THE DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

Two recent political speeches are instructive in understanding the discouraging divide in America.  First, President Biden spoke in Philadelphia describing the upcoming midterm elections as “a battle for the soul of America.” For the first time, he assailed not only the former president but also his followers in the Make America Great Again movement. He concluded that the MAGA agenda has no place in our political process and has become a threat to democracy.

Biden supported his conclusion by describing MAGA positions that: 1) reject the results of the last presidential election, 2) would eliminate all  abortion, 3) attack the FBI and Justice Department for doing their jobs and 4) seek to restrict voter access to the ballot box. He was careful in his remarks not to paint all Republicans as MAGA supporters.

Two days later, former president Trump gave a two-hour speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. The event was scheduled to support the campaigns of Republican candidates running for Governor (Doug Mastriano) and for the Senate (Mehmet Oz). Predictively, the speech quickly drifted off into another polemic of grievances and lies. Among Trump’s comments, President Biden was labeled “an enemy of the state” and the FBI and Department of Justice were called “vicious monsters.”

Midterm elections are usually a voter referendum on the political party of the president.  This is especially the case when the party also controls Congress. Biden’s attempt to make the midterms a referendum on a former president is unprecedented. However, there is something far more troubling than caustic political rhetoric and the sorry state of national politics. In modern times, issues that matter most in peoples’ lives are often being formulated at the state, not the national level. In deciding these issues, the individual states of our republic are drifting so far apart that Lincoln’s description of “a house divided” is now an appropriate description of America’s political future.

Consider the following divergent public policies on abortion, gun control, immigration and voting rights recently adopted by various states:

·      When all the states have responded to the Supreme Court overturning of Roe, it is expected that half will have eliminated or severely curtailed access to abortion.

·      Mississippi now bans all abortions, vaccine mandates, the teaching of balanced racial history and transgender students participating in sports based on the gender with which they identify.

·      California adopted a law that protects people who come to the state to get or facilitate an abortion against legal actions filed in states where abortion is banned. The Governor is dangling California tax credits in front of companies that are seeking to move out of conservative states that limit reproductive, gay and transgender rights.

·      Connecticut has expanded access to abortion by allowing physician assistants and certified midwives to perform them.

·      In 2020, ten liberal states adopted new restrictions on the purchase or carry of firearms.

·      Twenty-three conservative states now allow “permitless carry” which removes all restrictions on gun owners being armed in public.

·      California has defacto legalized undocumented immigrants by being the first state to offer Medicaid and health insurance available for poor citizens to all immigrants, regardless of status.

·       In Texas, the Governor has authorized the state police to return unauthorized immigrants back to the border. He is working to withhold payment for undocumented children to attend Texas public schools.

·      Twenty-nine states have expanded access to voting by mail while thirteen states have restricted it.

There are many other examples ranging from climate change, to the Affordable Care Act, to public health issues. Not since the Civil War has the tenth amendment of the Constitution (reserving to the states the powers not delegated to the federal government) become such an important factor in American politics.

The impact of states’ rights is bound to get worse. In 2020 there were thirty-seven states in which one political party controlled both the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. When partisanship prevents congressional action, individual states can move quickly to pass legislation opposed by half the nation. Moreover, the conservative Supreme Court has signaled its intent to follow up on the abortion decision by handing back other critical policy and cultural issues to the states.

What is to be done as America becomes more disunited? At some point, there will be a realization that there is no path toward reconciliation. There will be an admission that the United States is no longer a cohesive citizenry capable of moving forward as a nation. A new arrangement will be required that matches political form to political substance.

Partial defederalization, perhaps similar to the European Union model (a political and economic union of sovereign states) could serve this purpose, though it is fraught with difficulties. Blue states do not want to disadvantage poorer Americans living in conservative states. Red states, despite their attacks against national government, benefit more from federal programs and the distribution of tax dollars.

The alternative is to employ something in short supply — compromise. It should be possible to restore national political equilibrium if Congress radically changes the way it does business. The two political parties can no longer be more extreme than the voters they represent. Primary elections and gerrymandering must be reformed.

Catholic Ireland adopted a national, middle of the road, abortion policy. All of Europe passed sensible gun control, health care, education and climate change laws. These “United States” can do the same.

