THE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS RADIO CONTRACT: WHAT WE KNOW

 

On November 1, a letter from Commissioner Nick Sherman was published in this newspaper criticizing Allegheny County for its Home Rule system of government. Sherman also praised his efforts in being a conservative watchdog of taxpayer dollars.

Sherman said nothing to update the public on the status of the Motorola Solutions radio contract, a multimillion-dollar fiasco, orchestrated by his administration. The contract has all appearances of being badly mismanaged, or worse. This commentary will attempt to pull together all that we know and raise questions about what we don’t know concerning the recent efforts to install a costly emergency radio system for first responders.

As reported by the Observer-Reporter, “The radio system has been a divisive topic for nearly two years after the previous county board of commissioners, led by then chairwoman Diana Irey Vaughan awarded a $22.545 million contract to MRA Inc. in March of 2023.  Maggi sided with Irey Vaughan to approve that contract, while Sherman voted against it since he favored a [more expensive] proposal from Motorola.”

“Irey Vaughan retired in January and was replaced on the board by Janis, who voted with Sherman to terminate the MRA contract. Sherman and Janis then voted to select Motorola’s proposals despite the county having already spent $8.5 million on equipment as it began working to install the MRA system last year.”

We know that the $8.5 million in purchased equipment for the first contract is sitting in a hangar at the Washington County Airport with no plans to use or to return it.

We know that the terminated vendor, MRA, submitted a new proposal. It was again the less expensive option. For unknown reasons it was thrown out by the county public safety committee. Motorola was the only proposal approved by the committee. 

We know that an entity called Mission Critical Partners has been awarded two consulting contracts by the Republican commissioners to oversee the installation of the radio contract. Mission Critical Partners also worked closely with the public safety committee in recommending that Motorola be awarded the contract.

We know that inexplicitly, the Motorola proposal was initially approved in August by the two Republican commissioners, with no physical contract for the commissioners or the public to review. A second vote was taken at a special meeting on September 23, apparently after an actual contract was completed. The contract was not disclosed.    

We know that following the September meeting and vote to approve the contract the Observer-Reporter filed an open records request to obtain the contract and three proposals. The Republican Commissioners denied the request. An appeal was filed with the state Office of Open Records. Finally on November 1, heavily redacted copies of the documents were released that revealed few details on the cost or scope of the multimillion-dollar project.

We know that after the contract was awarded, Motorola informed the commissioners that county-wide radio coverage would be less than expected unless an additional 3-5 radio tower sites were included at an added cost in the millions.

When I questioned Commissioner Larry Maggi in early November, he stated, “I have not received the completed unredacted contract and the final costs of the radio contract are still unknown.”

We know that after terminating the less expensive MRA contract, two months later, the Republican Commissioners reversed themselves. They temporarily reinstated MRA to perform needed upkeep on the current system until a new network is built. According to the O-R, “After reviewing the intricate details of the current system, Sherman thought it would be better to maintain the status quo."

We know that possible conflict of interest questions remain unexplained between the Nick Sherman for County Commissioner political committee and Motorola Solutions. According to filed campaign finance reports, over the past several years, Motorola Solutions has been a consistent contributor to Sherman’s committee. Moreover, Motorola Solutions has sponsored Sherman fund raising and political events.

We know that the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission’s guiding principle is that of public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through one’s public office is a violation of that trust. This would include soliciting or accepting a political contribution based on an understanding that the public official would be influenced.

There remains a great deal we do not know about one of the most expensive contracts in the history of Washington County. What is the real reason for redacting the contract and bids? Why was the initial Motorola proposal approved without a contract? What are the total costs in terminating the MRA contract and now installing and maintaining the Motorola system? Why was MRA excluded in the second bid? What do we not know about the relationship between Sherman and the consultant, Mission Critical Partners, and with Motorola?

The Sherman letter to the editor criticizing Allegheny County’s Home Rule form of government, ignores the fact that before taxes go up there will be a spirited debate with the 15-member County Council. Under Home Rule, Executive Sara Innamorato’s proposals are subject to Council’s scrutiny and approval.

In Washington County, there are presently few checks or balances on Sherman’s decision making. Janis votes with him without question. Maggi is denied information and input on important issues. The public is kept in the dark. It appears that the critical oversight, open debate, and full disclosure offered by a Home Rule form of government is exactly what Washington County needs.

