FREE SPEECH HAS BECOME A POLITICAL WEAPON

  

In our divided nation, no topic is more important and more misunderstood than free speech. This basic liberty is frequently abused when political actors of every persuasion only support free speech that aligns with their ideological views. These same actors reject acceptable speech that supports their political opponents.

In my experience, only the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been consistent in bringing legal action to ensure that Nazi hate groups and adult pornography receive the same free speech protection as theologians and members of Congress. The ACLU believes the First Amendment means what it says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

Prior to Donald Trump’s ascendancy, the most vocal adherents of free speech were civil rights advocates. Today, groups underwriting everything from self-serving identity politics on college campuses to those supporting right-wing, white nationalism have weaponized free speech for their own purposes.  Quarrels over free speech have become nothing more than ideological fights “for control of the argument.”

This commentary will tackle two aspects of the complex, and misapplied basic right of free speech. First, I will borrow from a recently published treatise by the historian Fara Dabhoiwala, What is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea, to explain how our nation developed its version of free speech. Second, I will examine whether there is a path forward to reconcile the contradictory goals of (1) “absolute” free speech with (2) some degree of censorship for the common good.

Dabhoiwala begins his work by telling us, “The real history of free speech has the potential to illuminate our current predicaments in surprisingly direct ways.” He believes that the American version of free speech cannot be understood without studying early Congressional legislative debates and Supreme Court interpretations of both the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alexander Hamilton and his followers rejected the definition of free speech “with guardrails” adopted during the French Revolution and later, most of Europe. These fledgling democracies decided that this new toleration of free speech should not extend to “opinions contrary to human society or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.” In Europe and Great Britain this meant that laws were passed “against spreading false news” and which prohibited “infamy and absurdity.”

In America, however, Hamilton won the Congressional debate calling for an absolutist, uncensored definition of free speech. In this context, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect against overreach by the federal government, not the explicit guarantee of individual rights it has become.

While Ambassador to France, during the Bill of Rights debate, Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of the French Revolution, had sent to James Madison an alternative draft that carved out important exceptions to free speech. He suggested language that censored “false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property, or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations” from free speech. However, by the time Jefferson’s version arrived in America, the Bill of Rights was a done deal with no further debate.

The next unexpected turn was that as each of the new states crafted their own constitutions, most adopted the more limited European model and rejected the absolute wording in the Bill of Rights. In Pennsylvania, a much older Benjamin Franklin would write, “For my part, I shall cheerfully consent to exchange my liberty for abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.” American free speech followed two paths, one federal and one state mandated.

In 1925, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion, Gitlow v. New York, that applied the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, to free speech. Individual states could no longer “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The First Amendment now applied just as rigorously to the states, based on the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment that arguably had nothing to do with free speech.

Today, neither our federal nor state governments actively censor viewpoints, however inflammatory. By contrast, the UK and European countries have not hesitated to criminalize hate speech, or to extend protections against speech that “hurts peoples’ feelings” or is judged to be “false” by some appointed official.

The ongoing question for Bill of Rights experts is whether absolute free speech should be tempered with reasonable censorship designed to protect the public good.

One stated aim of hate-speech laws is to promote social harmony. Research conducted by The Economist shows that in Great Britain they have done the opposite. Moreover, laws that give discretion to elected officials in limiting speech are an invitation for abuse. Illiberal governments use such tactics to expand their authoritarian regimes. In addition, laws that prohibit “giving offense” are difficult to enforce and stifle open democratic debate.

The Economist concludes that, “When nations have too much power over speech, sooner or later they will use it for the wrong reasons. Noisy disagreements are better than enforced silence. People must learn to tolerate each other’s views.”

This brings us back to the American absolute model of free speech, which appears to be more democratic.  Unfortunately, American free speech cannot stand when political actors weaponize it for their own purposes to win ideological arguments. It can only achieve its original purpose when we all defend speech we don’t like, a difficult ask in tribal America.

 

 

 

 

 

THE GRAYING OF AMERICA: WHAT COMES NEXT?

