HOW PETTY POLITICS CAN CONTAMINATE AN OUTSTANDING PROGRAM

Local county government is more complex than most citizens realize. Voters elect three Washington County Commissioners and are informed about their deliberations at regular public meetings. Following minimal discussion, votes are taken on all manner of county business.

In fact, the heavy lifting has already taken place well before the public meeting. An intricate maze of Commissioners’ staff, county departments, agencies, authorities, commissions, and committees have worked to hash out the details of county policy. The Commissioners then hold an in-depth meeting to discuss the final agenda.

This efficient system permits a vast amount of information and competing interests to be condensed into manageable issues requiring only an up or down vote at the public meeting. Occasionally, the system goes adrift in a big way.

Such was the case at the Commissioners’ meeting on February 15 when a vote was taken to approve the list of economic development projects submitted by the County’s Local Share Account Committee (LSA). A project advanced by the Washington City Mission appeared on a preliminary LSA list and for unexplained reasons was later removed from the final agenda. City Mission leadership, along with many concerned pastors and citizens who support the Mission, were not pleased.

Some background is in order. The LSA program was established in 2004 by the state legislature to fund economic, infrastructure, and community development projects through gaming revenues generated by casinos in counties hosting gaming facilities. Under a unique arrangement, Washington is one of the few counties that makes its own funding decisions, replacing the Commonwealth Financing Authority. An eleven-member LSA Committee made up of commissioners’ staff, a broad range of local economic interests, and two local legislators, meet to review proposals.  

Each year, the final list of LSA recommendations is submitted to the Commissioners for approval. The Commissioners have always agreed that the final list would be approved without objection to keep political considerations out of the process. This would avoid applicants from currying favor with the Commissioners or a Commissioner from rejecting a proposal for political reasons.  It is important to note that one reason for keeping the LSA process local, rather than permitting the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Financing Authority to choose the winning proposals, was to keep political influence at arm’s length.

Over the years, the LSA Committee has diligently performed its responsibilities. According to the Committee Chair and Chairman of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, Jeff Kotula, “The program has invested nearly $113 million in projects across Washington County.”

The one challenge to the work of the committee has been a long-running quixotic effort by local House of Representatives member Bud Cook. For years, Cook has criticized the Committee for its work, demanded an audit of the distribution of funds, and complained about members’ conflict of interests. Cook’s complaints have largely been ignored. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Authority, which acts as fiscal agent for the LSA Committee, has improperly managed the funds. Moreover, Chairman Kotula has explained, “there is a conflict of interest policy mandating members remove themselves from discussions and voting if a project in which they are involved is being considered.” Unfortunately, Cook’s claims of lack of transparency have gained some traction after the recent events involving the City Mission.

A recent editorial in the Observer-Reporter explains the community uproar facing Commissioner Chairman Nick Sherman and the LSA Committee:

“On a preliminary list that was shared with Commissioner Larry Maggi on Feb. 2, $500,000 was earmarked for a shelter for homeless women that Washington’s City Mission hopes to start building this spring. Then, without explanation, it was removed before the LSA committee voted to make its recommendations on Feb. 6 and the $500,000 was rolled back into the local share account. Despite pleas from City Mission officials and supporters at Thursday’s commissioners meeting, the women’s shelter funding was not put back on the list and, again, no explanation was offered for why it was removed. Absent such an answer, we’re left with the assumption that it was all about payback.

Here’s why: In a couple of weeks, former commissioner Diana Irey Vaughan will become the new president and CEO of the City Mission, and denying the grant to the shelter was a way to settle some scores. Irey Vaughan defied the orthodoxy of the local Republican Party and stood up to her GOP colleagues in recent years. Maybe whoever decided to take the City Mission off the list thought they were being clever. Maybe tough, too. Perhaps they thought they were sending a message that you’d better toe the line or face consequences. Instead, they merely looked small and petty.”

It would not be difficult for Commissioner Sherman to interfere with the work of the LSA Committee by urging his staff members, political supporters, and fellow Republican elected officials on the Committee to remove the City Mission proposal from the final list. The Republican Commissioners and the LSA Committee need to explain what transpired with the City Mission proposal.  

This issue is not going away. In the interest of transparency, the City Mission and all entities submitting future LSA proposals are entitled to know if the rules of engagement have changed. If petty political considerations are now going to contaminate the LSA process, then say so.

