KENTUCKY IS ON MY MIND

 

The United States of America has one of the most complex cultural identities in the world due to its immense size and diverse heritage. Unlike most countries, America’s vast dimensions and immigration history have enabled the formation of subcultures that are often geographically determined because of settlement patterns and landscape differences. 

Kentucky provides a wonderful example.  The region is unlike the northeast where I was born and have spent much of my life. Its citizens often think, act, talk and vote differently than I. However, despite being poles apart, I have come to admire the people of Kentucky as much as any of my northern neighbors.  Kentucky is on my mind.

Months before the Ukraine war became front and center in our hearts and minds, Kentucky earned this spot following a terrible tragedy. During the late evening of Friday, December 10, 2021, an unusually violent, long-track tornado moved across Western Kentucky producing catastrophic damage through eleven counties.  The tornado traveled 166 miles, and 57 fatalities were confirmed. It caused 3.5 billion dollars in property damage.

Last week another once in a lifetime natural disaster rocked the Eastern Kentucky hill country. Flooding caused by six to nine inches of rain led to thousands stranded in the remote mountain hollows for days. As of this writing, there are at least 37 deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.

What struck me after both unpredictable disasters is the resilience of the Kentucky people. Governor Andy Beshear summed it up well: "These are proud, hardworking folks that have just lost it all, and I think the least we can do as human beings, as people with values, is to give and do what we can to get them back on their feet."  Everyone I witnessed being interviewed stated that Kentucky was their home and that they would rebuild.

Kentucky and Pennsylvania are two of only four states that call themselves commonwealths. In both, the urban areas are mostly Democratic with vast Republican rural areas. Kentucky is mostly “South” with a bit of “Midwest” mixed in. It borders Illinois, Indiana and Ohio to the north; West Virginia and Virginia to the east; Tennessee to the south and Missouri to the west.

Many people now living in the Appalachian Mountains of Eastern Kentucky are descendants of Scotch-Irish who immigrated to America in the 1700s. After the English persecuted these mostly sheep farmers, they left the British Isles in order to seek a better life. As the colonies became more populated, settlers began to push farther west into the mountains. The Scotch-Irish carved out small farms and homesteads in the remote hollows and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains. For the most part, they were and still are farmers, loggers, and coal miners. 

In recent years, I have developed a guilty pleasure in reading fiction depicting the people in and around the Eastern Kentucky hill country. Excellent authors like Chris Offuit (The Killing Fields, Country Dark); Brian Panowich (Bull Mountain) and new on the scene S.A. Cosby (Blacktop Wasteland) know their subject well. The stories are raw and violent, but the moral code from this unique geographical area is always the same.

First, no one living in the eastern small hill towns is considered a native unless the family history goes back at least a hundred years. Second, family is more important than God or country. If there is a dishonored distant cousin on your mother’s side whom you have never met, be prepared to seek retribution at any cost. Third, many make a living believing that the law and the government are not to be obeyed, but rather outwitted. Running moonshine, avoiding taxes, organizing rooster fights and collecting unearned government benefits are all admired endeavors.

Using Louisville as a dividing line, many would characterize Eastern and Western Kentucky as two different states. The vast fields of bluegrass in Western Kentucky have given us uniquely American bluegrass music. Bluegrass citizens love horses and look forward to the biggest party of the year, the Kentucky Derby. The Bluegrass Region is more affluent and cosmopolitan with activities that are typical of more urban areas.

Hunting season for a vast range of critters begins in August and extends through May. Most Kentucky citizens own several guns and go hunting on a regular basis. Concealed carry is legal for anyone at least 21 years old who can legally possess a firearm without a license/permit.

Kentucky has produced a varied collection of native sons. Four of the most renowned are Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis and Mohammad Ali. The range extends from gonzo writer Hunter S. Thompson to country singer Loretta Lynn.

American diversity is not simply taking note of more recent ethnic and cultural differences that help enrich our urban communities. Diversity has been with us since the colonial period and has always made us a stronger nation. It is time to celebrate our amazing array of distinctive populations and to stop disparaging others for being different. In truth, for those seeking a lower cost of living and who enjoy outdoor activities, Kentucky makes an excellent place to live and work.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky (and other states outside of our immediate purview) help to define who we are as a nation. We are enriched by the unique history and culture of all sections of the country that define America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DO DEMOCRATS HAVE A PLAN?