 

 

 

 

AFTER THE ELECTION

 

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Winston Churchill

By the time this commentary is published, several days after Election Day, we should know who will occupy the White House for the next four years. Whatever the result, following years of highly charged political rhetoric, misinformation, emotional manipulation, negative advertising, personal attacks, and foreign election interference, one fact is clear. Our nation is deeply divided on the direction the country should take.

Nonetheless, whatever final decision is made by the nation’s voters, those who supported the losing candidate should step back and accept the result. The new goal should be to collectively move our nation forward and not to normalize disruptive, partisan politics.

In the aftermath of an election, the attacks against the opposing political party typically calm down. This is also when finger pointing and second guessing within the losing party normally begins.  If the election is as close as predicted, there will be a barrage of lawsuits filed in the battleground states challenging voting irregularities that, if past is prologue, did not take place.  While there may be limited confrontations on Election Day, I would not expect any organized violence after the votes are counted.

How do we recover as a nation from this critical moment? After all, one half of the country voted for a candidate, Donald Trump, who was a convicted felon and equated with fascism by his own Chief of Staff. Many respected legal scholars have concluded that Trump’s goal is to end liberal democracy as envisioned by the founding fathers. The other half voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, who had low approval ratings for working in a Biden administration perceived to have caused high inflation, chaos at the border, and an inability to manage foreign conflicts. Tens of millions of voters expressed diametrically opposed hopes and fears for and against each of the presidential candidates.

On the economy, Social Security, tariffs, health care, taxes, abortion, other social issues, and foreign affairs, there were few matters on which the two candidates found common ground. The one exception was the decision by both campaigns to ignore the largest problem facing the economy – the national debt of $36 trillion.

I disagree with both candidates who have called this election the most divisive and important in our nation’s history. The election that unleashed the Civil War in 1860 had a greater immediate impact and lasting influence. Today’s America is the economic, military, and technological envy of the world. Other nations are baffled how such a prosperous, free society can be so politically divided. But then again, no other country had an election campaign that lasted four years.

The problem was former President Trump’s refusal to concede defeat in 2020. The country has been contesting the last election and gearing up for this year’s voting nonstop since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The endless stream of civil lawsuits, criminal indictments, primaries, conventions, rallies, and debates has brought the political polarization to a fever pitch. Now that the election is over, it is time for all of us to calm down.

After this divisive election comes an opportunity for some self-reflection. Each of us can accept the irrefutable fact that in a pluralistic society, there are many ways to view the world that do not match our own. Everyone who voted deserves our gratitude for participating in this important function that defines democracy. We should respect all widely held opinions, no matter how contrary to our own.

I have listened to and talked with hundreds of voters in our community and across America since 2020. Getting out of my comfort zone has been more enlightening than staying within my silo, only listening to and reading those who agree with me. The backgrounds, economic situations, and opinions of Americans are more diverse than any nation on earth. These differences are the foundation of democracy in a multicultural society.

The candidate who wins a national election for our highest office is a reflection of who we are as a people. It is not the winning candidate that is unthinkable, it is the inability to vote in a free and fair election. Unhappy voters should consider the plight of those living in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian states where there is no choice.

In my case, living this past election cycle through the lens of a dedicated liberal and lawyer, a Republican victory will challenge many of my core beliefs and policy positions. However, in a healthy democracy, my place is not to lodge personal attacks against those who supported the winning candidate. My task going forward is to continue to follow my values and to expose actions that I believe undermine democracy. Hopefully, my reasoned arguments, backed by verifiable facts, will convince some voters in the next election to consider my analysis.

After the election, we must hold on to our shared humanity and love for community alongside our political differences. Healthy democracies build on their common ideals rather than wallow in negativity.

On a lighter note, there is a small consolation for those who supported the losing candidate. Each day you will be able to nod your head in agreement and smile rather than cringe, when reading the daily political cartoons making fun of the president.

 

 

 

 

HAS PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL STRUCK OUT?

 

On a recent Thursday night, I found myself watching a major league baseball game (MLB). The New York Yankees were battling the Cleveland Guardians to determine who would represent the American League in the World Series. I could not identify any of the players with the exception of a few well-known Yankees. 