 

 

 

A LIFETIME OF MUSIC

“Woh-uh-oh, listen to the music…All the time.” The Doobie Brothers

This year’s Grammy Awards brought back some great memories. Watching an 80-year-old Joni Mitchell perform her iconic 1969 song Both Sides Now took me back to my college dorm room, where there was always a record playing in the background. A few days later, I sat down to watch the documentary Echo in the Canyon, which tells the story of the music scene in Los Angeles’ Laurel Canyon in the mid-1960s. The music of Mitchell, The Byrds, The Beach Boys, The Mamas and the Papas, Buffalo Springfield and more is brought to life through interviews and video recordings.

Tracey Chapman’s Grammy rendition of Fast Car, a song from 1988, brought tears to my eyes. Chapman and this masterpiece were both rediscovered for a new generation by an admiring country singer, Luke Combs. The song, which speaks of escaping poverty and alcoholism, compelled me as a young lawyer to consider the world outside my busy, self-serving orbit.

Since the 1960s, the methods of delivering music have gone through as many transformations as the mediums for researching information. I have readily adopted and as quickly discarded scratchy vinyl albums, eight track tapes, cassette tapes, boom boxes, iPods, compact discs, and now streaming music through my vehicle, phone, and computer. Technology has continued to advance and made it easier to keep music close-at-hand in our mobile society. I can now play almost any song at a moment’s notice.

Music like art and literature is cumulative. Each new generation builds on the performers that came before. All young music lovers go through a similar transformation from the passive acceptance of the music favored by their parents to an active cultivation of their own tastes. In my experience, music has helped define and formulate a sense of self for each generation.

Identifying as a rock & roll fan, punk music devotee, country music follower, metal-head, Goth lifestyle promoter, or Swiftee gives a young adult an anchor. It is an association with others of similar age, while figuring out how to fit into a complex world. I have known teenagers who seemed to hate all music except for irritating loud noise shared with like-minded close friends. For the most part, these individuals all became functioning adults after their generation was taken over by the next one.

Rock & roll, or more to the point, classic rock, defines my favorite genre of music. Many other forms of music have brought me great joy, including symphonic performances. However, classic rock songs are the music embedded in my memory, stored and remembered unconsciously.

My first concert was at Princeton University in 1967. My mother took us to see Arlo Guthrie perform Alice’s Restaurant.  She probably favored the anti-Vietnam war theme, as we were pacifists and members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

As a teenager, I was not a fan of pop radio. My group of like-minded New Jersey companions would listen to the underground FM stations from New York City and Philadelphia. The long compositions of Cream, Yes, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, and Pink Floyd would entertain us for hours.

The summer between my 1969 high school graduation and college, I attended what would become the generation-defining concert held in Bethel, New York. Woodstock introduced me to a radical music culture I had not yet considered, wrapped in progressive political and sexual views. The bands that performed at Woodstock that memorable August weekend have remained among my favorites.

My best friend at Swarthmore College was a Beatles fan who taught me a great deal about the band’s experimentation in recording techniques. We would gather around a phonograph and play Beatles songs backwards, searching for hidden messages. When a close High School friend returned from Vietnam, he introduced me to progressive rock and Genesis. Again, hours were spent listening to cryptic lyrics, searching for hidden meaning.

In law school, my roommate was immersed in a type of music, art rock, with which I was not familiar. I learned to appreciate Peter Gabriel’s solo work, Roxy Music and similar groups.

I never would have developed a taste for Seattle Grunge music but for time spent in a rehabilitation facility to treat my alcoholism in the late 1990s. For several weeks, I was surrounded by twenty somethings recovering from opioid addiction who loudly played nothing but Nirvana and Pearl Jam. I learned to appreciate Grunge, and it is now included in my music library.

In my later years, I have come to believe that the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra is one of the greatest gifts that our area has to offer. Two hours of classical music presented by world-class performers is a magical experience. Ironically, the PSO has now taken up performing symphonic versions of classic rock albums to help pay the bills.

Given my age and music biases, many of the young performers at the Grammys failed to impress me. I am hopeful that new albums by the Rolling Stones, Hackney Diamonds, and Peter Gabriel, i/o, will gain recognition next year, but octogenarian rock musicians may no longer move the awards needle.

