THE POLITICS OF REVENGE

“The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

The unfortunate developments in the Allegheny County District Attorney’s office last week have turned my attention to the use of revenge in our political system. The Allegheny County controversy stems from an email the District Attorney, Steve Zappala, sent to his office staff in May saying they were not to make plea offers to an African American defense attorney, Milton Raiford. This came after Raiford criticized the justice system and the DA’s office as “systematically racist”. Legal professionals have weighed in that should these instructions from District Attorney Zappala be carried out, this action would be unethical and retaliatory to criminal defendants.

On its face, the plea bargain ban by Zappala constituted revenge against one member of the bar for his unwanted comments. Under the best of circumstances, Zappala’s long career will be stained by this disclosure.  It is possible he will be forced to resign in the face of mounting public pressure.

Revenge is defined as the act of committing a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived.  The desire for revenge is a basic human instinct. It has formed the basis for innumerable Shakespearean plays, novels, television shows and movies.

In the political sphere, history has taught us that elected officials who are motivated by power and the desire for status tend to be more revengeful than most.  They resent being challenged and losing face.  Retaliation is sometimes an emotional over-reaction as in Zappala’s case, but more often a calculated scheme to achieve retribution.

American politics is riddled with examples of powerful people taking revenge against their pesky opponents. Those who continue to look for a conspiracy in the JFK assassination see the revenge (take your pick) of the Cubans, Russians, Chicago Mob, CIA or Kennedy’s Vice President as the motivating factor in his death.

When Lyndon Johnson became president, he loathed his predecessor’s brother, Robert Kennedy and took actions to limit his political ambitions. Moreover, Johnson was not above using the Hoover run FBI to investigate and disrupt any elected official or group that spoke out against his policies on the Vietnam War.

Richard Nixon doubled down on the politics of revenge. As president, Nixon’s deep resentment for those that opposed him brought out his worst traits. Watergate was more than a political caper; it was one part of a frequent, systematic abuse of power by Nixon and his staff to dole out punishment to opponents.  To accomplish this goal, an "enemies list" was created that contained the names of hundreds of politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, Hollywood figures, reporters and others.

Most recently, revenge was a hallmark of the Trump presidency. Unlike his predecessors, Trump was open and deliberate about his goal to cause political and economic harm to his detractors. During his years in real estate, Trump often stated that he was driven by revenge and that it was a basic tool to use in business. He admits he continues to be obsessed with payback. In 2016, at the second presidential debate, then nominee Donald Trump went where no major candidate had gone: He vowed that if elected he would prosecute and imprison his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Following his defeat in November, rather than concede the election, Trump concocted “the big lie” that the election was rigged and that he remains the legitimate president. Trump retreated to his Florida fortress and began plotting revenge against Republican lawmakers who voted to impeach him for inciting the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. Any Republican who has plans to gain a seat or remain in Congress must seek out Trump and “kiss the ring” in order to avoid a primary challenge from Trump voters.

The politics of revenge has taken a new turn in American politics. Millions of Trump supporters are now infected with the Trumpian instinct to exact punishment on those who disagree with their chosen candidate. The revenge is directed at any individual or group which challenges the version of the truth Trump chooses to adopt.

Most troubling of all, a majority of the Republican Party is caught up in the call for revenge. The Republican House membership removed uber-conservative Representative Lynne Cheney from her leadership position for opposing Trump. All Republican efforts are now directed at leveraging Trump’s revenge based politics into gaining majorities in Congress in 2022 and none toward advancing public policy.

What can be done to counter the politics of revenge? It is hugely destructive to a political system because it unleashes cycles of further revenge and potentially counter revenge. In the case of District Attorney, Steve Zappala, it can promote departure from legal norms.

Despite the recent polarization of U.S. politics, our political history tells us that moderation and restraint will usually prevail in the end.  Well thought out policy actions will speak louder than noisy hateful words. Empathy and common goals as a nation will win over more citizens with a positive vision for America.

This is why I have complete confidence in the path that President Biden has taken since assuming office. His administration does not engage with Trump and has no interest in revenge against him. The revenge cycle is being broken. The Biden White House has more important tasks on its agenda than punishing Donald Trump.

 

 

ON THE ROAD IN A REOPENING AMERICA.

