less so in connection with supply chains and trade. President Trump’s efforts to end participation in international institutions will be reversed. President Biden will renew ties with those international organizations governing climate, health and human rights. He will also revisit canceled multination agreements and arms control with Russia. 

On the other hand, the pandemic has taught Biden a valuable lesson regarding international supply chains.  He will implement policies that will never again leave America short of valuable supplies and medicines. He will insure that national stockpiles are kept full and that manufacturing essential to national security is either domestic or close to home.

The days of the ill-advised, out-of-date border wall are over. Security at the border will be enhanced through new technologies that provide the border patrol with real time information.  Moreover, Biden’s foreign policy team is aware that improving the economic and social conditions in Central America will reduce the flow of immigrants seeking asylum.

The greatest impediment to all of the above is the Republican Senate, and Donald Trump hangover as he profusely tweets angry rants from Southern Florida.  The Biden administration should be prepared to shut out the noise and get to work.

 

 

 

 

 

THE PAST IS PRELUDE WHEN REVEWING THE 1920 NATIONAL ELECTION

This year has forced my wife and I to find pastimes other than travel until COVID-19 is under control. One alternative has been to enter a virtual time machine and to look in on what America was up to at other times in our past.  On this vein the history concerning the national election of 1920, exactly 100 years ago, has captured my attention because of the many similarities with today.

Like this year, 1920 was billed as a “return to normalcy” national election. However, Republicans, not Democrats, were the party touting this slogan after eight years of the aloof President Woodrow Wilson with an internationalist prospective. Many thought that Wilson would run for a third term. Instead, he suffered from a debilitating stroke while campaigning for the League of Nations.  On the forty-fourth ballot, the Democrats chose to nominate a compromise candidate, Ohio native, James M. Cox. (Franklin D. Roosevelt was his running mate.)

The Republican candidate, Warren G. Harding was considered a moderate. It was thought that Harding would represent a kind of anti-Wilson, non-cerebral back-slapper who would return the country to peaceful isolation.  He was nominated on the tenth convention ballot as someone who could reunite Republican “regulars” who followed William Howard Taft, along with the Theodore Roosevelt “progressives”, to win the national election.

Both candidates came to the 1920 campaign with baggage.  Harding had a mistress who had given birth to a child the year before.  Cox was divorced and remarried to a much younger woman.  During the final weeks of the campaign, a “fake-news” pamphlet claiming that Harding had black ancestry failed to gain any traction.

Campaigning was a much different affair in 1920. Harding did most of his outreach to voters from his front porch in Ohio. One of his slogans was the humble phrase: “No man is big enough to run this great republic.”  Cox was the first national candidate to use an amplifier while addressing the crowd.

Ironically, many of the issues facing voters in 1920 were similar to those in 2020. The “Spanish Flu” pandemic had killed six hundred and seventy-five thousand Americans through the spring of 1920.  Everyone was fearful of a fourth wave as voters went to the polls. Both candidates ignored the pandemic on the campaign trail because public health did not carry the political implications it does in today’s society.  Harding, as the outsider, did propose a modest appropriation to study the flu and how it could be prevented.

Immigration was an issue, and nativist voters were suspicious of the new arrivals and the still assimilating Southern and Eastern Europeans.  Nevertheless, the overall effect was muted by the fact that many voters had recently arrived from the same distant lands and were now welcoming their families. The Democratic vote was hampered by German citizens annoyed with President Wilson for going to war against their homeland and by Irish voters upset with the lack of enthusiasm for Irish independence.

Socialism was a major topic of the campaign.  The International Workers of the World were rumored to be planning a “reign of terror” in the Pacific Northwest.  In mid-September, an act of domestic terrorism killed thirty-eight when a bomb exploded on Wall Street.  Evidence pointed to Italian anarchists as the cause.  The socialist, Eugene V. Debs, imprisoned for sedition after working to assist draft evaders during the Great War, ran a third party candidacy from the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. As a prisoner, he garnered a million votes.

Racial equality was not an issue in 1920. Racial violence against blacks was discussed with minimal enthusiasim.  The Republicans could only offer a weak declaration in its party platform: “We urge Congress to consider the most effective means to end lynching in this country.” The Democratic Party, the bastion of Jim Crow segregation, offered even less. There was no outrage against the Ku Klux Klan, which was mustering its forces to terrorize the nation’s immigrants and black population after the election.