I am convinced that all music has its place. It connects people and their values. It furnishes a platform for the underrepresented. It supplies a window into diverse cultures. For me, it has provided a life of youthful adventure, enjoyment, and continued entertainment.

 

  

 

THE PRINT NEWS MEDIA APOCALYPSE

No one should be surprised that the local print newspaper you are reading is becoming as rare as the typewriter or the touch-tone telephone. Chances are high that those you know under age thirty have never read any print news media, saved an article for a non-existent scrapbook, pored over a baseball box score, or finished a printed crossword puzzle. There are signs that 2024 could sound the death knell for many print newspapers and magazines.

Traditionally, the news business was cyclical, dipping during economic downturns and improving on the upswing. Not so in recent years.  Statistics show that there was an average of 2.5 newspaper closures each week in 2023. According to a Northwestern University study released in November, since 2005, the U.S. has lost one-third of its newspapers. The same study found that more than half of all American counties are now “news deserts” with limited access to news about their communities.

Of greater concern to career journalists, the news media industry has lost two-thirds of its staff. Each print newspaper and magazine, struggling to stay afloat, has been forced to do more with fewer employees. At the beginning of February, the National Press Club in New York City decided to encourage networking by offering a free taco night to show its support for the hundreds of recently laid off journalists. Unfortunately, even in our booming economy, few job openings are available.

Nationally, employees at the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, New York Daily News, and Conde Nast magazine have all participated in walkouts to protest their managements’ business plans. The employer response was often more layoffs. Time Magazine is in trouble, and the venerable Sports Illustrated Company appears near bankruptcy.

Several years ago, there was optimism that the large national newspapers would be saved when they were bought up by concerned billionaires. A commentary in the New York Times recently reminded us of an old joke in the news business: “If you want to make a small fortune, start with a large one.” In 2013, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, purchased the Washington Post. In 2018, tech billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiog bought The Los Angeles Times. Also in 2018, Marc Benioff, who started the software giant, Salesforce purchased Time magazine. All three publications are hemorrhaging millions of dollars, and their future is bleak. Clearly, relying on deep pocket owners to indefinitely cover expenses is not a long-term solution.

Why has the print media fallen so far so fast? Ad revenue and circulation have plunged and gravitated to on-line sources. The Columbia Journalism Review points out that Millennials and younger Americans have grown up with the internet and never found it necessary to read print for their news source. Overall, the increasing use of focused internet search functions like Google has changed how many Americans obtain their news. Even among older, lifelong print readers, there is a vicious cycle of the print media cutting content to save money resulting in further loss of circulation.

What is the cost to society and our civic health if local newspapers disappear?  Newspapers have always played an important role in both educating and nurturing local communities.  At all levels of our democratic republic there is a constant struggle between government and its citizens to keep democracy on track. Unbiased newspapers show neither fear nor favor in providing accurate information and insisting on accountability.

Hypothetically, consider an important and contentious Washington County commissioner’s meeting with no news reporter in attendance. The two majority commissioners publish a glowing, one-sided report on Facebook, lacking accurate information and balance. The public is left uninformed about an issue that affects every citizen.

Local news organizations are able to take matters of national importance like health care, gun control, or the opioid crisis and give them local context.  Lives may be saved and disasters averted through investigative reporting. Citizens are encouraged to become involved in important volunteer work through local human-interest stories.

What is the cost to “getting the story straight” if journalism disappears as a profession? Remember that reputable journalism has always been considered “the first rough draft of history.” With artificial intelligence (AI) this fact is critical.  AI requires the constant updating of new and accurate information from independent sources to remain a dependable and helpful tool. The work products of well-trained human journalists are indispensable to keep inferior data from taking over the AI networks.

It would be short sighted to believe that the old business model for the print media will keep them afloat in the coming decade. Older readers need to be patient as newspapers and magazines move on-line, change content, and modify their advertising campaigns. These revisions attract the attention of the younger readers the print media needs to survive.

For those of you, like me, who love to get newsprint on their fingers while drinking their morning coffee, we need to offer our support. First, pay for your subscription with pride, knowing you are keeping a cornerstone of democracy alive. Second, advertise your business and community events in its pages. Lastly, stop complaining about occasional typos or lack of coverage. Most newspaper staffs have been cut in half. The journalists that continue to bring you the news are doing so while working increased hours with reduced pay.