 

There is nothing like a road trip to provide first hand observation on the state of our country. Like many others, we have endured several months of listening to conflicting news commentary on the status of the post vaccine economy and the confusion surrounding masking policy.  A trip that took us through four neighboring states and the District of Columbia offered a real-time experience on the reopening of America.

Our departure was two weeks before Memorial Day. The weather prospects were clear and warm. We rented a beach house in Chincoteague Virginia, along with two other couples. We visit this small “other world” community on a regular basis, usually out of season before Memorial Day and well after Labor Day. If you go, avoid Vrbo and Airbnb and call the local realtors directly. This will save you fees and leave more money on the island.

Our drive through West Virginia and Maryland was uneventful. The pit stops revealed few travelers or store personnel wearing masks.  The parking lots were littered with old masks leaving little doubt what pandemic evidence would show up in the geological record a thousand years from now.

The town of Chincoteague is connected to the National Refuge on Assateague Island.  This 37-mile-long barrier island along the Atlantic coasts of Maryland and Virginia includes adjacent marsh islands and ocean waters. The park offers an extraordinary beach experience that allows visitors to enjoy wildlife and outdoor activities in a beautiful natural setting. About 3.2 million people visit the national seashore annually to boat, bird-watch, fish, hunt, crab, clam, camp, ride over-sand vehicles and see the park's famous wild horses.

We go to Chincoteague for the fresh flounder, raw oysters and soft shell crabs, all of which were in season.  The restaurants maintained a mask policy and were thrilled to see a party of six hungry patrons come through their doors.  The 2020 tourist season was a total loss for most establishments, and several have closed. 

The retail shops in town were an interesting dichotomy when it came to masking policy. Island residents who go back generations were done with enforcing regulations and happily posted door signs stating, “no masks required.” Conversely, newer residents like the millennial bookstore owner, tended to be more concerned with health standards, and were keeping strict wipe-down and masking policies in place.

We spent several hours with a fifth generation waterman who now makes his living taking small groups of tourists on ecological tours. COVID regulations were not on his radar. He made it clear that island residents were not happy that the famous Chincoteague “Pony Penning” event was canceled for the second year in a row.  This July extravaganza attracts thousands of tourists, with fat wallets, to view the penning and purchase fouls.

Few masks were in evidence on the beach and hiking trails. This was not unexpected given the general lifting of mask requirements for outdoor activities in Virginia. Except for the canceled July influx of tourists for Pony Penning, the rentals are seeing evidence of a normal season.

After five days, our Chincoteague adventure was over.  The other couples headed home as we drove to Old Town Alexandria, Virginia for a weekend at our nation’s capital.  Timed tickets to the Smithsonian museums became available for the first time since March 2020 in the middle of May 2021.  Our first choices were not available, but we landed tickets for The National Museum of Women’s Art for Sunday afternoon and parking/admission passes for the National Zoo on Monday.

It was clear upon our arrival that indoor pandemic procedures were still  enforced in the District of Columbia and surrounding communities. This area, which experienced 49,000 COVID cases and 1200 deaths, appeared to be emerging from hibernation on a beautiful late spring weekend. There were singles, couples, families, elderly with canes and walkers and many dogs on leashes everywhere we went. Our weary Sunday afternoon Uber driver dropped off his last fare from a busy Saturday evening at 3 am Sunday morning.

The museums and restaurants continued to follow masking protocols. The National Zoo was the most interesting of all venues we visited. We observed hundreds of small children outside, walking or in carriages, who were wearing masks of every description. 

The masks were lifted for ice cream and drinks only.  Most parents were also masked, presumably to set the tone. I did not hear one child complain about mask wearing. It was simply a familiar accessory to their outfit, permitting them to escape the confines of home for the day.  Had they been available, the Zoo could have sold several thousand panda masks.

Our takeaway after a week on the road is that attempts to politicalize mask wearing is not the reality on the ground. There was no evidence of oppressive regulations interfering with individual freedoms. Families out for the day have turned public health protection into a common ritual. No one is agitated when an individual or family chooses not to mask-up while outside. Patrons respected the rules of private establishments as a necessary inconvenience in order to shop or eat at restaurants.

Now we know to ignore the publicized outlier incident that turns masking into a fistfight, or the rogue politician who equates mask requirements with policies in Nazi Germany.  The country is recovering from the pandemic just fine. 