 

“I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Will Rogers

For those of us who follow the day-to-day political news, being a Democrat can be a frustrating experience. Despite the Democratic presidential candidate having won the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections (though thanks to the Electoral College system, just five presidential terms), the party seems unable to decide what and whom it represents. Moderate Democrats and progressives are in conflict over many legislative initiatives. Well-pleased Republicans look on with a mostly united front, as Democrats appear to be bashing each other out of their slim Congressional majority ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections.

To quiet ones’ nerves, it is sometimes helpful to stand back from the news cycle and consider a more panoramic view of the Democratic Party. A recent book, What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, by Michael Kazin, fits the bill by reminding me why I am a Democrat.

Mr. Kazin traces the history of what he terms “the oldest mass party in the world.” He believes that Martin Van Buren in the 1820s, not Thomas Jefferson, was the true father of the Party. Van Buren molded Democrats into a powerful electoral machine, complete with a network of local newspapers, nominating conventions and a spoils system of government jobs. My father, the nephew of a Democratic state senator, would benefit from Van Buren’s handiwork over a century later in 1949.  Harry Truman awarded him the plum position of postmaster in our small NJ town.

After Democrats found a charismatic leader in Andrew Jackson, two principles would guide the party until the 1960s. The first, Kazin calls “moral capitalism,” the belief that government should serve the interests of ordinary Americans not business elites. The second is white supremacy. Many Northern Democrats supported the right of their southern Democrat brothers to hold slaves and later supported the Jim Crow laws.

The original populist, Democrat William Jennings Bryant, believed that social change required using public authority to redistribute private wealth. However, his three presidential campaigns ended in failure because his message never caught on with industrial workers or the middle class. Finally, a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was elected president. He increased antitrust legislation and instituted an income tax on wealthy Americans. Neither Bryant nor Wilson had any interest in racial justice.

Democrats came to control the cities, and their political success was due to Irish dominated political machines. Industrial unions got out the Democratic vote. The unions took the Democratic Party to the left and gave FDR the influence he needed to pass the more radical elements of the 1930s New Deal. After WWII, a new breed of Democratic leaders, black and white, were anxious to dismantle segregation. Slowly, the two major parties switched identities with regard to race until LBJ’s Civil Rights Act sealed the deal. Republicans found a new home in the south.

The Vietnam War, feminism, the LGBTQ+ community and immigration issues all helped to further galvanize the modern Democratic Party. However, the conflict grew between socially liberal and fiscally moderate leaders like JFK, the Clintons and Obama and all-in progressive social Democrats like Bernie Sanders. Under its “large tent,” the present Democratic party has been unable to forge a coalition of working and lower middle class voters of all races.

As things stand today, Democrats can count on affluent urban voters, members of racial minorities and a majority of women. Conversely, Republicans have locked up voters in rural and “small town” America where declining industrialization and globalization have led to chronic economic decline. Why Democrats no longer speak to many white, working class Americans remains the great political mystery of our time.

In 2022, there are two problems with Democratic messaging. First, the Democratic “large tent” that seeks to attract both progressives and moderates has ended up angering one and then the other. Progressives believed President Biden would “go-big” and pass massive social reform, climate change and tax increases of the wealthy. On the other hand, moderates were sure that with a slim electoral mandate Biden would “stay small” and work to heal the damage Trump caused to our democratic institutions.

Second, the progressive left has opened up a cultural war can-of-worms by giving Republicans the opportunity to invoke a negative vocabulary with which to frighten middle class Americans. Democrats need these voters to move forward. The misused concepts of wokeness, cancel culture, defund the police, banning guns, Marxism, “offensive” public health mandates and critical race theory are all wrongly applied by conservative media. This has influenced white Americans to turn away from the Democratic Party.

What is to be done? Returning to the author Michael Kazin, he observes that historically Democrats succeed when they enact policies such as Medicare that serve all segments of the working middle class. He cautions that new initiatives must not be seen by white voters to benefit only minorities.

A winning plan will not be easy because it must walk a fine line between being too progressive and too status quo in order to keep a winning coalition together. All segments of the Democratic Party must be prepared to compromise starting with the Inflation Reduction Act now before Congress. With proper messaging and sound policies, the white middle class should return to their historical place under the Democratic tent.