We owe them our gratitude and the occasional letter to the editor when they brighten our day.

 

 

 

THE IMPACT OF EQUITABLE SCHOOL FUNDING ON THE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

In 2023, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued its long awaited opinion that found our state’s system of public education to be unconstitutional. In a 786-page opinion, the court held that the state had not adequately funded schools in poor communities, failing its constitutional obligation to educate young people. Shortly thereafter, Pennsylvania’s General Assembly began its work to recommend a more equitable method for distributing state funds to the public schools.

A 15-member commission was formed to determine how to bring into compliance the formula that distributes state aid to Pennsylvania’s school districts. On January 11, the commission issued its report. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “The report calls for an increase of $200 million in basic education funding — currently set at about $7.8 billion — in each of the next few years. Separately, it supports major “adequacy” investments that would gradually increase annual spending statewide over a seven-year period by a total of $5.4 billion.”

The City of Washington School District (WSD) is a small urban district where 82 percent of the students are considered economically disadvantaged.  I recently sat down with district Superintendent, George Lammay, to ask how the court opinion and commission findings could make a difference.

Lammay pointed me toward an insider’s view recently published by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA). The Association reveals that only about 37 percent of Pennsylvania education revenues come from the state, one of the lowest in the nation. However, in addressing the question of inequality in education, the PSBA makes a point that Lammay returned to repeatedly, “When we look at school districts individually, we see a very diverse picture.”

Clearly, a cookie cutter approach that only compares the “haves” to the “have nots” is not the answer. The final funding formula should also reward or at least not harm positive district performances and forward looking budgetary decisions under the existing system.

Superintendent Lammay agrees with the PSBA that three factors have the greatest negative impact on public school budgets; pensions, charter/cyber school tuition, and special education. The PSBA determined, “The costs for these three items has increased by $6.2 billion over the last decade while the state revenue to address these mandated costs has only increased by $2.2 billion.

Lammay echoed PSBA in suggesting new funding solutions for all three mandates that are decimating local school district budgets. First, because pension obligations are part of a relatively uniform system across the Commonwealth, the legislature should act quickly to authorize an increase in state funds to pay for them.

Second, the mandate that provides for charter schools, particularly cyber schools, is broken and should be revised. Any family can choose for a K-12 student to receive all instruction online, at home and free-of-charge from private companies that provide this service. The cost is paid for out of per-pupil funds from the local district’s budget.

A study of cyber schools in Pennsylvania, conducted by the Brookings Institute, found that, “Cyber school students tend to score lower on year-end-tests. In Pennsylvania there is evidence of knowledge loss (negative growth scores) from fourth to eighth grade among many cyber students.”

Cyber schools have also been a disaster for local school budgets. The $1.5 million annual expense for the WSD leaves the district with tough choices on where to cut education programs.

According to the PSBA, “The 26-year-old funding mechanism for charter schools, particularly when it comes to cyber charter school tuition, results in districts overpaying. The formula is based on the district’s expenses and bears no relationship to the cyber school’s costs.”

Third, is the mandated costs for special education students. Similar to cyber schools the payment structure is based on individual school expenses rather than the cost to provide the services and should be reformed.  Lammay points out that overall in the WSD 30 percent of the students have a variety of special needs where the expenses per child are much greater than for a regular student.

Returning to the PSBA’s published views on funding public education, there are a number of less impactful but still important factors the state legislature should consider, including the following: 1. Mental health and school safety must be a primary funding consideration. 2. There are literally hundreds of smaller unfunded legislative mandates that when taken as a whole are expensive and place undue pressure on school districts to perform. Many of these mandates should be scaled back so that resources can be reallocated without appropriating more funds. 3. The existing "hold harmless" policy is a financing mechanism that ensures school districts do not receive less funding than the previous year. If this provision is eliminated under the new formula, it should be done gradually. 4. School infrastructure should receive special consideration so that districts are not forced to choose between maintaining buildings and educating students. 5. The legislature should not mandate district mergers. Sharing of services could be a better solution to save money.

While the WSD welcomes a fair funding formula, the Superintendent does not believe that the district is a candidate for merger. Washington’s long history of meeting the needs of students from diverse backgrounds and of outstanding  community support deserve to be continued as a stand-alone district. When the new funding formula is adopted, Lammay is confident that the district will continue to hold its own for years to come.