 

 

 

DOING GOOD IS COMPLICATED

 

“Everything sucks is not helpful. The relevant question is what can we do?” William MacAskill

As the summer winds down, what is left of the dwindling print press has focused on a positive topic to counter all of the bad news splashed across the headlines. Prominent articles on “altruism” or “the art of doing good” were featured in Time magazine (cover, August 22) and The New Yorker (essay, August 15).

One would think that such a topic would be a straight forward, uplifting examination of individuals and organizations devoted to improving the world. Alas, it turns out that practicing altruism is complicated. When a group of confirmed altruists get together, the debates are intense with conflicting positions.

One reason altruism is getting attention can be traced to the 35 year old Scottish philosopher, William MacAskill, credited with forming the modern movement on the subject. Mr. MacAskill has just published a new book on altruism titled What We Owe The Future. The book is expected to be a best seller. In the spirit of altruism, all proceeds will go to his organization dedicated to helping others.

Mr. MacAskill has spent his life agonizing over the threshold question of how one individual can do the most good for humankind. Years ago, he made his own calculations and determined that he would limit his income to twenty-six thousand pounds ($31,000.00) each year and would give the rest of his earnings away. Ironically as his organization called “effective altruism” (EA) has gained a worldwide following, his fund raising activities far outweigh his income.

Two issues complicate the life of an individual dedicated to altruism. First, how does one determine what activities will actually do the most good? Second, how does one reconcile being an altruist with living a healthy lifestyle, free of angst and depression, in a world so full of inequality, death and destruction?

The first question has caused heated battles within the altruism community. Traditionally, many philanthropists would favor giving to a favorite university, library or local causes in the community. The new view is that effective altruism is evidence-based to determine the best ways of helping others. Under this thesis, local giving may be seen as a personal indulgence to gain recognition rather than true sacrifice for the sake of the world’s neediest.

The modern altruism movement considers all human lives to have equal value.  A thousand dollars might buy one scholarship in Pennsylvania, four eye surgeries for children in Portugal or five thousand doses of deworming medicine in East Africa. When measured in what altruists call “quality-adjusted life years,” the deworming charity was found to be a hundred times more cost effective than the sight-saving eye surgeries. The Bill Gates foundation has used this approach in its decision to eradicate malaria. It has been determined that the most cost effective way to save human lives, anywhere in the world, is in the manufacture and distribution of insecticide treated anti-malaria bed nets.

Mr. MacAskill and his EA organization have come to favor a breadth of interlocking causes. Fifty percent of its funding goes to global health and development projects with the highest potential to save human life. Ten percent is dedicated to building the movement and for research. Animal welfare is a major issue in the altruism community and receives funding to promote development of alternative proteins to reduce demand for animal products. (Although MacAskill warns that giving to a clean energy charity will do more good than a lifetime of not eating meat.)  Lastly, programs are funded to support the relatively new concern for future existential risks. This includes threats like climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics and genetic engineering.

When MacAskill first heard the call for altruism to address long-term risks, he was not sold on the idea. He felt there were too many real problems in the world facing real people to fanaticize about future apocalypses.  As the pace of scientific discovery quickened, his views changed.  He now believes “the world’s long run fate depends in part on the choices we make in our lifetime.”

This brings us back to MacAskill’s new book What We Owe The Future. It is a polemic on the moral imperative to take all necessary steps to influence the long-term future. He believes that humanity is in the early stages of development with three possible outcomes: extinction, billions of future unhappy lives or billions of future flourishing lives. The prescription for success is not an easy sell. It entails an individual duty to live a life of conscious self-denial along with financial contributions to the causes he champions. The conclusion is that a single person can make a difference in saving lives today and transforming the lives of thousands in the future.