 

 

The graying of America should be added to the litany of problems facing the nation. Since 1960, the median age of Americans has risen by nearly nine years. It now stands at 38.3 years from the earlier 29.6. More recently, from 2010 to 2020, the 65-and-over population increased by an astounding 34 percent.

Baby boomers are convinced we will be around for decades to come. If we are correct, the safety net of Social Security and Medicare that were designed for a population with much less longevity will be pushed to its limits.

In many respects it is a worse challenge for spouses, siblings, children, and for organizations that provide housing/long-term health care for the elderly.  According to the website shortlister, approximately 70 per cent of Americans aged 65 and older will require some form of long-term care during their lifetime.

As a card-carrying member of the baby boom generation, I am not only interested in the financial burden we will impose on the nation, but on the legacy our generation is leaving for those we love. To help me better frame the issues, I recently discovered a book, The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, by Philip Bump.

Bump is a columnist for the Washington Post who is known for his nerdy immersion in charts and graphs to prove a point. His book keeps this tradition alive (128 charts in total) as he attempts to overcome pure speculation with some hard facts.  His thesis is that the downward shift of our population’s center of gravity, the national political climate, and the frustrations of younger Americans will continue to overlap and to explain many of the country’s fissures.  He believes that, “A large generation of boomers, used to accruing and defending its power through sheer scale is watching that power crumble…We’re now living through something exceptional, an historic disruption of an American empire.”

The Aftermath is a sweeping assessment of how the baby boom created modern America. Bump covers all of the important contributions and colossal failures. He believes there are three conduits for power: culture, economics, and politics.  He concludes that the cultural shift is all but over, heavily centered on the young.  He sees economic power dependent on how much it costs to maintain older baby boomers, along with the housing market, student debt, and the ability of the next generation to generate enough tax revenue to care for the elderly.

Regarding politics, when the book was written, Trump’s second term was not yet part of the equation. Bump concluded in 2023 that our generational shift lies at the heart of the current national malaise. Bump posits that the important factors are the direction of political leanings and racial diversity in the electorate.

It is interesting that Bump finds that in the near future, America will look more like Florida—older, less white, conservative.  In a few years, millennials will come into their own and begin demanding a bigger piece of the economic pie. Bump is not sure whether they will be battling their parents to cut senior benefits, or battling the robots seeking their jobs.

In order to escape Bump’s charts and graphs, I decided to seek input from two millennial men with young families. The first, “Noel,” is a father and spouse in suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota. Noel is a politically engaged white-collar progressive. The second is “Joshua” with a young family in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Joshua is a local banker who remains very close to the farming tradition of his father’s family. He is a conservative with strong libertarian leanings and an active participant in his community.

Noel has strong views on where his parent’s generation failed the country. “The boomer generation was raised with a mentality of individual advancement, rather than building the community up. This allowed cracks in the American foundation.” His theme of self-interest over community continues. “I see great wealth gained by a few Fortune 500 store fronts rather than space for local entrepreneurs.” He has a question for the boomer generation. “What and for whom were you fighting for?” He believes his generation must understand the answer to make peace with boomers and to move forward.

When it comes to his young children, Noel is concerned about the type of world they will inherit. He sees as a main parenting goal to “show them that each of their choices has an impact.” The goal for himself is to be part of his neighborhood and to understand how those with different views can live together.

Given his community and upbringing, Joshua has a more traditional, conservative orientation. There is one regret about his childhood, “I would change the pace of my early life and slow it down, enjoy the simple things.” His views on the future are positive with the caveat, “I put no faith in government to fix the problems of our country.” Joshua wants no part in cradle-to-grave benefits. He believes it is his responsibility to “work hard, maintain a positive attitude and to forge a path of success.” Joshua would place serving God and others ahead of self-serving motives.

Somehow, I feel I received a better sense of “what comes next” from Noel and Joshua than from Bump’s graphs and charts. One thing is for sure; it will be complicated.

 

 

 

THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS’ BIG SPENDING SECRET

 

Republican Commissioners Nick Sherman and Electra Janis like to boast about the projects they have initiated since taking over county government in January, 2024. What they fail to explain is that the funding for their spending binge came from Congressional legislation designed to save local governments from economic collapse following the pandemic, sponsored by the Democratic Party. These funds permitted our Republican Commissioners to spend like drunken sailors without raising taxes or plunging the county into debt.  