 

 

 

 

 

A YEAR OF SEVENTY-SIX WORLWIDE ELECTIONS

“The stability of democracies depends on the possibility of elections to be destabilizing.” The New Yorker, Talk of the Town, 1/15/24

Now that the domestic election season has begun, Americans are focused on the 2024 presidential campaign. There is little drama left in the primaries and a rerun of the 2020 Biden-Trump contest seems inevitable.

For those looking for different election events to expand their worldview, the Economist magazine and many other print news outlets point out that in 2024 a new international record will be set in exercising the right to vote. Seventy-six nations are going to the ballot box to choose new leaders. Countries with more than half the world’s population, over four billion people, will send their citizens to the polls.

According to the analysis in the Economist, “In the most democratic countries, such as Britain, the election may cause a substantial change in policy. In Russia, one of the least democratic, the vote is unlikely to weaken Vladimir Putin’s grip on power.” With this important contrast in mind, my commentary will take a look at some of the more noteworthy election events in 2024.

Taiwan. On January 13, Taiwan hosted the first of many critical elections in 2024. The results could reshape the global political order. The current Vice President Lai Ching-te of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) defeated two other candidates. Mr. Lai has long been an advocate of Taiwanese independence from China and does not support the mainland’s “one country-two systems” formula. Mr. Lai is a lightning rod, and his election could worsen the growing threat of Chinese military action against Taiwan. A moderating factor is the divided government where the Taiwanese legislature favors policies more acceptable to China.

Indonesia.  In the most populous country in South-East Asia, elections are scheduled in February. It is the world’s largest single day election. When the votes are counted a president and vice president, along with nearly 20,000 representatives, will be elected to national, provincial, and district parliaments from a pool of a quarter-million candidates. Indonesia’s young democracy is fragile. Political observers are concerned that illiberal meddling in election policies by the country’s old guard elites may cause irreparable harm to democracy.

Ukraine.  Under the Ukrainian Constitution, presidential elections are scheduled for March 2024. However, also under Ukrainian law, elections cannot occur because a declaration of martial law is in place. While 80 percent of Ukrainian voters do not want an election until the war is over, there are reasons to remove martial law and attempt a wartime election. Far right American Republicans are using the absence of voting as an excuse to suspend military aid to Ukraine. Moreover, holding a fair election under difficult circumstances would be well received by the European Union and NATO.

India. In May, Indian voters go to the polls. India’s ruling BJP political party, the world’s largest with 180 million members, is expected to carry the incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi to victory.  In a recent survey, 78 percent of Indians approved of Mr. Modi’s job performance.

Two factors account for Modi’s popularity. First, his government’s economic program consists of ramped up investments in the public distribution of private goods, toilets, bank accounts, and electricity connections. Second is the steady march toward Hindu nationalism in which the strong central rule of a Hindu party and its leader brings about the rebirth of a “golden Hindu age.”  If Modi continues on this path, the future will be difficult for Muslims and others who value a pluralistic state with freedom of expression.

Mexico. On June 2, the 2024 presidential elections will mark a milestone in Mexico’s history. For the first time, a woman will likely be selected to lead the country.  Mexico’s incumbent president Andrés Manuel López Obrador has chosen former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Shinebaum Pardo as his successor. It appears that Ms. Sheinbaum would continue the strategy of minimal confrontation with organized crime, a policy that has come to be known as “hugs, not bullets.” Her election would leave the U.S. and Mexico far apart on important issues like controlling immigration and illegal drugs.

Britain. Sometime in the second half of 2024, British voters will cast their verdict after 13 years of chaotic conservative rule by the Tory government. In an ironic turn of events, British conservatives are now battling each other for control of the right. They have lost their grip on the Trump-like populism that previously slashed through established party lines on issues that kept them in power like leaving the European Union.

While the rest of Europe moves toward electing populist candidates based on concerns on the economy, immigration, and distrust of elites, Britain is poised to place a moderate left leaning Labor administration in charge. The Labor candidate, Keir Starmer, has laid out five missions: to boost house-building, job creation, economic growth; the reduction of consumer energy bills through the creation of a publicly owned Great British Energy; to create a National Health Service fit for the future; to tackle crime/antisocial behavior; and to reform childcare and education systems.