On the economy, the roaring twenties had not yet begun, and the country entered a sharp eighteen month recession at the beginning of 1920.  This no doubt was responsible for some of the socialist agitation.  In January 1920, three thousand immigrants accused of being alien radicals were arrested or deported during raids conducted by President Wilson’s Attorney, General A. Mitchell Palmer.

Congress passed both the Eighteenth (Prohibition) and Nineteenth (Women’s Suffrage) Amendments. They came into law in 1920 and would exemplify the contradictory nature of the American electorate for the next 100 years. On the one hand, Prohibition was an anti-immigration, authoritarian measure.  It was designed to get the new heavy drinking, rabble-rousing immigrants from Ireland, Italy and Germany under control and in line with conservative Protestantism.  On the other, women’s suffrage was a move toward liberal pluralism through universal voting.

Culturally, 1920 was the beginning of the reign of Scott Fitzgerald and the “jazzing” of America.  The age of manifest destiny was over. The country was not yet ready to assume a broad international role. Jazz provided just enough wildness and permissiveness to keep the young happy without “going to the dogs.”

Warren G. Harding was elected President on his fifty-fifth birthday.  While turnout was low, Harding won by a landslide and provided Republicans with majorities in both houses of Congress.

The election results were uncontested and received with civility.

 

 

 

 

WHEN THE RULE-OF-LAW TURNS INTO THE RULE-BY-LAW

 

Down amidst the mud and weeds of a contentious presidential election there is a positive factor to point out.  Unlike 2016, there are few candidate unknowns to confuse voters as they go to the polls.  The choice is between two contenders with diametrically opposed, established records that could not be clearer.  Indeed, one could argue that Trump has been the most open president in history when it comes to disclosing his thoughts on both domestic and foreign policy. Vice President Biden has a long Senate record as well as eight years serving in the Obama administration.

However, hiding in plain sight, above the mud and weeds, there remains one important issue that deserves the attention of voters before they cast their ballots.  This development will have a significant impact on the course of American democracy if Trump remains in office for another four years.  I am referring to a concerted effort by the Trump Justice Department under William Barr to turn the democratic principle of the “rule-of-law” into the illiberal concept of an ideologically driven “rule-by-law.”

The “rule-of-law” is a basic democratic ideal, among a host of values that dominate political morality. These values include liberty, human rights, social justice and some degree of shared public benefits.  The rule-of law refers to the ascendency of law in a system of government through the institutions of a just and readily available legal system. A society governed by the rule-of-law has clear precepts to follow that most importantly apply equally to all citizens.  On the other hand “rule-by-law” connotes the enforcement of laws that have been adopted to govern society.

Unfortunately, an arbitrary illiberal government that ignores both the “rule-of law” and its emphasis on applied equally to all can use the “rule-by-law” to shape society in its own image.  It does this by imposing laws that are not decided by the elected legislature, but instead are imposed from the top through edicts and regulations.  An illiberal government also uses the rule-by-law as an instrument of the state to achieve its objectives to control those institutions with which it disagrees and to attack its enemies. Such a government goes to great lengths to avoid the constraints of equal justice envisioned in the “rule-of-law” to achieve these illiberal goals.

Over the past four years, the “rule-by-law” has become a dangerous, expanding tool of the Trump administration. Much of this has been accomplished by using the Department of Justice to administer highly selective deployment of laws and procedures to accomplish political objectives.  The following are recent examples:

·       The Justice Department attempted to prevent former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, from publishing his book detailing his time inside of Trump world.  After the book was published, a criminal investigation with grand jury proceedings and a civil lawsuit were filed against Bolton. These actions were taken despite Bolton and his publisher carefully following procedures established by the administration for such publications.

·      The Justice Department intervened in a defamation lawsuit against the President ten months after it was filed.  This was done at the last possible moment before Trump was compelled to produce DNA evidence and to sit for a deposition.  The White House’s direct request for intervention was an extreme and unacceptable use of Barr’s powers.

·       William Barr intervened into the Justice Department’s own prosecutions of two felons, Michael Flynn who pled guilty and Roger Stone who was convicted.  Both individuals are close advisors to the president.  Both interventions, arguing for leniency, violated long established norms and precedents to treat all criminals the same.

·      The Justice Department announced that it issued requests for information concerning the outbreak of coronavirus in nursing homes, only in those states that are currently run by Democratic governors.

·      The Justice Department accelerated the prosecution of a complex antitrust investigation against Google, a supporter of Democratic candidates. At the same time a three-year-old action for fraud against Boeing, whose executives support Trump, was permitted to languish.