 

TUUU

VOTE NO ON THE DISASTER AMENDMENTS TO THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION

 

On April 15, 2021, the Observer Reporter published an OP-ED written by Republican Commonwealth Senator Camera Bartolotta.  Her commentary was a scathing attack on Governor Wolf concerning proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article III, Section 9 & Article IV).  These two amendments, which will diminish the Governor’s powers during a public health emergency, will be on the ballot Primary Day, May 18, 2021. A third, non-controversial proposal would add a new section to the Constitution providing for equality of rights under the law. Voters will respond “yes” to accept each amendment or “no” to reject and keep the Constitution unchanged.

Unfortunately, the Bartolotta OP-ED does a disservice to Pennsylvania voters by misrepresenting the language of the first two amendments and the purpose for which Republicans passed them in the first place.  This commentary will attempt to counter her partisan attacks and discuss other Republican efforts to promote these radical amendments through misleading campaign literature now being circulated to Pennsylvania voters.

By way of background, Governor Wolf and his administration sought to protect Pennsylvanians from the ravages of the pandemic, while Republican state legislators followed the lead of then President Trump by minimizing its significance.  As the governor issued executive orders to save lives, Republicans unsuccessfully fought to reverse each decision in the media and then through the courts.  The only path left to Republicans was to take the drastic step of passing legislation to amend our Constitution, even though the crisis is now manageable due to the successful vaccination roll-out.

Ms. Bartolotta states that the amendments are needed “to avoid the kinds of mistakes we have seen this administration make over the past year.” Her discussion of the “mistakes” is vague other than the curious point that the Governor’s lockdown scared people away from emergency rooms and made elective procedures impossible for several weeks.  In fact, hospitals nationwide were full of COVID patients and unable to perform elective surgeries.

Governor Wolf and his administration consistently received high marks from the Trump administration CDC officials during the darkest days of the pandemic. In September of 2020, Dr. Debora Birks, the Trump coronavirus response coordinator, had nothing but praise for the Wolf administration’s handling of the virus. She ranked Pennsylvania among the top five states and felt that Governor Wolf’s restrictions on restaurants and bars turned the tide of infection.

Senator Bartolotta infers that the executive branch and the legislative bodies need to cooperate more when faced with a public health crisis.  She believes the new amendments will do the trick. The truth is that Republicans are not seeking cooperation. They are seeking to remove power from the executive branch and reserve it for themselves.

Imagine 235 legislative members trying to reach a consensus in the middle of the next catastrophe. We should all be thankful that the framers of the Pennsylvania Constitution saw fit to give this extraordinary power to the governor alone.

Ms. Bartolotta is vexed about the wording the Department of State adopted in drafting the ballot questions on the disaster amendments. Ironically, she fails to give us the language or demonstrate how the wording is “misleading and biased.” What follows are the two questions as they will appear on the May 18 Ballot:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Article III, Section 9:“Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law and increase the power of the General Assembly to unilaterally terminate or extend a disaster emergency declaration—and the powers of Commonwealth agencies to address the disaster regardless of its severity pursuant to that declaration—through passing a concurrent resolution by simple majority, thereby removing the existing check and balance of presenting a resolution to the Governor for approval or disapproval?”

Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Article IV:“Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law so that: a disaster emergency declaration will expire automatically after 21 days, regardless of the severity of the emergency, unless the General Assembly takes action to extend the disaster emergency; the Governor may not declare a new disaster emergency to respond to the dangers facing the Commonwealth unless the General Assembly passes a concurrent resolution; the General Assembly enacts new laws for disaster management?”

Each question is as clear and concise as the Republican legislation would permit.  My sense is that the Senator would like to avoid the phrase “thereby removing the existing check and balance” from the first question and “regardless of the severity of the emergency” from the second.  These clauses disclose the Republican intent to mislead the public from the actual damage caused by the disaster amendments.

As if the Bartolotta commentary was not bad enough, in recent days the conservative Commonwealth Foundations has taken efforts to pass the Republican amendments to new lows. Voters are being solicited with multiple mailed glossy campaign postcards depicting the smiling faces of minorities. 

The mail recipients are urged to “SUPPORT EQUALITY FOR ALL PENNSYLVANIANS, 3 Yes Votes = Equality For All.” No matter that only one of the ballot questions involves an uncontroversial equality provision and that the other two questions are a power grab by Republicans, with nothing to do with equality.  Welcome to the world of “say anything to win” Pennsylvania Republican Politics.