Important June elections in the European Parliament and the 18 contests in Africa are also worth examining. While many 2024 elections are no guarantee of democracy, representative government cannot exist without them. On the other hand, elections that are free but not fair can quickly turn liberty into oppression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORGANIZATIONS BRING BALANCE TO OUR POLARIZED WORLD

  

Several weeks ago, I picked up an issue of Sports Illustrated magazine (SI) and began reading the cover article on what goes on behind the scenes of an NFL team, the Miami Dolphins.  I was awe-struck by the number of unsung employees with diverse skill sets and backgrounds who help keep a professional sports organization running smoothly. This caused me to pause and consider other organizations that are more intricate than one would imagine. I was left with the question; how is it possible in our deeply polarized world that humans are so proficient in bringing assorted and contradictory individuals together to form complex organizations?

An NFL team typically has 150-175 employees, including players, coaches, front office staff, medical and training personnel, and support staff. The article in SI acknowledges, “The head coach sets a football team’s culture.” However, a large array of dissimilar employees, many with long careers with the team, surround the coach. Hundreds of tiny details and unrecognized “grunt work” determines success.

The sideline guy in the purple hat is taking care of the Microsoft Surface Pro Tablets. Because the coaches work around the clock, the computer specialists must always be available to field requests and provide maintenance. The video staff has developed 350 data filters of every NFL play.

The assistant athletic trainers must learn all 16 ways to tape an ankle and keep track of each player’s preferences. The strength and fitness coaches are monitoring practice and pre-game exercise routines. Security guards have regular meetings to plan for curfew checks, transportation of players, and to consider every possible crisis. Equipment specialists are responsible for endless checklists and contingency plans involving helmets, cleats, and other football accessories. The equipment manager must determine what items are packed on the multiple trucks for away games and what will go with the team on the plane.

The communications staff is busy getting mandated information from the team to the NFL and to the media.  During the pandemic, there was a team of trained medical staff to develop protocols, perform testing, and then record the results.

Before an NFL game is “ready for prime time,” the organizational effort involves hundreds of additional stadium and media personnel. All of the participants, including the thousands of fans, hold diverse political views like the rest of the nation. On game day, they are a community of one pulling for their football team.

One could point to many other complex organizations that overcome political and social polarization to produce over-the top achievements.   Corporations and business entities are examples. The thousands of community theaters, cultural events, and local community sports teams come to mind.

The United States Capitol may be the most polarized piece of real estate in the country. Almost 11,000 staff members come to work there every day. The Architect of the Capitol is the federal agency responsible for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the Capitol Complex and employs 2,000 personnel. The United States Capitol Police has more than 2,300 officers and civilian employees. This vast network of contrasting individuals is able to form an efficient organization. Somehow, the organization defended the building against a violent attack, even when the elected Congressional officials from opposite sides of the aisle were working at cross-purposes and refused to speak to each other.

On the surface, polarization in our society appears to be spreading. According to the Pew Research Center, the share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10 to 21 percent. As a result, the amount of ideological overlap in the American public has greatly diminished. The same report finds that differences between the right and left go beyond politics. For example, nearly four times as many liberals as conservatives say it is important that their communities have racial and ethnic diversity. About three times as many conservatives as liberals say it is important that many in the community share their religious faith.

In this polarized environment, how is it possible that complex organizations that require cooperation to survive not only exist, but also thrive? For one thing, studies have shown that fewer than 10 percent of Americans are responsible for most political discourse in America. The lion’s share of Americans are not political junkies glued to polarizing news feeds and social media.

Elections and politics more broadly are not a significant factor in most lives. The majority of Americans gain meaning and sources of fulfillment from their family, community, and work. They do not view the life-long journey to reach their potential as dictated by their political views. Religious faith and learned positive behaviors promote family and community goals. Working cooperatively with others in diverse organizations, even in the nation’s Capital, provides feedback that is more positive and satisfying than engaging in negative tribal politics.

Organizations are most effective when they employ communication channels that share information in a timely and transparent manner. Successful organizations break down silos and encourage collaboration. They are exactly what America needs to counter the negative effects of narrow, partisan, political polarization.