Tuning into a baseball game not involving the Pirates was unusual for me. I had little interest in which team won. Nonetheless, the game became an exciting sporting event with a fairytale ending. Cleveland was winning until the eighth inning when the Yankees hit back-to-back home runs to take the lead. The Guardians came back in the ninth inning to hit two home runs, each time with a man on base to win the game. The Cleveland stadium crowd was over-the-moon, and the baseball world was astonished at the turn of events. 

This game was not my normal baseball experience. I find most games tedious to watch. Baseball provides little of the non-stop action found in almost every football and many basketball and hockey contests.  What was once “America’s Game” is now a sport that is finding it difficult to recruit our best young athletes or the attention of spectators. Has professional baseball struck out and become a minor sport in America?

The 162-game MLB season is a good place to begin when analyzing the problems facing the sport. The long schedule now opens at the end of March when many parts of the country are experiencing cold weather or worse. As the temperature warms, baseball must compete with the NBA basketball and NHL hockey playoffs that run from mid-April to mid-June each year. From the end of June until the beginning of September, MLB only competes with professional golf tournaments and the Olympics every four years. However, during these warm weather months, there are many alternatives to attending a game in person or watching on television.

The month of October should be MLB’s time to shine and captivate the sports fan. This year’s World Series features the game’s two best teams, the Yankees and Dodgers, and two best players, Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani. Unfortunately, every night in October other attractive sporting events are available. The NFL, NCAA, and high school football seasons are in full swing. Professional basketball and hockey are opening their seasons. Sports fans who attend games and spectators on the couch must make hard choices on what to watch.

Boston University did a deep dive into baseball’s problems and concluded that “Baseball’s days as America’s pastime are long gone. Football is the top-watched sport by US adults. In a recent Gallup poll, 41 percent of respondents named football as their top choice. Baseball and basketball only earned about 10 percent. While older adults remained loyal to baseball, young adults increasingly pick basketball and soccer as their first choice.” Simply stated, baseball is too boring and is losing younger sports fans.

Team owners and general managers would argue that MLB has held its own in recent years. In 2023, attendance increased by 9.2 percent, with a total of 70,747,365 fans buying tickets. MLB revenue increased by 10 percent to an average of $378 million per team.  The All-Star game attracted 7.6 million viewers, a 6 percent increase from the previous year.

Other observers argue that these statistics are misleading and that the trends are not promising. In 2003 fan attendance was 9 million less than in 2007. Even newer ballparks and those of popular teams are awash in empty seats representing billions in lost revenue.

TV viewership is down. The 2023 World Series was the least watched on record at under 10 million, a staggering 23 percent drop from the prior season. In contrast, the NCAA Women’s March Madness final drew an audience topping 15 million.

What can MLB do to reverse the trends and to address the number of challenges it faces? First, the Guardian Newspaper places the major blame on the pitching dilemma, “Many of MLB’S most talented star pitchers are falling to injury as their elbows buckle under the stress of throwing max-effort on nearly every pitch…Remarkably, all of these injuries have come during a time when ballclubs have cradled and coddled pitchers to the point where getting more than five innings out of a starter feels like something to celebrate.”

Many critics believe that starting pitchers should be required to remain in the game for 6 innings. Pitchers would then modify their throwing style, and the game would become more interesting with fewer pitching specialists.

Second, the Pirates are a good example of a team that has not been competitive in decades. MLB needs to adopt measures to produce team parity. In the NFL a salary cap produces more competitive teams.

 

Third, baseball technology has led to more strikeouts and homeruns at the expense of other facets of the game. Recent rule changes to speed up play and generate more stolen bases were a good start.  More innovations are needed.

Fourth, the regular season should be shortened. Beginning the schedule in warmer weather and ending it before football season takes over would make for a better sport with increased interest.

The author and commentator George Will has written, “Baseball is Heaven's gift to mortals.” With some well-placed modifications, the game of hitting, fielding, pitching, and managing can maintain an important role in American professional sports.

 

 

 

  

THE ALLURE OF BIRD WATCHING

 

Those of us in retirement have adopted a slower pace with empty nests. No longer are we anchored to a punishing work schedule while nurturing a growing family. As seniors, we get to slow down and watch the frantic activities taking place in other unique nests. The action is year-round with a changing cast of characters. I am referring to birds.