·      Attorney General Barr has pursued sedition charges in Portland, Seattle and other Democratic jurisdictions in response to recent protests.  Armed right-wing militias, with a pro Trump anti-lockdown agenda, who showed up at the Michigan statehouse did not receive the same treatment.

·      There has been a remarkable conservative reshaping of the American federal judiciary under the president’s watch.  Some of the appointees are clearly political hacks and others are extreme ideologues.  At best, they do not represent a diverse pluralistic cross section of American values.

If Trump is reelected, there is nothing to hold him back from his quest for a fuller realization of the “rule-by-law.”  For example, it is not difficult to envision a more concerted use of the criminal justice system against opponents of his administration. 

An analysis of Poland and Hungary reveals how quickly the “rule-by-law” can become a weapon for democratically elected illiberal leaders against any opposition.  In both countries, limitations on free speech have resulted in a media controlled by the government and the leaders of opposing political parties subjected to constant legal harassment.

Throughout history, there has been no exact formula to determine when a rule-by-law state deteriorates into an authoritarian regime. This presidential election can guarantee that we will not be forced to test the limits of our democracy.  A Biden victory will guarantee the recovery of our legal institutions and a reestablishment of the rule-of-law.

 

COVID-19 GOES TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Early Friday, October 3, 2020, the President and his wife announced that they were two of 50,000 Americans that day who tested positive for the COVIID-19 virus. The White House decided that “out of an abundance of caution” the President would recuperate at Walter Reed Medical Center.  This was prudent given the President’s age and health history, placing him in the high-risk category to contract the life threatening disease. Given the fact that the election is less than a month from now, these developments were unprecedented.

Before the President contracted COVID-19, the Trump re-election game plan was to shift focus away from the pandemic. The aim was to place the attention of the media and voters on: 1) law and order issues and 2) voter fraud resulting from mail-in ballots.  The coronavirus outbreak in the White House assured the opposite would happen.

Now there are questions that must be investigated in light of the President’s condition and the many others within his orbit who tested positive. After months of research, we know a great deal about the virus and how to be shielded from its effects. The White House should be among the safest environments on earth, not a COVID hot zone.  Many parents will now question how their children can remain safe in a public school with limited resources and minimal access to testing when the White House is unable to protect its occupants.

Why did so many participants at a White House ceremony the previous Saturday test positive?  When the President’s close advisor, Hope Hicks, tested positive, what prevented the White House from following the guidelines of its own Task Force to immediately quarantine all who came into contact with her, including the President?  Why would the President and his campaign entourage, knowing of their exposures,  insist on attending election events in several states on Thursday October 2? Why have the medical updates on the President’s illness been confusing and contradictory? Is the spread of COVID-19 in the White House the result of Republican hubris or of a disease that can bypass all defenses?

In connection with the health and welfare of the American People, the more important question is how will the President’s contraction of the virus affect national pandemic policy? How will it affect the election?  I am not in the camp who believe Trump’s illness will result in a sudden epiphany and push to develop a more comprehensive national plan for the pandemic. There may be some benefit to examining the paths taken in Great Britain and Brazil after their respective heads of state contracted the virus.

Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, tested positive for coronavirus on March 27.  His condition quickly worsened, he ended up in intensive care, which prompted an outpouring of public support.  The Prime Minister took the disease more seriously after his discharge from the hospital and cooperated in shutting down the country.  Presently Johnson’s approval ratings are low, but unlike Trump, his election is not until 2024.

When President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil tested positive in July, he was not severely affected and did not require hospitalization.  This permitted him to boast that the virus was “like the flu” and that “herd immunity” is a viable option in responding to the pandemic. For months he continued to hold the position that only the elderly and infirm should participate in the lockdown.  Like Trump, he attacked regional governors who imposed broader measures. Bolsonaro’s approval ratings among his ardent followers have remained constant, signaling there is political life after getting coronavirus.

Trump was released from the hospital on Monday, October 5.  He is adapting the approach of the Brazilian leader by continuing to minimize the medical impact of the virus. It is my view that if the President quickly recovers that his illness will have marginal influence on the election results. 2020 has been a year when every week has brought new unexpected shocks and revelations to the American people.  These final weeks of the campaign will no doubt accelerate this trend, as was the case before the election in October 2016.

What are some possibilities? Attorney General William Barr may release the results of the 15-month probe into the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign when he believes it will most helpful to the President.  Yet another former senior Trump official may come forward with new revelations about the President’s abhorrent conduct. A pharmaceutical company may announce a major vaccine breakthrough.  There are numerous other surprises beyond the scope of now knowing what is possible.