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus Bill passed by Congress, and signed by then President Biden, without a single Republican vote. The funding included $7.9 billion for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of this amount, $4.95 billion was allocated for the largest cities and the 67 counties. The remainder was divided among Pennsylvania’s smaller municipalities.

Our Republican Commissioners following the lead of elected Republicans across America, shamelessly took credit for this windfall of assistance their party fought to defeat. Regrettably, there has been incomplete local accounting on how the money was spent.

Washington County was awarded the enormous sum of $98.9 million in ARPA funding. When interviewed by SPOTLIGHT PA, a Pennsylvania official commented, “We’ve never come into this amount of money in one large sum. The simple reporting requirements and flexibility to use the funding made the aid more meaningful.”

The objectives of the ARPA were to supplement lost revenue caused by COVID-19 shutdowns, to reimburse public entities for health and safety services, to assist local businesses, and to address infrastructure needs.

The most significant funding stream in the ARPA was for “revenue replacement.”  There were few restrictions on how funds earmarked for this category could be spent. Recipients had the option to classify $10 million of their allocation in this way or to use a more complicated formula to calculate lost revenue. Washington County chose the second option and with the help of a consultant was able to earmark $57 million under the category of revenue replacement. The majority Republican Commissioners had a great deal of discretion on how the revenue replacement funds were spent down. Unfortunately, there was no public input and minimal transparency on the allocation of these funds.

According to Washington County’s most recent federal ARPA report, filed in the first quarter of 2025, diverse projects were initiated using the allotted funds. These included the broadband project to bring fast/inexpensive internet service to rural county residents; local hospital assistance; courtroom renovations; public document scanning; and court case management software. It is impossible to determine from the report how many questionable hidden expenditures for items like expensive county rental cars and new management positions were funded using the “revenue replacement” funds.

The ARPA expenditure that has gained the most notoriety was the initial $9 million in ARPA funds dedicated to upgrade the county’s emergency communications system.  As reported by the Observer-Reporter, “The radio system has been a divisive topic for nearly two years. 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.”

“Vaughan retired in January [2024] 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.”

The new Motorola contract remains cloaked in secrecy and controversy. It is not known whether the original contract expenditures will be recouped, what the final cost of the project will be, or whether the federal treasury will claw back funds because of the Republican commissioner’s duplication of a valid contract.

In my research for this commentary, I came across an excellent report released by the Center for Coalfield Justice. It was titled The ARPA and Local Municipalities and called for “Washington community members to be involved in decision-making when deciding how these funds would be used.” This call for transparency and public involvement received little attention from the current administration.

Other municipalities, across America, provided their citizens with up-to-date ARPA information. For example, Kalamazoo County, Michigan maintained a “ARPA dashboard” accessible to the public. It itemized total appropriations, obligations, and expenditures. Six strategic priorities were identified with frequent award updates.

Greensboro, N.C. maintained a website that provided comprehensive public information about how it deployed its ARPA allocation. The municipality started with three strategic recovery priorities and a status tracker.

It is never too late for Sherman and Janis to live up to their campaign pledges of transparency when it comes to county deployment of almost $100 million in ARPA funds. While most of the proceeds have been spent or earmarked, Washington’s citizens have a right to know the details.  An acknowledgement of former President Biden and the Democratic Party’s role, in providing the federal funds for the local Republican spending spree would also be in order.

Lastly, the public deserves an update on how Sherman and Janis plan on financing their upcoming projects, like demolition of Court House Square and the building of a new public safety building. Now that the gravy train has left the station, where will the money come from?

 

 

IN DEFENSE OF PESSIMISM

 

“Optimism is a cruel philosophy hiding under a reassuring name.” Voltaire

Optimism is not the point-of-view that will see us through during these trying times. There is no reason to believe that things will suddenly get better. Not when the Trump administration seeks to alter or terminate many of our most revered institutions and traditional American values. In a few brief months, the unimaginable has happened. However, things are never so bad that they cannot get worse.