There is strong evidence that our elected officials and cable news outlets are far more politically polarized than the country at large. Most citizens work together in non-political cooperative organizations to achieve mutually beneficial results. This reality is helpful in preserving democracy and the American dream.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AT THE BREAKING POINT

Our deeply divided country can agree on one fact. The American political system is dysfunctional. The basic responsibilities of government are not working to provide legislative solutions to important problems. The chronic dilemmas of deficits, climate change, immigration, gun control and inequality receive little attention. It is unbelievable that in 2023, Congress only passed 27 bills compared to the 10-year average of 391 legislative measures.

To explain how our democratic system has reached this impasse, political scientists have studied the changing composition of the American people, what provisions continue to work in our Constitution and the outdated Constitutional provisions for electing presidents and senators. This commentary will review these findings.

What is pluralism? According to constitutionus.com, “Pluralism is the idea that citizens of different backgrounds can coexist in society even though they have different political opinions. Pluralists believe that a nation benefits from citizens with different beliefs equally participating in the same society.”

Who are the American people? For much of the 18th and 19th centuries, pluralism was not a political concern. The “typical American” was Male, White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. Disenfranchised Native Americans and enslaved Africans were not a challenge to the system.  By the mid-to-late 19th century, Southern European immigration changed the composition of the American people. The Fourteenth Amendment granted four million African Americans their citizenship. In 1920, women gained the right to vote.

Today, America has numerous interest groups seeking a voice in government. Unfortunately, a conservative white minority now elects Congressional Representatives who refuse to consider the positions of others. Democracy and pluralism are being tested by a fractious, partisan divide.

How does our Constitution embody pluralism? James Madison argued in favor of adding pluralism to the Constitution in his ‘Number Ten” Federalist Paper. Madison pointed out that it was important for different political factions to tolerate each other and that no minority should be shut out of government. The political commentator, David French, summarizes Madison’s position as follows: “He said, what you essentially need to do is to dilute the disruptive power of faction by allowing factions to bloom. In other words, you don’t have to defeat or suppress another person to live according to your core values.”

What specific measures does the Constitution contain to protect pluralism in America? The Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments to the Constitutions are the baseline rights that all Americans enjoy. These rights cannot be taken away by losing an election or by living in a community hostile to one’s views.

The Constitution also favored the pluralist model of democracy by dividing power between the three branches of government including an independent judiciary. Competing interests have the opportunity to advocate for their own causes and values. However, to resolve disagreements and to respect diversity of beliefs in a pluralist society, compromise is essential.

What went wrong? Ironically, certain provisions in the Constitution have had the unintended effect of thwarting the will of an expanding multicultural majority in favor of a shrinking rural white minority. These outdated provisions have given an unyielding minority the means to paralyze government unless their demands are met.

The Electoral College. At the original Constitutional Convention, the compromise to elect the president was the Electoral College. Under this unique but now outdated system, every state had input into the electoral process rather than permitting the popular vote to elect the president.

The Electoral College system allows a candidate with fewer popular votes to win the presidency. George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 were both elected while losing the popular vote.  The more divided the country becomes, the greater likelihood that the Electoral College will defeat the will of the majority and elect a president who is supported by an uncompromising minority.

The U.S. Senate. The U.S. Senate provides an unfair advantage to the conservative white minority. The 40 million people who live in the 22 smallest, more rural states get 44 senators to represent them. The 40 million people living in liberal California get two senators. Moreover, the filibuster in the senate, which requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass legislation, permits the white minority to block measures supported by the multicultural majority.

The Supreme Court.  The conservative Supreme Court with its judicial review and its majority of lifetime judges has consistently shown little judicial restraint in siding with the white minority. In recent polls, more than half the nation disapproves of how the court does its job.

What can be done? In the new book, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, it is argued that that other democracies, with constitutions modeled on our own, have abolished indirect voting like the Electoral College and other constitutional measures that unnecessarily favor minorities that are unwilling to compromise.

The authors, Harvard professors Daniel Ziblatt and Stephen Levitsky, fear that the Republican Party “has turned into a refuge of whites who fear loss of status and power due to the U.S. advance toward multiracial diversity.” They believe that Republicans are relying on outdated constitutional provisions that permit an unyielding minority to stay in power.

Amending our Constitution is the obvious solution. Norway has modified its founding document 316 times to achieve a modern, workable government. In the United States, the abusive rule of the few demands that the majority consider similar action to restore pluralism and compromise to our political system.