 

FAR RIGHT REPUBLICANS ARE WEAPONIZING PATRIOTISM

 

The upcoming elections in Pennsylvania and Washington County will be explosive. Who could have guessed that in the Senate race this November, a six foot eight inch unconventional Democrat from Braddock (Lt. Governor, John Fetterman) would face off against a Republican, Muslim, television celebrity from New Jersey, who recently voted in Turkey (Dr. Mehmet Oz)? More bizarre, a year ago, no one would have picked a little known Christian, nationalist from Franklin County, supported by self-described patriots, (PA Republican Senator, Doug Mastriano), to oppose the well-connected Democratic State Attorney General from Montgomery County in the gubernatorial race (Josh Shapiro).

In Washington County, the political climate has heated up again as a group of dissident Republicans (who also call themselves patriots) gave up their efforts to audit the results of the 2020 general election and embarked upon a new crusade. An organization titled Election Integrity in Washington County, aided by an elected Row Officer, presented a petition at the last commissioner’s meeting. Its purpose was to decommission all the county’s voting machines and return to paper ballots.

This commentary will examine the growing segment of the Republican Party, now self-identified as “patriots.” It will discuss why concerned voters should pay close attention to what these individuals and their leaders are saying.

To the casual eye, the word “patriot” has obvious appeal. It is difficult to argue against a person’s love of country or willingness to defend its democratic principles. In 2009, an offshoot of the Tea Party movement began calling themselves patriots. Over time, the usage grew into favor until the term patriot became a popular way for 2020 Trump supporters to describe what is actually white nationalism. Today, so called patriots gleefully attack and label as non-patriotic all segments of the political spectrum who disagree with them. This list includes people of color, non-Christians, Democrats and more recently, traditional Republicans.

Doug Mastriano won the Republican primary by championing far right causes and promising to replace secular government with evangelical religious values. During the primary, he blanketed the rural counties with fiery stump speeches, closed to the media. His message appealed to the patriot movement.

Mastriano pulled in “anti-vaxers” by promising to ban all mask and vaccine mandates. He attracted “stop the steal” supporters by pledging to rid the state of voting machines, mail-in voting and to compel all Pennsylvania voters to re-register with strict ID requirements. He won-over evangelicals by ensuring the enactment of a universal “conservative parental rights” law for public schools and promising to ban all abortion. Mastriano also courted gun owner votes by promising to make Pennsylvania a “permitless carry state”.

Recent revelations in the media have disclosed much darker intent within the Mastriano campaign.  Facebook videos posted by the Republican nominee espousing far-right positions were taken down as the state senator shifted to the general election. The deleted messaging referred to climate change as “pop science.” He called Republicans who would not support him as having “disdain for veterans.” More than 50 tweets were deleted that promoted QAnon conspiracy theories.  In a recent campaign filing Mastriano disclosed that he paid $5,000 in “campaign consulting” fees to social media platform Gab. This site is a major social media platform for white supremacists and anti-Jewish groups.

Turning to Washington County’s avowed Republican patriots, there are inconsistencies in their social media, press releases and video presentations. What they are for and what they are against are head scratchers.  First, they seem clearly against term limits for county elected officials and against the governmental status quo that has existed over many decades. However, rather than support and place their patriot members on a commission to review how to improve government (the referendum on a Home Rule Commission), they fought vigorously to defeat formation of a study group. This contradicted their positions and ensured that the form of government and term limits would remain in place.

Second, they are now opposed to voting machines in Washington County. What the patriots fail to mention is that since 2016 the Pennsylvania Department of State has certified seven voting systems that meet the latest standards of security, accessibility and auditability. All Pennsylvania counties were directed to implement one of the systems. Washington County is the proud owner of one of these certified systems and has never experienced a hint of failure or fraud.

The few cases of alleged voter fraud cited by the patriots stem from paper ballots not machines.  In all cases, the alleged ballot fraud favored Trump. Lastly, the local patriots prepared and submitted to the commissioners a petition calling for a referendum to dispose of voting machines. The petition language was legally deficient and well short of the number of signatures required.

It is my view that the patriot movement has failed to demonstrate any leadership qualities that would benefit Pennsylvania or Washington County. In fact, these individuals and their leaders are better described as insurgent agitators who support an autocratic form of government, attack democratic institutions and who seek to defeat the voting rights of Americans who disagree with them.   