It is easy to get caught up in the explosive news cycle and the superficial details of what was said/done by political actors in our fast-paced environment.  For those of us dedicated to bringing sanity back to Washington, it is time to stop formulating theories on what is wrong with the presidency. Rather, it is time to plan for and perform simple tasks that will make a difference, including the following efforts.

Make sure voters receive their ballots by mail or have transportation to the polls.  Help first-time mail-in voters to understand the procedures involved, and encourage them to return the ballot as soon as possible.  Call and email everyone who has communicated a desire to be on the right side of history and encourage them to vote. 

October is not the season for political analysis, emotion or criticism.  It is the occasion to take action in order to right the many wrongs of the past four years.

 

 

 

 

 

THE PRESIDENT IS NO BOY SCOUT

 

The Boy Scouts of America is one of the largest youth organizations in the United States.  In July of 2017, President Trump was asked to speak before a gathering of 40,000 scouts at the summer Jamboree in West Virginia. 

Mr. Trump began his remarks by saying:  “Who the hell wants to speak about politics?”  He then went off on a rambling address to deliver highly politicized remarks that were more appropriate for a MAGA campaign rally than an assembly of bipartisan young men and scout leaders. 

President Trump never joined the Scouts. This is unfortunate because were he a member, he would have recited the Boy Scout Law prior to each meeting of his troop.  I can think of no better standard than the Scout Law to both fact check and review the President’s performance during his first term in office. The Scout Law has 12 points. A Scout always tries to be:

TRUSTWORTHY. Tell the truth and keep promises.  On July 9, 2020, the President crossed the 20,000 mark in making false and misleading claims — an average of 23 claims a day over a 14-month period.  When the Washington Post “Fact Checker” first began keeping track, Trump averaged fewer than five claims a day. The tsunami of untruths just keeps multiplying.

LOYAL. Show that you care about your family, friends, school and country. The President needs and expects loyalty from all those around him. The Mueller investigation began when Trump demanded loyalty from FBI Director James Comey who refused to comply.  Trump seeks revenge against any present or former administration official who speaks truth to the media. On the other hand, Trump shows little loyalty to those closest to him. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer as well as Mary Trump, his niece, recount numerous examples in their respective new books of his disloyalty to his wife, children and close associates. Trump’s own loyalties are to himself, his profits and his next political campaign—and perhaps to Vladimir Putin.

HELPFUL. Volunteer to help others without expecting a reward. The President behaves in transactional terms, taking no action without a reciprocal payoff for his own interests.  His charitable foundation was forced to shut down after the N.Y. State Attorney General uncovered that Trump utilized the charity to benefit himself.

FRIENDLY. Be a friend to everyone, even people who are very different from you. The President cultivates a disrespectful, pompous, defiant and bullying demeanor. He openly favors “winners” (dictators, cutthroat capitalists) over “losers” (Western leaders with empathy, killed or captured soldiers). He offers support to white Christian nationalists and admirers of confederate treason, while attacking diverse ethnicities and religions.

COURTEOUS. Be polite to everyone and always use good manners. See “Friendly” above.

KIND. Treat others as you want to be treated. See “Friendly” above.

OBEDIENT.  Obey the laws of your community and country. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to the same degree as the Trump White House.  He believes he is above the law. He has sought to undermine and halt investigations into his alleged illegal acts. He has ordered his Attorney General to prosecute political opponents. Lastly, Trump as President, has attacked the independence of the judiciary.

CHEERFUL. Look for the bright side of life.   Trump has almost no humor, even when the moment calls for it. Humor humanizes and puts people at ease. Trump’s method is the opposite. He wants people ill at ease. Doing so, preserves his capacity to wound, enhancing his sense of superiority.

THRIFTY.  Use time, food, supplies and natural resources wisely.  The President has few time management skills and makes decisions impulsively without setting measurable goals or creating strategies to achieve them.  He is extravagant with the public purse and has increased the national debt to 27 trillion dollars. In direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, millions in taxpayer dollars have found their way into the coffers of the Trump Organization.  

BRAVE.  Do what you think is right despite what others might be doing or saying.  According to journalist Bob Woodward who was granted an unprecedented 18 recorded interviews with President Trump, his handling of the ongoing pandemic was “a monumental, catastrophic leadership failure.”  Woodward concluded in his recent book that the President lied or misrepresented facts to the American people in an effort to improve his chances of reelection with little regard for public health and welfare.