Barrack Obama was defined in part by his 2008 campaign slogan of “Hope.” It uplifted many voters and helped him win his presidential election. Unfortunately, the slogan contained no realistic understanding of the nation’s challenges or how to solve them.

Sixteen years later, being optimistic that Trump could never again run for office did not work. Hoping that voters would see through the Trump propaganda and not elect him to a second term got us nowhere. Convincing ourselves that Trump did not mean what he said during his rowdy rallies was a pipe dream. Having faith that the Democratic party could mount a last-minute national campaign and defeat Trump was unrealistic. Hope that the “better angels of our nature” would rise and regain the upper hand has not materialized.

On the other hand, despair and fatalism are also not the answer.  While there is no guarantee that things will get better, there is every reason not to give in. As stated by Timonthy Snyder in his landmark book On Tyranny, “We must take responsibility for the face of the world. Our words and gestures or their absence count very much.” Snyder points out that throughout history apathetic resignation to an authoritarian regime only results in more of the same.

Perhaps in a world that promises us nothing, there is a better way than unrealistic optimism or total despair to approach life – a way of thinking to do the right thing despite the chance that little good will come of our efforts.

A philosopher from the University of St. Andrews, Mara Van Der Lugt, believes that there is an answer and wrote a stimulating book, Hopeful Pessimism, to prove her point. Her thesis is that crude optimism can no longer be a virtue in a breaking world. It may well prove to be our downfall. In an age of climate change, chronic regional warfare, and Donald Trump, the virtue we need is “hopeful pessimism.”

Van Der Lugt explains that when events give us little to be optimistic about, the tendency is to resist pessimism. Things must improve. They will get better. They have to. However, all too often—they get worse.

Conversely, hopeful pessimists do not assume the ultimate arrival of a positive change that will fix the problem. Instead, while they believe that individuals have no control over the direction of the world, with hopeful pessimism the only logical choice is to take action. Sitting on the side lines and waiting for a miracle is not an option.

In support of her thesis, Van Der Lugt touches on a wide range of philosophers from the Greek Stoics to Arthur Schopenhauer.  Literary references include The Lord of the Rings and Camus’s The Plague. The young environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, was further inspiration. From all these sources the author concludes that it is possible to be pessimistic about the future without being fatalistic. One can be a forceful activist for social change without any certainty of success. Van Der Lugt concludes that history has shown that “despair of a better future may be the precise point at which resistance takes place.”

Where does the concept of “hopeful” fit in, given the title of the book, Hopeful Pessimism? To find out, a journalist for the Atlantic, Gal Beckerman, interviewed the author. Van Der Lugt told him that “a certain kind of hope is compatible with pessimism.”  She insisted it must obey two ground rules. First, hope should be built on the uncertainty that “We just don’t know how things will turn out. Things might get pretty bad but there is no telling if things could get better again. It’s never a closed story.”

In the event an individual cannot form any concrete belief in a good ending, the second condition applies. “The individual must ask whether the cause you are fighting for would still be worth the effort if you knew you would never see it realized. The hope is value-oriented. It is driven by principles such as justice, duty, solidarity with your fellow humans, and just your sense of goodness. You act because you feel you must.”

The ability to work for something because it is the right thing to do, not because it stands a chance of success, has inspired political activists throughout history. Beckerman concludes in his Atlantic book review, of Hopeful Pessimism, “hopeful pessimism demands action, because there are no promises; it banishes wishful thinking."

The notion of hopeful pessimism struck a chord with me in connection with my thirty-five-year journey as a recovering alcoholic. The 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous has some similarities. Alcoholics are never guaranteed a better life because they stop drinking and work a recovery program. When sober, many recovering people face worse health, family, employment, and financial problems than when drinking. AA only promises the ability to face an uncertain future without alcohol, a noble goal in itself.

 

 

 

TRUMP’S FIRST HUNDRED DAYS

 

Those of us who are not recent immigrants, seeking help from federal agencies, supportive of Ukraine, investors, employed by a university, retail shoppers, small business owners who rely on imports, or someone who cares about the future of traditional American values, may not have yet been directly affected by Trump’s first hundred days in office.