As conservative Republican, Liz Cheney commented at the end of the last televised January 6 hearing, “patriotism is being weaponized” by Donald Trump and others seeking power. It is time to return patriotism to its proper meaning, a recognition by Americans of the wondrous common experience of our shared pluralistic democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A PROUD REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY (RINO)

 

To understand the political changes that have occurred in Washington County, and especially its venerable Republican Party, it helps to have a good friend who has lived through its incredible metamorphosis. Stephen I. Richman, Esquire (Steve) will celebrate his 90^th birthday next year. While Steve is now retired from the practice of law and rarely participates in the business and Republican politics that shaped his professional career, his keen memory continues to provide me with a wealth of information.

Over the past several years, Steve has graciously edited my weekly commentaries that appear in this newspaper. His sharp pen and eye for detail have saved me from publishing thoughts that were either too vague or inaccurate. It is time that I shared with OR readers the remarkable life and fascinating stories of Steve’s career.

Steve’s parents were proud Republicans and active participants in the business and political life of Washington County. When Steve was attending college at Northwestern University in Chicago, his father’s good friend George Bloom, a native of Burgettstown, was head of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Mr. Bloom got access for Steve to attend the Chicago Republican Convention 70 years ago in July of 1952. The oratory of Everett Dickerson and the negotiations that led to Eisenhower defeating Taft for the Party’s nomination fascinated him. Steve was hooked on the American Political System.

Steve recalls that the major civil rights cause during his time at Northwestern was integrating black students into white dormitories. He was amazed when he learned in the late 1960s that the issue had come full circle. In the face of the Black Power movement, Northwestern Black students were demanding their own segregated campus living space.

Steve attended The University of Pennsylvania School of Law and graduated in 1957.  There were only three women and one black in his class. He joined the Washington County Bar Association the next year and began his notable career. Steve would become a recognized expert attorney in non-traumatic occupational disease, especially lung disease.

Steve’s career also reached into the business community where he was Director of Three Rivers Bank & Trust, General Partner of the Executive House, and President of the Washington Trust Building. He remains a trustee of the Washingon Mall Shopping Center.

Steve served in many different functions within the Washington County Republican Party from the 1960s through the 1990s. He remembers his work as an uphill battle, with Democrats holding a five to one registration advantage. Republican complaints concerning widespread corruption in Washington County rarely gained traction with the voters. One high point was the year that the admired Republicans Barone McCune and Harold Fergus, Sr. were elected to the Court of Common Pleas and District Attorney, respectively.

Steve has many humorous war stories while performing his responsibilities as District Republican Chairman. On one occasion, he introduced a candidate running for judge who was so intoxicated he took a swing at Steve and fell off the stage. On another, a reformist candidate for District Attorney finished his stump speech on cleaning up illegal gambling. There was complete silence until a listener raised his hand and informed the candidate that the building addition in which he was speaking had been purchased with illicit gambling funds.

Steve continued to attend national Republican presidential conventions as a spectator. He was in San Francisco in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was nominated as the Republican candidate. He was there to help Governor Scranton and Senator Hugh Scott hold the line against the conservative radicals. Senator Scott would later ask him to run his Washington County reelection campaign.

 Steve was also an observer at the 1968 GOP convention in Miami Beach when Richard Nixon was nominated. He recalls talk of closing all the bridges to the convention center to prevent an invasion of young antiwar protestors.

By the 1972 election year, Steve’s political views began to diverge from the national GOP. He continued to view himself as a life-long, loyal Republican but in the moderate tradition of Republican Governors William Scranton (1963-67) and Raymond Shafer (1967-71). Rather than support Richard Nixon for reelection, Steve locally organized what may have been the only “Republicans for McGovern” fund raising event. The economist and diplomat, John Kenneth Galbraith, headlined the sold-out affair that raised an astonishing $5,000.00 for the McGovern cause.

Unlike today, Steve recalls the Washington County Republican Party as a prim and proper organization made up primarily of moderate business leaders and concerned farmers. The goal was to do away with corruption and develop a modern, business-friendly community. Lou Waller was Steve’s close friend who had one foot in the business world and the other foot in the civil rights movement. Steve joined the local chapter of the NAACP and followed Mr. Waller’s eloquent lead in working to advance the employment prospects for African Americans in Washington County.