Voters should select “NO” on the above two amendments seeking changes to disaster emergency declarations and “YES” on the equality of rights provision.

 

HOW TO OVERCOME POLITICAL TRIBALISM

It is never out of bounds to ask the question, what is the role of government in American society? With political and social institutions no longer functioning properly, the question now becomes an imperative.

The time honored conservative-liberal divide on the role of government is fondly remembered by the last generation of more moderate elected officials. Conservatives traditionally wanted a government with a smaller footprint that gave market forces and individual liberties as much free rein as possible. Liberals, on the other hand, viewed government as the vehicle to regulate markets and individual excesses to guarantee more equality in society.  When the American experiment was working properly, the pendulum of our two party system moved back and forth between these dual principles, usually with a degree of bipartisan compromise and no clear winner.

The ideological battles of the past few decades have dramatically changed the classical conservative/liberal conflict into something very different. Size and intervention of government have taken a back seat to tribalism, a term best defined as the tendency to connect one’s identity to one’s politics.

These hardened ethnic and ideological identities attached to our two political parties obscure the traditional views toward government. For example, a Republican Trump supporter may insist on less government involvement on issues like health insurance, public health protections, the minimum wage and gun control while seeking more governmental regulation of immigrants, women’s reproductive rights, LBGTQA+ rights, access to voting and public school curriculum. 

The culture wars, religion and race now matter more than the size of government in setting positions within our tribal politics. The tribes do not just disagree on policy and politics — they see the other as alien, immoral, a threat.  Profound polarization (members of Congress refuse to speak to members of the other party) has made it impossible to pass legislation important to the country.  Not even a global pandemic of epic proportions has subdued the mean spirited nature of our sectarian political system.

The question now becomes, what is the role of government when democratic institutions are unable to achieve their stated purpose of deliberating over policy choices and passing legislation for the betterment of its citizens? The logical answer is to take a pause from unproductive law making and work tirelessly to overcome the impenetrable conflict that stands in the way. 

There is no evidence that sectarian tribalism will disappear on its own. Democrats are deluding themselves if they think that reversing the directives of the Trump administration or doing away with the Senate filibuster will usher in a new political age to match the FDR “New Deal” or the LBJ “Great Society.” The next election could easily erase all of their efforts.

A short essay that appeared in the recent print addition of Foreign Affairs focuses on ways in which America could defeat tribalism (How to Overcome Tribalism, Rueben E. Brigety II, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2021). Mr. Brigety, an academic and former U.S. Ambassador to the African Union has studied how other modern societies have lessened their destructive factional divides. He concludes that the central benchmark is “whether citizens of diverse backgrounds can use reason and argument to transcend foundational identities and work together toward a common good.”

Political will and leadership are important.  Mr. Brigety points to South Africa and Northern Ireland to support his thesis. In the first example, Nelson Mandela and then President of the South African apartheid party, F.W. de Klerk, worked together toward the nonviolent goal of dismantling apartheid. In the second case, Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams and the Unionist, Davis Trimble bridged a century of violent differences to bring a negotiated peace to Northern Ireland. Similar victories against tribalism have been won in Africa by dedicated leadership.

Civic engagement must play an important role in defeating tribalism.  I have previously discussed a detailed report on how to repair democracy in America, published by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, as an important baseline tool in overcoming tribalism. (Observer Reporter OP-ED page, December 23, 2020). Mr. Brigety points to another organization, the national Millions of Conversations civic campaign which seeks to foster open dialogue across party lines and social divisions. Other efforts in communities across the country sponsored by houses of worship, local community groups and local governments are needed to fight back against tribalism.

The Brigety essay identifies three specific policies that would have a profound effect on dismantling American tribalism.  First, “a full accounting of the country’s racial history coupled with focused attention on socioeconomic inequalities that affect communities of color could help move the United States’ political culture beyond…identity tied to race.” Second, “the most important constitutional reform for addressing the challenge of political tribalism is ending partisan gerrymandering.” Third, “President Biden must take the lead and convene a national summit on tribalism to examine the issue, explore its threat to U.S. governance and security and propose recommendations to address it.”