Congratulations if you have remained calm and not lost any sleep since Trump’s inauguration. For the rest of us, the beginning of Trump’s second term as president has been a nightmare brought to life. Going forward, I would advise even the most dedicated of Trump supporters to pay attention. Before the year is up, every American will know individuals close to them who have been adversely impacted by one or more of Trump’s executive orders.

Trump’s first hundred days will go down in history as the second most impactful beginning of a presidential administration. The first was the period after Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March of 1933. The Great Depression had caused a total national breakdown. Millions of Americans lost everything. In what many historians have called the perfect match of man and moment, Roosevelt’s political instincts and exuberant temperament cobbled together the nation’s new social contract, including social security. Roosevelt lifted the country, rebuilt lives, and later saved the world from fascism.

Trump’s first hundred days will be remembered by historians for the unrelenting attempt of one man, surrounded by loyal yes-men, to dismantle much of the public good that Roosevelt accomplished. Trump is determined to create an authoritarian nation in his image. In addition, his actions would return America to the 1900 tariff, protectionist, isolationist world of President William McKinley.

To illustrate the damage in Trump’s first one hundred days, commentators often prepare a long list of each illiberal action Trump has taken. The problem with this approach is that if the reader is consumed by the next outrage, you cannot look closely at the last one. Instead, I will focus on only two debacles that have developed since Trump took office.

Abuse of the National Emergencies Act. In 1976, Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act to limit the circumstances under which a president could declare a national emergency. The three Congressional safeguards included (1) expiration of an emergency after one year, (2) the ability to pass a concurrent resolution to terminate the emergency by legislative veto, and (3) a Congressional review of any declared national emergencies every six months. Congress has not shown a willingness to exercise any of these powers to limit Trump.

In his first 100 days, the President has declared more national emergencies (nine) — more aggressively — than any president in American history.  Trump has invoked national emergencies to impose world-wide exorbitant tariffs on trade, to accelerate energy and mineral production, and to militarize federal lands at the southern border. He has also invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to deport Venezuelan migrants who the administration claims are participating in an “invasion” of the United States.

While the courts may eventually have the last word, much damage has already been done. For the time being, the supposed supremacy of the rule of law has been replaced by an authoritarian bully who has abused his executive powers by declaring multiple “state of emergencies” as “exceptions” that overrule established law. What we are witnessing is an out-of-control ruler who decides what constitutes each legal exception, based on ideology, not crises, and who then declares an unjustifiable emergency. More troubling, the ACLU has warned that Trump is also considering invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, in order to deploy National Guard troops on domestic soil without state consent.

Termination of Arts & Cultural Organizations. Under the false pretense of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” the Trump administration is reorganizing or terminating many of the most important federally funded arts and cultural organizations in America. First, in what appeared to be a petty matter, but was far more sinister, Trump installed himself as chair of the John F. Kennedy Center. Thirteen bipartisan board members were fired and replaced by compliant ones.

This was followed by Trump executive orders against Smithsonian Museums, designed to control the historical narrative of the United States.

Next were budget proposals to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump wants to cancel most of their existing grants and layoff a large portion of their staffs. The budget cuts came after both organizations acquiesced to Trump’s demands to restrict federal funding for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “gender ideology.” As history has demonstrated, such institutional obedience only leads to worse authoritarianism.

Trump is following the well-worn path of autocratic actors around the world who censor cultural endeavors that promote ethnic diversity and freedoms. In his mind, there can be only one cultural message of a nationalistic creative expression that is both white and Christian. These actions have had a chilling effect on local cultural organizations that traditionally receive federal funding.

Most recently, on May 2, Trump took the next step and announced he was ending federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System.

Underneath Trump’s inflammatory politics in skirting the law on national emergencies and his attack on our cultural and arts organizations, real people are being economically and emotionally damaged. We must help them recover and then join them to fight back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO THE CITY MISSION

  

Those of us who have experienced serendipity in our work lives often count our blessings. To begin one career and remain employed for many years, only later in life to unexpectedly fall into another position that satisfies our personal goals and aspirations is a dream come true.