CLEAN. Keep your body and mind fit.  The president is a self-described germophobe. According to a former top adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, Trump once said Covid-19 might be a “good thing” because it would stop him from having to shake hands with disgusting people.

REVERENT. Be reverent toward God and respect the beliefs of others.  Trump's attempts at public religion have been awkward at best. He said he does not ask for forgiveness and "does not bring God into that picture" when he makes mistakes. President Trump identifies as Presbyterian, but does not regularly attend any church.  He is openly hostile toward Muslims.

The President’s followers will argue that none of the above disqualifies him from serving a second term.  My response would be: Under what circumstances would an individual who in every respect, fails to live up to the Scout Law, make an acceptable candidate for the highest office in our nation?

 

 

 

 

A SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA’S PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

For those who read the daily newspaper and go straight to the sports section, comics and obituaries, you may have paid little attention to the recurring full-page public notices detailing the proposed amendments to the Constitution of Pennsylvania.  Who can blame you? The print is tiny, and the legalistic writing style invites only the most dedicated reader to struggle through the four joint resolutions.  I will attempt to make some sense of the recommendations.

The good news is that voters need not immediately concern themselves with the proposed amendments before the November election. To amend the Pennsylvania Constitution, resolutions must pass both chambers of the legislature by simple majority in two consecutive legislative sessions.  They are then submitted to voters on a statewide ballot.

The present resolutions were passed in the July 2020 legislative session and must again pass in the 2020-2021 session.  If this takes place, the governor has no veto power, and the resolutions would appear on the November 2021 ballot.

The four proposed resolutions are the brainchild of the Republican-led legislature and may be summarized as follows:

• Limit a governor’s disaster declaration to 21 days. Currently, those declarations last 90 days. It would allow the General Assembly to extend a disaster declaration past the 21-day time-frame upon its expiration, but a governor would not be permitted to declare a new state of emergency for the same reason without the General Assembly’s consent.

• Clarify a constitutional provision to allow the legislative branch to terminate or extend a disaster declaration through a majority vote of both houses through a concurrent resolution that would not require the governor to sign off on the declaration.

• Provide protection against racial or ethnic discrimination.

• Move to regional (district) elections of Commonwealth Court, Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices, who currently are elected on a statewide basis. Lawmakers would be in charge of drawing the judicial district regional boundaries. Judges would be required to be residents of their respective districts for at least a year of the district they represent.

The racial equality amendment was only passed by Republicans after it became part of a “two for one” resolution that also contained the disaster relief provisions. Voters would not be able to vote for one without the other.

The implications of the proposed constitutional amendments are profound. They seek to alter the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government. The proposed “disaster declaration” amendment is a direct political attack by Republicans on the manner in which Democratic Governor Tom Wolf handled the public health issues surrounding the pandemic. The amendment to alter how appellate judges are elected in Pennsylvania is a brazen Republican attempt to gain additional political power through the judiciary.

Republican lawmakers were frustrated with Governor Wolf’s public health restrictions in refusing to open certain businesses in a manner consistent with some Republican governors.  The frustration was enhanced when the State Supreme Court rejected the Republican lawsuit to end the disaster declaration. 

Because Democrats now hold a majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Republicans cobbled together an unprecedented two-pronged attack on our constitution. First, decrease executive powers long held by a governor. Second, make election of appellate judges regional so that Republican rural areas with fewer voters can elect their own jurists.

There is no doubt that the proposed Republican amendments are political and are not intended to improve state government or the health and welfare of Pennsylvania citizens. As the summer came to an end, Governor Wolf was given high marks for using his executive powers in controlling the pandemic.  His approach in finding a “middle ground” permitted the state to reopen businesses while controlling the spread. According to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus Research Center, Pennsylvania was to be commended for its steady decline in cases as more and more counties reopened.

Concerning the proposal on the manner in which appellate judges are elected, it is important to remember that in 1968 the judicial system was completely overhauled as part of major revisions to the Pennsylvania Constitution. Judicial gerrymandering to give more clout to rural counties in the election of state-wide judicial positions was rejected. It was found to disenfranchise voters by limiting their vote to one member of each court.  Of the jurisdictions where voters elect statewide judges, 18 out of 22 are elected in statewide contests.

There is some hope that when the proposed amendments come before the legislature next year, the pandemic will be fading and there will be less of a reason to hamstring the governor in a public health emergency.  After all, the next governor may be a Republican. In my view it is never a good idea to change Pennsylvania’s most fundamental document for short-term political advantage.  That is what elections are intended to accomplish in a democratic political system.