Ultimately, citizens must look up from their digital screens and find ways to interact with “others” from distinct backgrounds and perspectives.  The goal is not to eliminate differences or to end rational conflict, but to learn how to effectively govern despite them.  Mr. Brigety ends his essay with the stimulating thought: “A country that reveres its freedom and insists on its exceptionalism should also meet the standards of governance it sets for itself.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE REPUBLICAN POLITICS OF SURVIVAL

Many Democrats and Independents have become discouraged that Republicans are unwilling to engage the Biden administration on policy issues that are of immediate domestic concern and important to the American people. Political commentator Ezra Klein may be on to something when he points to a recent poll that asked voters whether the goal of reliable government is more about “enacting good public policy” or “ensuring the country’s survival as we know it”.  Only 25% of Republicans responded that it is about policy. Almost 50% said survival.

When one drills down on this polling result, it is easier to explain the post-election actions of both Republican elected officials and supporters of the former president. Democrat initiatives to address the pandemic, pass comprehensive immigration reform, make it easier for qualified citizens to vote, provide a lifeline for disadvantaged children, improve the Affordable Care Act, pass rational gun control legislation and invest in human capital/ infrastructure do not ring the Republican’s bell. Instead, Democrat policy proposals are too often mislabeled as dangerous socialism, no matter the public need or the improvement to the lives of our citizens.

Elected Republicans are determined to stay in power, and Trump supporters want the nation to return to Donald Trump’s vision of “Make America Great.”  Under this survivalist view, there is little room to engage in formulating public policy. From the exiled Trump Cabal in Florida to our own David Ball in Washington County, many Republicans insist on circling the wagons with the limited objective of fighting off an imaginary “socialist onslaught” and “invasion” of immigrants. The primary goal appears to be returning a disgraced brand of Trump inspired white nationalism to the White House. 

This commentary will consider how Republicans could change their behavior without abandoning their principles. A shift from the negativity of political survival to a positive participation in the political process to achieve deliberated and lasting results.

Pandemic Relief.  Republicans continue to brand the pandemic as an excuse for Democratic governmental overreach when none was needed. Instead, party leaders and their followers should cut their losses and support the Biden administration’s eradication efforts. The party should insist on a bipartisan effort to develop a rapid response system to knock down virus outbreaks. This would prevent the need for further economic shutdowns or restrictions on individual liberties, both important Republican objectives.

Immigration Reform.  Last week, several Republican Senators visited the southern border to attack the processing of those seeking asylum.  In truth, the surge of those seeking asylum began on Trump’s watch.  Dire conditions in Central America drove the migrants north in the spring of the last three years.

Republicans should work to develop a bipartisan immigration bill that would please the business owners and border residents who support them. Moreover, Catholic Latino voters tend to be conservative and will reward Republican elected officials for being proactive on immigration.

Election and Voter Reform.  Republicans continue to lean on the “big lie” of a stolen national election to justify unprecedented efforts to change the rules of voting and representation. 253 bills in 43 states seek to tighten voting rules. Conversely, the Democrats through legislative action at the federal level are attempting to pass a bill that would tear down barriers to voting and would undo some of the changes being proposed in state legislatures.

Republicans in Congress should compromise on the federal proposals by adding honest efforts to make voting more secure while accepting provisions that increase access to the ballot box. Ironically, many of the federal mandates sought by Democrats, like expanded use of absentee ballots, are measures supported by older Republican voters.

Rational Gun Control. The night before the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing to address “Common Sense Steps to Reduce Gun Violence,” another mass shooting occurred in Boulder Colorado. Less than a week earlier, a gunman killed eight people in the Atlanta Area. Firearms deaths reached a 50-year high in 2017, with 40,000 killed.

The recent efforts in Congress for rational gun control center on modest bills to expand and strengthen background checks.  Four in five Americans support these efforts. It is time for Republicans to turn away from the morally and financially bankrupt NRA to reach a compromise on gun control.  As remarked by President Biden last week “This is not and should not be a partisan issue—it is an American issue.”

Disadvantaged Children.  The Biden administration has proposed to establish a national pre-K and childcare program. Such an initiative would advance the educational prospects for many children and make it easier for both parents in low-income households to hold jobs.  It has also proposed universal health care for children to address the ugly secret that American children ages 1 to 19 are 57% more likely to die than children in other wealthy countries (January 8, 2018, Journal of Health Affairs). 

Republicans should view these Democrat efforts as long overdue social security for minors to reverse a lengthy history of child neglect.  Healthy, well-educated children are needed to replace the retired boomer generation in our new information age economy, a primary Republican goal.