Former county commissioner, Diana Irey Vaughan has experienced such a transition. At the pinnacle of her political career in county government as Chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners, she decided not to run for reelection. There were no plans on where life would take her. Vaughan’s future suddenly changed when she attended the annual “Sweet Sunday” affair sponsored by the Washington City Mission. She was approached to take the place of the retiring President and CEO of the Mission, Dean Gartland. After some reflection, she eagerly accepted.

The bare outline of Vaughan’s story from governing Washington County to running what is probably our area’s best-known faith-based non-profit played out in public. Prior to her retirement, Vaughan had different policy objectives than fellow Republican Commissioner Nick Sherman and the local Republican party. After Vaughan joined the City Mission, it was scheduled to receive $500,000 in LSA grant funding. Without explanation the grant was removed from the final list. Public outcry in support of the project and objections from minority commissioner Larry Maggi resulted in a reversal and approval for the funding.

On a beautiful late April morning, Vaughan invited me to her office to explain what guided her recent career change. She did not want to discuss past political battles or the present state of county government. Her focus was solely on describing the City Mission’s services to help those in need. It was an inspiring story, narrated by a self-assured, relaxed woman who is exactly where she wants to be.

First some background. For 28 years Vaughan served as county commissioner. Along with her two fellow commissioners, she was responsible for the preparation, adoption, and execution of an annual budget of over $253 million. The board of commissioners oversees 28 departments and the county jail. In order to govern, it was important for Vaughan to acquire an overview of many complex subjects with little opportunity to spend any in-depth time on individual cases.

Vaughan’s role at the City Mission is much different. She now reports to a dedicated board of directors on the activities of a focused non-profit organization. Vaughan must constantly work to manage and find funding to continue the work of a 174-bed rehabilitation shelter serving four in-need homeless populations — men, women, children, and veterans.

Her example in raising nearly $200,000 for the Mission by participating in charity marathons is an inspiration to other donors. Vaughan is now responsible for completing the $8.3 million project to construct a new 50 bed shelter for homeless women, initiated by her predecessor, Dean Gartland.

As commissioner, Vaughan was obligated to campaign for office every four years, build-up her achievements, and discredit the political opponents who wanted to replace her. While she enjoyed governing, she found that political infighting accomplished little.  Conversely, the philosophy of the City Mission, “To share Christ, to shelter, to heal, and to restore the homeless to independent living—without discrimination” was an excellent match for her principles.

While Vaughan was commissioner, circumstances in her personal life, and situations involving struggling single women that came to her attention, influenced her priorities. Reforming county human services became a top goal. She told me that the plight of the disadvantaged “touched my heart.”

As commissioner, Vaughan sought to bring all the human service agencies and non-profits together to develop a system where resources were easier to access by those in need. While a “single point of entry” made sense, there were many political and bureaucratic roadblocks along the way. Vaughan learned that in human services “top down,” centralized decision making was fraught with limitations.

For years, there was only so much that a minority commissioner could accomplish in an environment dominated by two majority commissioners. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Vaughan sought another avenue where she could make a difference. With little fanfare she approached the warden at the county jail and gained permission to meet with female inmates. Vaughan told me that while serving as commissioner, she valued the task of encouraging female offenders in personal development, more than many other responsibilities. Hearing their stories sharpened her understanding of how she could help. She proudly told me, “Occasionally, I hear from women I mentored who are still appreciative of the time I spent with them.”

As part of her work at the jail, Vaughan sponsored reentry conferences for female inmates no longer incarcerated. Housing, legal aid opportunities, probation issues, and behavioral health services were addressed. She discovered that the City Mission was in a critical position to help these women on their return to society.

When Vaughan’s experience, values, and goals are taken into account, her segue from commissioner to the City Mission makes perfect sense. She has learned that in human services, a “bottom-up” approach to problem solving based on the personal stories of the homeless has many advantages.

After the interview, I read Vaughan’s recent “President’s Message” in the City Mission’s 2024 Annual Report. It is a message of challenges, opportunities, and hope. There is no doubt that Washington County is a better place because of the City Mission and its new leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONGRESS?