 

 

 

“SHUT UP AND DRIBBLE”

                              "I'm looking for a commitment for change, even if it isn't done officially."

Former Georgetown basketball coach, John Thompson, 1/15/89

 

In February of 2018, on her nightly Fox cable news program, The Laura Ingraham Show, the conservative host attacked comments made by the 14-time NBA All-Star LeBron James on his Uninterrupted website. James had stated that Trump “doesn’t understand the people.” Ingraham blasted James and other socially active Black players as “barely intelligible,” “ungrammatical” and “ignorant.” This episode has gained notoriety as the “shut up and dribble” rant.

In fact, Ingraham was not expressing anything new.  There is a long history of White Americans criticizing Black athletes for expressing their views on important issues of the time.  

Early on, Black athletes were symbols of social justice and civil rights rather than spokespeople like track star, Jesse Owens, at the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. In addition, baseball great Jackie Robinson quietly became the first African American to break the color barrier in 1947; Kenny Washington, the same, in the National Football League.

In the 1960s, Black athletes shifted from being silent emblems of social justice to becoming participants in the conversation. Muhammad Ali went to jail for his outspoken anti-war beliefs.  He received vocal support from Jim Brown, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  Medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave the black power salute at the 1968 Olympics.  Curt Flood challenged the Major League Baseball reserve clause in 1969 on behalf of all players. More recently in 2016, NFL quarterback, Colin Kaepernick gave up a lucrative professional career by kneeling during the National Anthem. (In 2020, many players in all professional sports, Black and White, chose to kneel before games.)

The political awareness of Black players has increased exponentially with each new generation of professionals. Today’s athletes understand the power each holds through social media to make their opinions heard. They are grateful for those who came before them to make their careers possible.  Many stay connected to their old neighborhoods where the scars of inequality are everywhere.  Most importantly, Black athletes continue to experience systemic racism in their own lives.  

While Black awareness has become more open and vocal, the White response to Black athletes involved in social issues remains “shut up and dribble.” The widespread view is that Black athletes are paid large salaries to entertain the sports fan and that their opinions are irrelevant.

With this background in mind, a critical landmark in American social justice took place on August 26, 2020 when the NBA Milwaukee Bucks cancelled a scheduled playoff game against the Orlando Magic. The action was taken in response to yet another shooting of an unarmed Black man in, Kenosha Wisconsin, only miles from the Buck’s home court.  All NBA players were  confined in an isolation bubble at the Disneyland sports complex to gain protection from the pandemic. They looked each other in the eyes and realized that basketball was not the priority until the NBA could reach a collective agreement on how to respond.  The consensus was; if not now, when.

Within hours the NBA was effectively shut down for several days giving the players, coaches and owners time to reflect on racism in America and to develop a plan.  In solidarity, games in other major professional sports (WNBA, MLB, MLS and NHL) were also cancelled. Many professional and college football teams suspended practices to show their support.  White players backed their Black teammates without hesitation.

Prior to the shut-down of professional sports, the main event for the week was the Republican National Convention.  While President Trump and Laura Ingraham attempted to ignore the events under the NBA bubble, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner could not help himself. He was quoted as saying that the NBA players refusing to play in protest of the police shooting “are lucky to be rich enough to be able to take a night off from work.”

For two days, I divided my attention between the NBA channel, ESPN and the sports talk shows on SIRIUS-XM during the afternoon hours and the Republican Convention at night. The sports talk was profound, emotional and cathartic. One after another, strong, proud, normally stoic athletes bared their souls and explained what it is like to be a Black man in America. Five time NBA all-star and now businessman/sports analyst, Chris Weber, gave a powerful message and had me close to tears.

The Republican National Convention was well described by Esquire Magazine as “an entire break with the world of observable reality. A matrix designed by and for those with Fox News brain poisoning where the COVID-19 pandemic is over, where the recording of all economic data stopped in early March—but also, the president is single-handedly bringing jobs back—and yes, where Donald Trump is a loving family man.”

As Laura Ingraham feared, there was a great deal of barely intelligible,

ungrammatical and ignorant discourse on display the week of the

Republican convention. However, it was coming from a host of Trump family members and supporters, not from the NBA bubble. The kind of gibberish that exemplifies right-wing politicians and not Black basketball players sharing a profound message with America. 

After the Republican convention the new slogan for those in the White House and Republican Senate could easily be: “Shut Up and Govern.”