According to the U.S. Field and Wildlife Service some 57 million Americans feed the birds for the allure of observing them from the comfort of their homes. During the pandemic, this number skyrocketed. Bird feeding is a big business. Americans spend $4 billion each year on about a billion pounds of bird seed. In addition, millions of pounds of suet are deployed throughout our nation’s backyards.

Bird watching outside the home has also caught on with older folks. My wife and I have visited many domestic and foreign locations where bird watching became part of the adventure. Observing the shore birds and twice-yearly migrations through Chincoteague, Virginia has always captivated us. We will never forget the many varieties of colorful hummingbirds or noisy parrots from Costa Rica. During our trip to the Serengeti in Kenya and Tanzania, we saw more varieties of unusual birds than mammals and reptiles combined.

However, nothing makes us happier than observing the life cycles of the local birds in our backyard aviary. From the short visits of Baltimore Orioles and Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, and the one-time nesting of a family of Brown Thrashers, to an unusual two-week show of Barred Owls at dusk, and our regular year-round bird population, there are always new surprises.

Watching a family of Chickadees or Cardinals nest, fledge and take over the yard keeps us filling the feeders and bird baths year-round. Coming face to face with a curious hummingbird is close to a spiritual experience.

Why does bird watching captivate us? One book to read is Feeding Wild Birds in America: Culture, Commerce and Conversation. (Baicich, 2015) The Council for Environmental education calls the book “a fascinating history of our love affair with feeding birds...wrapped with wonderful insights on how bird feeding can be used to connect people to nature right at our doorstep. It's a treasure.” In reviewing this study, the National Audubon society says “This book chronicles our growing love affair with birds.”

One of my favorite authors is Joanathan Franzen, fellow Swarthmore graduate and winner of the National Book Award. As Franzen got older and began looking up while walking through Central Park in New York City, he fell in love with birds. His observations in an Audubon Magazine interview are educational, heartwarming and worth repeating, “There have been two kinds of amazing animal developments.  One is us—in terms of totally transforming things—and the dinosaurs were the other. And the birds are what became of dinosaurs. The dinosaurs got all light and they got feathers, truly one of the remarkable adaptations in the history of evolution. They sing. They fly. They make nests. Flight, the complexity of their behavior, their beauty.  You can love nature in the abstract and care about it, but once you actually start having an emotional connection with part of nature like birds, then it becomes a wholly different thing.”

Other factors draw those of us in retirement to become enamored with birds. Bird seed is not expensive. Bird watchers in the field only need a pair of binoculars and a smart-phone app, or guide-book for identification. The moderate physical exercise is exactly what our physicians are recommending.

Retirement biological clocks often come into sync with the local bird population. We go to bed earlier, after the final robin chirps in mid-summer. We wake up early on spring mornings to a loud chorus of nest builders. Now we have the time to pay attention.

A study published in 2024 in the Journal of Environmental Psychology finds that “even half an hour of bird watching makes us happier, healthier and can help foster a deeper connection with nature.” The psychological concept of “noticing” is an essential aspect of awe. Noticing means that our full attention is on the birds rather than ourselves. Moreover, being in nature and noticing wildlife requires us to immerse ourselves in the activity. This provides “a deep engagement and profound sense of tranquility through prolonged observation.” 

Bird watchers become fully engrossed in identifying bird species, deciphering their behaviors, and observing their actions. After being “in the flow” birdwatchers “can experience a rush of endorphins and a profound sense of satisfaction and wellbeing.”

One would think that bird watching is an activity that is above the controversies that have recently divided America. After all, in our back yard, even the “red” cardinals and the “blue” jays seem to get along.  However, on Oct. 3, NPR reported that birders are arguing over a plan to change dozens of bird names. It seems that the American Ornithological Society wants to do away with those names that honor people. The goal is to rename over one hundred North and South American birds to purge names with links to racism and colonialism. Many birders are not happy and the upcoming debate promises to be bitter and divisive.

Thankfully, none of the bird species of Pennsylvania appear to be affected. We can continue to post the photos and common names of our backyard visitors without offending the neighbors.

 

 

 

RISING INCOME INEQUALITY HAS DECIMATED THE MIDDLE CLASS

 

“Income inequality is the defining challenge of our times.” Barack Obama 

According to the Pew Research Center, eight in ten registered voters (81 percent) say the economy will be very important to their vote in the 2024 presidential election. The state of the economy and inflation are the centerpiece of Republican attack ads against Democrats, notwithstanding a growing economy, lower inflation, lower unemployment, lower interest rates, cheaper gasoline, and a booming stock market.