Our nation needs two robust, forward-looking political parties committed to seeking rational compromise on public policy.  Honest debate produces better policy that will stand up over time.  We do not need Republicans dedicated to the survival of one man and his un-American ideology of hate, fear and self-promotion.

 

WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICAN COMMISIONERS UP TO?

Prior to the November 2019 election that saw Republicans take control of Washington County government, I warned of what the result would be if the Democratic majority were removed by voters (9/8/19 Observer Reporter OP-ED).  My fear was that replacing a well-functioning Board of Commissioners, that placed good government before partisan politics and ideological preferences, would not end well.

Unfortunately, my concerns have become a reality as evidenced by recent events. The Republicans are committed to frivolously spend taxpayer dollars and to stir up their Trump base of voters.

The latest revelations as reported in this newspaper are alarming. First, there were the March 4 disclosures concerning the new county solicitor, Jana Grimm Esq., and her law firm, Steptoe and Johnson. The Republican Commissioners increased the allotment for the solicitor’s legal services from an already extravagant $142,577.00 to $189,000.00, an escalation of 33%.

It is not shocking that Diana Irey Vaughan would choose a new solicitor once she was in a position to do so.  It is disturbing that the Republican Commissioners would create an outside “legal division” utilizing a boutique business law firm, like Steptoe and Johnson.  Such firms traditionally bill from $300.00 to $400.00 an hour, well above the going rate of qualified Washington County firms.

The claim that this move will save the county money is simply not accurate based on prior expenditures. If the Republicans intend to stand by this claim, they should be prepared to provide an accounting of hours worked and services provided at the end of the year.

Ironically, the well-regarded Washington law firm of Peacock and Keller is now located in the same building as the soon to be Republican Commissioner’s offices. (The plush, new, 10 million-dollar Crossroads Building accommodations). Peacock and Keller is more familiar with Washington County legal issues and has specialists in all types of municipal law.  However, our local firm, unlike Steptoe and Johnson, does not have over 300 lawyers on their masthead, of whom all may be called upon to contribute to the next election campaign.

The second revelation was not unexpected in the present environment of right wing ideological politics, as practiced by elected Pennsylvania Republicans.  Again, on March 4, the same day that QANON predicted Donald Trump would retake the White House, Washington County was declared a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.”

According to the enthusiastic explanation given by Commissioner Irey Vaughn on the local newscasts, this resolution was intended to give physical shelter to gun owners when state and federal officials illegally come to confiscate their guns. The dog whistle message in the resolution is that “elected Democrats are closet communists intent on trampling Second Amendment rights.” The resolution is red meat for Trump voters and militia members.

Why pass a meaningless but divisive resolution?  Where are the pandemic resolutions honoring county first responders and medical personnel? How about a bipartisan ceremony to show respect for all of our residents who lost their lives to COVID-19 or those who have perished from gun violence. Perhaps a plaque for Commissioner Larry Maggi for driving many miles to participate in an early coronavirus vaccine trial that could have threatened his good health.  Apparently, keeping Trump supporters in the fold is more important than showing empathy and moral courage as an elected Republican commissioner.

My last topic is the most troubling of all. The Republican Commissioners have been assembling an audacious plan to revamp all of the county human service functions under one inflexible umbrella.

Presently in Washington County, there are several well-funded, well-run human service nonprofits. These organizations oversee functions such as drug and alcohol and the elderly/aging. Each of these nonprofits has flourished under the leadership of their independent management teams and boards of directors.

Each self-sustaining organization has important contacts with both Washington County and State officials in conducting their specialized services and in meeting regulatory requirements.  As an example, the independent/nonprofit County Drug and Alcohol Commission has become a national model in addressing opioid overdoses by bringing together all interested parties.

The existing structure is decentralized in a good way by giving focus and input to those participants who provide and receive the specific services outlined in each nonprofit’s mission statement.  The system not only works, it achieves a traditional Republican goal by lowering county expenditures and reducing payroll and overhead.

No one outside the Republican inner circle is quite sure of the provisions in the human services reorganization plan. There has been no attempt to involve the affected agencies. However, the fear is real.  A new monolithic human service department would swallow up the existing nonprofits like a giant amoeba.

Years of relationship building, funding sources and countless careers would be lost or altered.  There is little confidence that a transition could go smoothly, especially given the lack of transparency. Many of the participants, including knowledgeable Republicans, foresee chaos.