Steve Richman remains a registered Republican in the honored tradition of his family. These days Steve contributes to many Democratic campaigns and is thrilled he was able to pay for the placement of a large “Josh Shapiro, Democrat for Governor” sign on his brother’s front lawn.

Steve knows that the present leaders of the local Republican Party disparage his positions and consider him a RINO. Nonetheless, he is proud of his accomplishments within the GOP, in the true Pennsylvania Republican tradition of such leaders as Dick Thornburgh and John Heinz.

 

 

NOSTALGIA FOR REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS MISPLACED

 

“Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.” Ecclesiastes 7:10

Nostalgia is the art of comparing today’s disappointing reality to a bittersweet longing for the past.  Looking back at the perceived highlights of our long-gone “glory days” can make us feel deprived or left out in our present day-to-day existence. 

Nostalgia is a potent psychological weapon that has been utilized to great effect in modern day Republican political advertising. Nostalgic messaging has stigmatized minorities and appealed to populists who wish to return to a time they fear has been lost.

The Make America Great Again (MAGA) campaign slogan of Donald Trump’s successful bid for president in 2016 cashed in on this nostalgia.  Many voters in rural America wished to return to a “whiter” version of America. Trump’s political screeds against anyone who disagreed with him encouraged Republicans to follow his leadership back to a nativist and nationalist Promised Land.

More recently, leading up to this year’s midterm elections, Republican talking points have been directed toward voters’ feelings of disquiet and unhappiness. Rather than articulate new policy positions, Republicans ask voters to consider how much better their world was under the previous  administration when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House.

This commentary will take stock of America at the end of the Trump presidency and two years into the Biden administration. Voters who are buying into the Republican MAGA argument of political nostalgia should be reminded what the past looked like under Republican leadership before casting their ballots.

The Pandemic.  Based upon a 2020 to 2022 comparison, Republicans are wrong to say that President Biden has done no better than Donald Trump in defeating Covid.  First, the biggest wave of the coronavirus in this country peaked near the time Biden was inaugurated with 3,000 deaths per day.  Second, under Biden our nation has accounted for a 40 percent smaller share of worldwide deaths than under Trump. Third, people who disproportionately were responsible for coronavirus deaths — the unvaccinated — were largely Trump Republicans who will not listen to public health experts. Lastly, Biden’s programs to promote transparency, encourage mask wearing and to provide vaccines, including boosters has far outpaced the Trump efforts.

The Economy.  When Trump left office the nation suffered record high unemployment (6.3%) and an economy in freefall. By comparison, last week it was announced that under Biden’s leadership, the U.S. has fully recovered all private sector jobs lost during the pandemic. The unemployment rate is at an historic low of 3.6%.

The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce was instead the highest since 2008 in his final year and increased 40.5% from 2016. The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million under Trump. The federal debt held by the public went up from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion. Home prices rose 27.5%. Coal production declined 26.5%, and coal-mining jobs dropped by 16.7%.  

Republicans are pummeling Biden with the high inflation numbers despite the fact that inflation is a worldwide problem caused by the Ukraine war, supply chain bottlenecks and high demand for goods coming out of the pandemic.  These dislocations will rebalance before the end of the Biden presidency.

Foreign Policy.  According to the Pew Research Center, the election of Joe Biden as president has led to a dramatic shift in America’s international image. Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, foreign publics held the United States in low regard with most opposed to his foreign policies. A recent Research Center survey of 16 foreign nations finds a notable uptick in ratings for the U.S. with strong support for Biden and his major policy initiatives.

Biden has reversed Trump by rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement. He has ended the Muslim ban on immigration and rejoined the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Counsel. The President has ended American support for offensive operations in Yemen and joined the global effort to fund and deliver Covid-19 vaccines around the world, which Trump refused to do.

Concerning the war in Ukraine, Trump has repeatedly stated that the conflict would never have started if he were president. However, most foreign policy experts believe that the former president’s mistreatment of Ukraine and cozy relationship with Russia’s President Putin (and other authoritarian leaders) directly emboldened Putin to commence the war.

 The State of Democracy. The Trump presidency was in constant turmoil and marred by two impeachments and the Mueller investigation into his campaign’s collusion with Russia. The high rate of turnover among senior-level advisers to President Trump was unprecedented. During his presidency, Trump accumulated 30,573 misleading claims and untruths.