Many middle-class voters have concluded that the Biden-Harris administration has adversely affected their economic welfare, and that a Trump presidency will improve it. However, the middle-class economic situation is more complex than these voters realize. Fifty years of income inequality, resulting in lower earning power, has decimated the middle class.

Last year’s inflation spike, largely caused by the pandemic and a booming economy, exposed a larger problem. An avalanche of adverse economic events has impacted the middle class since 1970.  Inflation is only one cause for the decrease in middle-class purchasing power. Other economic forces have long been at work to increase the net worth of the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class.

A recent Pew Research Report, The State of the American Middle Class, provides some background. “Not only do a smaller share of people live in the middle class today, the incomes of middle-class households have also not risen as quickly as the incomes of upper-income households. The median income of middle-class households increased from about $66,400 in 1970 to $106,100 in 2022, or 60%. Over this period, the median income of upper-income households increased 78 percent, from about $144,100 to $256,900. (Incomes are scaled to a three-person household and expressed in 2023 dollars.) 

“The median income of lower-income households grew more slowly than that of other households, increasing from about $22,800 in 1970 to $35,300 in 2022, or 55 percent. Consequently, there is now a larger gap between the incomes of upper-income households and other households. In 2022, the median income of upper-income households was 7.3 times that of lower-income households, up from 6.3 in 1970. It was 2.4 times the median income of middle-income households in 2022, up from 2.2 in 1970.”

A Brookings Institute study highlights four long-developing economic factors that have adversely affected middle class prosperity.  First, despite gains in national income over the past half-century, American households in the middle of the distribution curve have experienced very little income growth in recent decades.  Actually, there has been greater income growth over the last four years under President Biden. Most earners did well following the pandemic, when jobs were plentiful.

Second, while workers of all skill levels were hard-hit by the Great Recession that began in December 2007, those without four-year degrees saw the steepest earnings declines.

Third, upward mobility is no longer the almost-universal experience among America’s youth.  While 90 percent of those born in 1940s grew up to experience higher incomes, this proportion was only 50 percent among those born in the 1980s.

Fourth, middle-class families are more fragile and more dependent on two incomes. Were it not for women’s economic contributions, middle-class families would have experienced sharper reductions in income over the 1979 to 2020 period.  The rise in single parenthood has dropped many families into the lower middle-class, or worse.

The upper middle class is prospering and gaining wealth in a booming economy that is the envy of the world. These millions of economically well-off Trump supporters are not concerned with inflation or the price of eggs.  Their higher incomes, investments and increasing net worth more than compensate. Wealthy individuals are supporting Trump to keep Kamala Harris from raising their taxes and to keep their wealth accumulating at unprecedented rates. The economic priorities of Trump supporters from the upper middle class are exactly the opposite of those important to Trump supporters from the middle and lower classes.

Which candidates’ positions will actually help the middle class to recover from its fifty years of economic malaise? Kamala Harris would extend the Trump tax cuts for the middle class – but not for the wealthy individuals and corporations. She would raise taxes even higher for the richest Americans. The tax deduction for small business start-up expenses is currently $5,000. Vice President Harris’ plan would push for expanding this deduction to $50,000 for new small businesses to cover more of these costs and provide more flexibility on when and how they can claim it.

According to a recent essay in Newsweek Magazine, “Looking forward instead of backwards, only Harris has real proposals for the middle and working class. These include a plan to spend $40 billion to bring down home prices, incentives for developers to build affordable housing, a $2,000-a-year cap on prescription drug costs and a dramatic expansion of the child tax credit that would immediately relieve some of the pressure on middle-class families.”

Regarding Trump’s economic plan, Goldman Sachs wrote in a report in early September, “The hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive effects of tax cuts.” According to Moody’s analysis, “Trump’s tariff plan would spark a recession by mid-2025.”  Economists believe such a tariff will rapidly accelerate inflation and cost the average family $1,500 a year.

Negative political ads and FOX news commentators are not to be believed. The economic plight of the middle-class would steadily improve under a Kamala Harris administration.