Washington county citizens who receive services from these drug & alcohol, aging and mental health organizations must demand that whatever grand plan is in play be exposed and explained.  This should include public hearings on each proposal affecting the delivery of human services.

The boring, predictable days when county government was taken for granted and trusted to provide the best solutions is past. We must remain vigilant and challenge everything that does not add up.

PANDEMIC POLICY IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN “FOLLOW THE SCIENCE”

When it comes to fighting COVID-19 and its mutant variants, the two national approaches that have played out over the past year are clear. First, there was the Trump policy of relying on the former president’s questionable instincts backed by fringe scientists who agreed with him. No new regulation could escape the Center for Disease Control without being adversely scrubbed by pro Trump political operatives. By mid-summer, the former president was ignoring the pandemic and had placed all implementation responsibility on the state governors.

Now we have the Biden administration’s welcome transparency on COVID-19 policy under the slogan that his team will “follow the science.” His staff holds daily briefings, and there are centralized plans for winding down the crisis.  The president displays an empathetic concern for those affected economically and for those who have lost their lives.  Currently, Biden is moving a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress. 

While I am pleased with the turn of events since the inauguration, I am skeptical of the Biden claim that he is simply “following the science.” I find this a misleading slogan to explain the complex pandemic decision-making at the federal level. In truth, other factors besides empirical science are under consideration in addressing the virus. The new administration should clarify this fact for the American people.

To rely on science as the determining influence on policy is to misunderstand what science is. All scientists are by definition trained in the scientific method.  This process uses data gained through observation to remove uncertainties around a hypothesis in an effort to determine the truth. Scientists utilize proven facts to understand the world. The validity and importance of the scientific method is well documented. During the pandemic the scientific method has worked well to standardize the mitigation directives of mask wearing and social distancing.  

However, the process of organizing scientific knowledge in order to formulate policy through institutions and advisory committees is driven by more than raw data.  Politics, economic concerns as well as social constraints are also a part of the equation.

Sociologists have carefully studied the interplay between science and governmental policy.  On the surface, it may appear that public health policy depends solely on scientific information. By digging deeper researchers have found the process is more convoluted.  When faced with a new problem, policy makers tend to deconstruct the basic science depending on the ultimate goals of public officials and the political interest groups they serve. This is followed by a reconstruction of the fact-based science to achieve a plausible scientific rationale for the proposed action.

Rather than a monolithic scientific approach to the pandemic, we have observed this process of deconstructing and reconstructing scientific findings play out over and over on the world stage.  It is significant that there have been a long list of conflicting scientific studies over how to cope with a rapidly expanding, changing and mutating viral pandemic. Given this plethora of scientific studies against a background of divergent political, social and economic considerations, no two countries have “followed the science” according to the same prescription. Some national plans have succeeded better than others.  None has been perfect.  All have been different.

Anyone who believes that the Biden administration is only “following the science” in cobbling together the stimulus bill now before Congress would be way off base.  Certain provisions of the proposed law are designed to shore up the Affordable Care Act by making it economical to more Americans.  Other provisions that provide funds to assist financially strapped state and local governments and to distribute enhanced unemployment benefits are based on unemployment rates in each state. Democratic states that had shut down earlier and longer benefited the most from these proposed distributions. Overall, Republican states had briefer shutdowns and lower unemployment rates. This will limit their ability to receive assistance from these programs.

There is also Democratic favoritism concerning the dispersal of the vaccine and most recently, free, high quality masks.  Centralized mass distribution sites in Democratic urban areas are more effective in reaching citizens than vaguer decentralized plans to inoculate individuals and provide free masks in Republican rural areas. Moreover, Americans outside of population centers often do not have access to the internet services needed to sign up for the vaccine or to apply for federally enhanced unemployment benefits.

The Biden stimulus package is a good one and has wide support because of the financial payouts to all Americans.  I support all of its goals.  However, many provisions have little to do with empirical scientific data and everything to do with fulfilling campaign promises and rewarding the Democratic base.

Instead of “follow the science” as adopted by the Biden administration, a more accurate phrase would be, “We consider the recommendations of the best science in a changing pandemic environment in conjunction with our political, economic and social goals.”

The White House must take both credit and responsibility for its decisions separate and apart from scientific data.  In the end, Biden’s use of science to implement Democratic goals is far better than the plan of the previous administration to “ignore the science” and wait for the virus to disappear on its own.