Following Trump’s defeat in the November 2020 election, he planned a White House coup to retain power by denying Biden an affirmation of the Electoral College results before Congress. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to converge on the Capitol.  At least 876 people have been charged in the resulting Capitol insurrection.  The investigations into the planning of the coup continue.

As with all administrations, President Biden has made mistakes.  However, there is nothing in his record that should deny him a midterm majority in Congress to complete his election mandate. For voters to reach back and recreate the Republican years under Trump is not nostalgia. It is the resurrection of a nightmare.

 

 

A POLITICAL SEA CHANGE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

Historically, local politics were by nature a predictable, mundane affair. After all, voters were less concerned about the party affiliation of the local tax collector, recorder of deeds or director of elections. Whatever local political party was in charge, the potholes still needed to be filled, the police and fire departments maintained, taxes collected and polling places made ready for elections. Local citizens who were competent at performing their responsibilities were often elected repeatedly with little fanfare. 

Local politics have changed dramatically in the Trump era. Republicans have discovered that “bottom up”, ideological battles, beginning in local elections may hold the key to their future. First, local voter registration has gained new importance, even in rural areas that vote Republican. There is the realization that every vote is important in a country with a larger Democratic advantage. Second, Republican local officials can provide a fertile inventory of battle-tested right-wing politicians willing to move up the ladder to run for state and perhaps national office. Third, and most important, because elections are administered at the local level, the former president’s “big lie” challenging the election process has added political value to being the party that controls how voting is conducted in local communities.

The injection of extreme conservatives and Trump supporters into local politics is having a profound influence on how local jurisdictions are governed. In many communities (including Washington County) Democrats have been missing in action when it comes to offering a rational alternative to what I will call “local government based on Trumpism.”  This commentary will examine this troubling movement in Washington County, an excellent example of what is happening in many other communities.

Less than a decade ago Washington County was solidly Democratic with a tradition that reached back into the 1930s depression. A majority of the local Democratic voters did not consider themselves liberals. However, they were proud of their Democratic Party heritage and favored a local government that was thrifty with public funds and addressed the basic needs of county citizens.  Elected Democrats most often shared these beliefs.

Each election cycle two Democratic Commissioners were returned to office to serve with one minority Republican. The other county-wide offices were filled with elected Democrats. Over time, these dedicated elected officials became skilled at running county government, hired an efficient staff, and kept taxes low.

Most important of all, these Democratic elected officials knew what the public wanted. A majority fought against tax reassessment because of the cost and taxpayers wishes, even though it was court mandated. Unlike more liberal communities that banned fracking for environmental reasons, oil and gas exploration was encouraged. Local farmers wanted income from leases, and the business community wanted drilling jobs. With the exception of a few bad apples, local government ran smoothly, and the economy exceeded expectations.

Three occurrences brought about a political sea change. First, manufacturing and labor unions favorable to Democrats disappeared in Washington County and white nativism took its place. Second, an influx of Republicans moved into Washington County’s bedroom communities, seeking to escape the higher taxes and liberal bent of Allegheny County. The Democratic voter registration advantage began slipping away.  Third, a vocal group of radical conservatives, using Trump like tactics, viciously and unfairly attacked the manner in which Democrats governed Washington County.

In the last several election cycles, the Democratic apparatus, which had performed well for decades, was torn apart. With the exception of the county court system, Republicans were firmly in control. The majority was now composed of traditional Republicans and a new group of unqualified mischief-makers.

Fortunately, for Washington County, the Republican Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Diana Irey Vaughn, had long served in county government. Though a staunch conservative, she understood that a county administration needed the support of knowledgeable civil servants. Chairman Irey Vaughn wanted to govern Washington County in a manner similar to the many other Pennsylvania counties with a history of traditional Republican rule.

Following the last local election, the more radical elected Republicans did not accept the premise that public service was the goal of good government. Instead, they sought agitation and retaliation against their detractors. Republicans elected to the normally sedate clerical row offices sought to expand their influence by challenging both the majority Republican Board of Commissioners and the Court system. Within months, there were calls to replace Irey Vaughn and Nick Sherman for not following the Trump playbook. These radicals, ill-equipped for the offices they hold, are inspired by the Trumpian goals of power at any cost, revenge, personal attacks on public servants and placing right-wing officials in office willing to overturn legitimate election results.