WHY TRUMP IS UNFIT TO BE RE-ELECTED PRESIDENT

 

In January 2024, the Atlantic Magazine produced a special issue entitled If Trump Wins. A bipartisan group of political scientists, journalists, and historians weighed in on what a second Trump administration would mean for the country. The special issue was published long before Biden withdrew from the campaign, before the Supreme Court increased the reach of presidential power, before Project 2025 became well known, and before many prominent Republicans and conservatives endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Nonetheless, this collection of 24 essays, which examined a number of topics and outlined the negative consequences of Donald Trump returning to the presidency, remains spot on.

For an individual in search of hard facts and reasoned opinions, this special issue of The Atlantic is insightful. This commentary will summarize some of the important findings in this landmark attempt to educate voters on why Trump is unfit to be re-elected president.

Jeffery Goldberg, Editor’s Note. “The Atlantic is deliberately not a partisan magazine. We believe that a democracy needs, among other things, a strong conservative party in order to flourish. Our concern is that the Republican Party has mortgaged itself to an antidemocratic demagogue, one who is completely devoid of decency.”

David Frum, on Autocracy.  “It has always been Trump’s supreme political wish to wield both the law and institutional violence as personal weapons of power – a wish that many in his party seem determined to help him achieve.”

Anne Appelbaum on NATO. “As president, Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO many times – including infamously at the 2018 NATO summit. But during Trump’s time in office, there was always someone there to talk him out of it. If Trump is re-elected in 2024, none of those people will be in the White House.”

McKay Coppins on Loyalists, Lapdogs, and Cronies.  “The available supply of serious qualified people willing to serve in a Trump administration has dwindled. Just four [now 24] of Trump’s 44 Cabinet secretaries have endorsed his current bid. If Trump is elected, he is expected to sign an executive order eliminating civil service protection for up to 50,000 federal workers, making them political appointees. Those fired could see their positions filled with Trump loyalists.”

Sophie Gilbert on Misogyny. “Trump’s glee in smacking down women has filtered into every aspect of our culture. But what’s more chilling about a possible second Trump presidency is that he would certainly be unchecked in his attitudes toward women. The advisors who remain with him are the ones who bolster his darker impulses.”

Zoe Schlanger on Climate Change. “A second Trump administration could do major damage. The Heritage Foundation has already made a battle-plan to block electricity-grid updates that would allow for solar and wind expansion, and to gut clean-power divisions at the Department of Energy, among other things. Under a second Trump term, the EPA would be threatened with budget cuts as it was during the first.”

Franklin Foer on Corruption. “Trump’s history suggests that he regards the government as a lucrative instrument for his own gain. It was this scenario in which the virus of foreign interests implants itself in the American government that the Founders most feared. They designed a system of government intended to forestall such efforts. But Trump has no regard for that system and every incentive to replace it with one that will line his own coffers.”

Juliette Kayyem on Extremism. “Until the very end of his presidency, Donald Trump’s cultivation of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other violent far-right groups was usually implicit. He counted on their political support but stopped short of asking them to do anything. After Nov. 3, 2020, his language became more direct. The President of the United States embraced violence as the natural extension of America’s democratic differences, and he has not stopped since.”

Megan Garber on Disinformation. “Donald Trump announced in 2018 that ‘his gut tells him more than anybody else’s brain can ever tell him.’ Facts are work. They require study; they require curiosity; they require patience; they require humility. Trump suggests he will ease the burden.  You can outsource your mind to his gut. Science lies to you. The media lies to you. Books lie to you. Courts lie to you. Other people lie to you. Democracy lies to you. The only thing you can trust, in this dizzying world, is the inveterate liar who would never lie to you.”

Clint Smith on History. “In a second term, Trump would have even more reason to promote the rewriting of the American past. The MAGA movement is already doing this in connection with Jan. 6, 2021, one of the darkest days in our country’s history. The most patriotic education is one that demands that we sit with the totality and complexity and moral inconsistencies of the American project. Trumpism seeks to censor attempts to tell this sort of story.”

Vann R. Newkirk II on Civil Rights.  “Under Trump, the Justice Department abandoned its active protection of voting rights. If Trump were to win in 2024, many of the remaining foundations of the civil rights era would be undone.”

Other essays in this special issue include science, immigration, the courts, abortion, and the way Trump induced anxiety while president. Before the most important election in our lifetime, I urge all voters to read them. https://www.theatlantic.com/if-trump-wins/

 

 

A LOOK AT THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

 

“The vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” John Nance Garner

There has long been disagreement among political scientists whether vice presidential candidates make a difference in presidential elections. The above quote sums up the traditional view that voters pay little attention to the second person on the national ticket.