Learning to live a balanced life while serving both present and future humanity is also complicated. MacAskill has undergone his own transformation over the years. Early on, he was often depressed and agonized over small decisions like what products to purchase and where to cut corners to give more of his savings away. Today, he is no longer overwhelmed by the magnitude of the world’s problems. He takes time off to enjoy life and prioritizes sleep, exercise and meditation. MacAskill now beleives it is possible to be comfortable and well-rounded while continuing to do the most good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL ELECTION

The Aesop Fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is an apt description of Democratic Party warnings prior to the last several national elections. Since 2016, each presidential and midterm election has been called “the most important election of our lifetime.” This November, the 2022 midterms are no exception. Democrats will seek to overcome traditional voting patterns giving advantages to Republicans. In the midterms, the national party in power always has an uphill battle justifying to voters two years of decision making, especially when a myriad of events can and often do go wrong.

Mark Danner asked in a recent essay in the New York Review of Books (We’re In an Emergency, Act Like It, August 18, 2022 issue), “What if this time, like the boy who cried wolf, we find ourselves screaming that the emergency is real – and no one pays attention?” When the wolf is at the door, we need to cry aloud with some solid facts to explain the emergency and avoid the catastrophe. Fear and anger can motivate voters and win elections.

President Biden’s low poll numbers and a series of challenges for the country explain the dire outlook for Democrats. These issues include high inflation levels and fraying trust in civic institutions — caused, in part, by Republican anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

Danner’s essay urges Democrats to make crystal clear what is at stake in November.  He believes that American voters have not faced so grave a choice at the ballot box since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln defeated several candidates with southern sympathies and set the stage for the Civil War. He identifies an unprecedented series of first time crisis events facing the American electorate. He believes that unless the growing authoritarianism brought on by these issues is defeated at the polls, our democracy will continue to falter.

First, the 2022 midterms will be held following the only coup d’état in our nation’s history, instigated by the former president. Second, these are the first elections following a decision by a far right Supreme Court to abolish a fifty-year entitlement allowing women a choice on abortion. Third, this is the first election that will determine whether Republican state legislatures rather than non-political civil servants will be given the authority to determine who gets to vote, how the votes are counted and when future election results can be overturned.

If Republicans gain control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024, the America of the immediate future will be more authoritarian. We will be a nation where government can intervene in personal decisions − even the most intimate. This could include the use of contraceptives, whom you can love and whom you can marry. Large corporations will become less regulated.  The Medicare and Social Security programs will come under attack and could be reduced. Climate change will be ignored. Democratic institutions will be further weakened.  When it comes to firearms, the immature and the unbalanced will continue to walk the streets as heavily armed as combat soldiers.  

Danner believes that the Democratic ”cry wolf” alarm must be bolstered by a Democratic Contract with America, similar to the plan Newt Gingrich, then Republican Speaker of the House, introduced for his party in 1994. Such an idea is off to a positive start with the recent package of legislation passed by the Democratic Congress, including the Inflation Reduction Act. Voters must be reminded that a Republican controlled Congress will  reverse these gains. A concrete package of new legislation to help the middle class must be developed and articulated.

Danner concludes his essay with the observation, that the 2022 midterm elections need to be more than just about traditional issues, like the economy or cultural issues designed by Republicans to frighten voters.  He urges Democrats to “cry wolf” from the rooftops because the principles of our unique democratic government are at stake.

To keep Democrats in power, it will not be enough to hope that Trump “might” declare his intent to run in 2024 before November or that extreme right wing primary winners “might” be defeated by more even handed Democrats. President Biden, his administration, Democrats in Congress, responsible Republicans and each of us who care must all cry wolf with urgency and frequency. Elections matter. Getting out the vote for the midterms by motivating Democrats is essential.

My major criticism of the Danner essay is that it does not consider the aftermath of an unexpected Democratic midterm election victory. This would not be a case of “all’s well that ends well.”  If Democrats maintain control of Congress, I fear a right wing backlash similar to what happened in 1860 when Lincoln won the presidency and South Carolina succeeded from the union.  Republicans will invoke “stop the steal” and contest close elections across the country. Fringe groups will advocate violence. Republicans will rally behind Trump or a like-minded candidate to run in 2024.

Democrats must not let the November midterms be reduced to a choice between more authoritarianism if Republicans win or more division and violence if Democrats win. The Democrats must offer a positive alternative through the above-mentioned Democratic Contract with America. The plan must have broad, moderate appeal beyond the progressive wing of the party. Otherwise, the schisms that made the Civil War inevitable in 1860 may be repeated following this year’s midterm elections.

 

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.