I have witnessed the harm that occurred in Allegheny County in the 1990s when two irresponsible Republican Commissioners gained power and decimated county government. The harm to citizens was substantial and long lasting.  It could easily happen here.

It is time for local Democrats to step up and forcefully push back against the Republicans employing Trumpian tactics to get elected. Well-qualified candidates must be recruited for the next election cycle to prevent a meltdown in county government.  

If this means joining forces with traditional Republicans who are in a better position to win, so be it. Congressional Democrats have joined forces with Liz Chaney for the limited purpose of defeating the spread of a dangerous threat. Washington County Democrats can do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE GUNS, FEWER ABORTIONS

 

In one week, the United States Supreme Court took the country to a more dangerous place. First, a majority of the Justices limited a state’s authority to regulate open carry of a firearm. This decision was quickly followed by an opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade, returning the power to regulate abortions to the individual states. It is likely that more Americans will die as the result of expanded gun violence and substandard maternity care, than life preserved by prohibiting abortions in some states. This irony did not occur to the Justices or to Republicans praising both opinions.

For conservative members of the Supreme Court the concept of “originalism” has become a convenient theory.  It now justifies the Court’s reshaping of our society, grossly out of touch with the rest of the world and the expectations of Americans. The historical standard for judging gun control has returned to the 1790s and to the 1850s for abortion.

Originalists believe that the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted.”  These Justices claim that the original meaning of constitutional texts can be discerned through legal documents from which the text was borrowed. In addition, intent can be inferred from historical events and public debate that gave rise to an original constitutional provision. 

Originalism is best contrasted as a theory of constitutional interpretation with the more liberal concept of “living constitutionalism.” Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the text changes over time, as modern social attitudes change on subjects ranging from the environment to same sex marriage. These living changes to the Constitution can occur even without the adoption of a formal amendment.

In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old gun law against concealed carry. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, set out to upgrade the gun carry provision of the Second Amendment to a core constitutional right equal to free speech. In fact, there is little evidence that this was the original intent of the founders who wrote the Constitution. Instead, Thomas cherry-picks portions of old opinions and misstates American history to support his theory. A blistering dissent by liberal justice Stephen Breyer calls the Thomas approach “law office history” an unsound form of legal analysis that distorts history to fit the desired ends favored by a justice.

Shortly after the gun carry case was decided, the bombshell opinion rejecting abortion was published in a 5-4 decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority: “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  

Most troubling, there is now precedent for overturning any number of fundamental entitlements that purportedly do not have grounding “in our nation’s history.” The list of liberties now open to attack include interracial marriage, contraception, the right not to be  sterilized, the “right to engage in consensual” and private “same-sex intimacy” and the right to same-sex marriage.

There has not been a Supreme Court this far to the right since the early days of the New Deal. At that time, the only significant rights recognized by the conservative Court were of large corporations and southern segregationists. Nonetheless, many Supreme Court watchers were confident that the present Court would not upset the social fabric of America and interpret the Constitution by the originalist standards of 1787.

First, it was felt that the application of case precedent (stare decisis) would constrain right-wing overreach. In the past conservative Courts have reached liberal results because their decision was the best reading of existing law. Moreover, the three most recently confirmed Justices had made promises under oath to the Senate that stare decisis would be followed in deciding cases.

Second, it is important for the Court to present an appearance of non-partisan openness and legitimacy on controversial decisions. This was particularly true at a time when Justice Thomas’s’ wife was under scrutiny for her involvement in the former president’s election fraud scheme.

Third, observers felt the Court would be sensitive to public opinion on controversial constitutional issues, so that their decision will be widely accepted. This would be important before invaliding a long-standing gun carry regulation or reversing a fundamental right like abortion that has stood for fifty years.

The Court watchers were wrong. These two opinions make it clear that this Court will ignore case precedent, will ignore the efforts of Chief Justice Roberts to maintain the appearance of a court above partisan politics and is willing to give up its legitimacy by banning long held regulations and liberties.

I will conclude with the apt comments of Jeannie Suk Gersen in the New Yorker:  “It is galling to read the Court’s righteous condemnation of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of “raw judicial power,” and its self-portrayal as a picture of proper judicial restraint. It is hard to imagine something more like an exercise of raw judicial power than the Court’s removal of the right to abortion, which is precisely what these Justices were put on the Court to achieve. As the dissent put it, the Court is “rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes for the first time in history.” (New Yorker June 24, 2022)