In recent elections, this opinion has changed. For example, there is strong evidence that Sarah Palin damaged John McCain in 2008 and that Joe Biden garnered important votes for Barack Obama in the same election.

The definitive book on the subject is Do Running Mates Matter? The Influence of Vice-Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. (May 15, 2020 by Christopher Devine & Kyle Kopko). The authors concluded that a running mate who is experienced and well-qualified can improve the perception of the presidential candidate, capture some votes, and make a difference.

The following commentary provides background and opinion on each of the vice-presidential candidates in the upcoming election: Minnesota Democrat Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance. I gained some insights from those who live in the home state of each candidate and relied on the excellent deep dive reports published by POLITICO on each candidate’s history.

Democrat Governor Tim Walz.  Dana Ferguson from MN Public Radio reports that Walz “Was able to pass a balanced budget in the state with a Senate Republican majority and a House Democratic majority. In 2023 he passed “a child tax credit, legal protections for abortions, along with new protections for workers and for voters.”

I spoke with our cousin, Noel Bye, from Minneapolis, MN who was happy to see Governor Walz chosen to join Kamala Harris on the ticket. His impressions included, “Walz has been an amazing Governor and we are sorry to lose him. He has been able to reach across the aisle and accomplish many things including a free breakfast and lunch program for schools. He has actually worked for a living and understands the struggles the middle class faces every day.”

The POLITICO article, 55 Things to Know About Tim Walz, provides a lifetime of basic information. Walz was raised in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400. He enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17. After college, he learned to speak Mandarin and traveled to China with a government sanctioned group to teach in Chinese high schools. Walz served in the Army for 24 years and retired as a Sergeant Major.

In MN, Walz taught geography and coached high school football. He was first elected to Congress in 2006 and re-elected five times in a mostly rural, conservative section of the state. In Congress, Walz was named the ranking member on the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs. He often worked with Republicans to sponsor and pass legislation.

Walz is an avid hunter who is graded “F” by the NRA because of his forward-looking positions on gun control. In 2019, he ran for Governor of MN and defeated the Republican by 11 points. Walz was chosen to Chair the Democratic Governors Association, in 2023.

Walz has a theory that Trump-endorsed candidates “are weird,” and the voters are being turned off by their radical positions.

Republican Senator JD Vance. In OH, the Republican Attorney General has called Vance “A patriot and fighter for Ohio’s forgotten middle class.” A close friend from Columbus, Michele Wyatt, disagrees. She told me, “Vance’s move to OH was done to support his political aspirations. I think it is dangerous to have someone as ideologically fluid, with minimal experience, questionable ties, and unclear motivations hold the position of second-in-command.”

Returning to POLITICO, the article 55 Things to Know about JD Vance, is a similar in-depth study of Mr. Vance’s background. Vance grew up in a working-class family in post-industrial OH. He describes himself as a descendant of “hillbilly royalty” and was raised primarily by his grandparents. Vance wrote a bestselling memoir Hillbilly Elegy about his early years in Jackson, Ky. and Middleton, OH.

During the 2016 election, Vance emerged as a vocal critic of Donald Trump. In a TV interview, he stated “I am a Never Trump guy” and tweeted “my god, what an idiot.’” However, during Trump’s years as president, Vance came to support his policies. He voted for Trump in 2020.

After graduating from Yale Law School, Vance joined a venture capital firm run by the Silicon Valley Republican Peter Thiel. In 2022, Vance ran for and won the OH Senate seat, his first public office. He was endorsed by Trump and received over $10 million in donations from his employer.

During his brief time in the Senate, Vance has embraced the “new right” and has attempted to push the Republican Party in a more populist, nationalist, and culturally conservative direction. He is a leading critic of American support for Ukraine and has called the Democratic border policy “a deliberate strategy to kill Republican voters with fentanyl.”

In recent polls, Walz is clearly viewed as more experienced and more likeable than Vance. Vance has assumed the role of attack dog and Walz as a moderate Midwesterner. However, there is no evidence that either VP candidate will move the needle with Trump Republicans or Democrats that previously voted for Biden. Because more independents have an unfavorable view of Vance, like Sarah Palin in 2008, he could hurt the Trump ticket in the critical battleground states.