 

“Congress has become a feeble debating society.” Fareed Zakaria

When the Gallup Poll asks its monthly question: “Do you approve of the way Congress is handling its job?”, as high as 80 percent of Americans answer in the negative. Our constitutionally mandated national legislature consistently fails to accomplish even its most basic obligations. On more complex national emergencies like immigration or election reform, legislation has not been introduced in decades.

The last Congress passed only 274 bills, fewer than any deliberating body since the Civil War. In his first 100 days, Trump has largely bypassed Congress, signing a record breaking low of just five new bills and a record breaking high of 124 executive orders.

James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that opposing political parties would place their own interests ahead of the common good. Madison was concerned that an outlier political phenomenon in control of government, like Trumpism, could tyrannize the out-of-power party and tear apart the Republic.

Congress was the constitutional remedy created by our founding fathers to counter these fears. Its role was to provide a balance against winner-take-all elections in the executive branch and one-sided court opinions in the judicial branch. Only in Congress could those with opposing political views pass legislation through debate and compromise. This power sharing meant that Congress provided a check against despotism, even if the same party held the presidency and a majority in both Houses.

How did Congress become irrelevant at a time when our nation is most in need of its deliberative powers? 

Philip Wallach, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written a timely book, “Why Congress.” Wallach gives us a compelling historical portrait of Congress as a functioning institution. He points out that before the early 1990s it was common for lawmakers to debate issues. Committees actually drafted bills, and the two political parties compromised to tackle urgent problems. Congress sent Republican President H.W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton significant legislation on trade, crime, environmental protection, financial regulation, and civil rights. Its ongoing deliberations actually erased the national deficit and created a surplus.

In the modern era, prior to Newt Gingrich and a decade later the rise of the populist “Tea Party,” the model of congressional action is often referred to as the “textbook” Congress. Under this system, senior lawmakers ran committees specializing in various policy areas. Drafting of legislation occurred at the committee level, and Congressional leadership did not interfere with this committee-driven dominance. The good news was that policy was formulated, and legislation was passed. The bad was that committee special interests sometimes outweighed the common good.

Wallach writes that the turning point in the role of Congress was Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. Gingrich encouraged partisan warfare, and demanded party loyalty from committee leaders. For the first time, his leadership brought large amounts of national Republican Party money into district elections to influence Republican primaries.  

Wallach believes that Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” started the trend toward the deepening polarization of Congress. He concludes that the branch of government designed to address factional conflicts gave in to hyper-partisanship and made things worse.   Over time, leaders from both parties began to suppress dissent within their own ranks. They also assembled divisive agendas not subject to compromise.

Congressional committees were no longer the accepted method to draft bills.  Instead, party leaders formulated policy behind closed doors. With greater frequency legislation was brought to the floor, at the last minute, for up-or-down-votes, when there was a crisis. There was little opportunity for deliberation.

The Senate had a long tradition of unlimited debate. In addition, the “60 vote rule” forced Senators to compromise by blocking a simple majority from taking action without minority support. Today, this rule is ignored when convenient and debate in the Senate is almost non-existent. When a speech is made the chamber is empty, and no one is listening except a few reporters.

It was common past practice for Senators to propose amendments during floor debate. Wallach notes that in the 1991-92 Congress, the Senate adopted more than 1,600 amendments. In today’s Senate, individual Senators are blocked from presenting their own proposals. Only a limited number of amendments are permitted chosen by Senate leadership. The 2023-24 Senate session featured only 200 amendments. Senator Lamar Alexander famously said that serving in the chamber was like, “joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being allowed to sing.”

All of this leads to our unfolding constitutional crisis. Many would argue that the increased partisanship in Congress has led to its inability to address major challenges facing the country. This inaction frustrated voters who elected an autocratic strongman for president. Trump promised to take immediate action on immigration, trade policy, and against government agencies without Congressional input and by ignoring settled law.

The new normal is that fear of presidential retribution keeps Republican members of Congress in line. Alaskan Senator, Lisa Murkowski, admitted last week, “We are all afraid.” Those who believe that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority, are abdicating their constitutional mandate. They are counting on either the judiciary or the electorate to rescue them from making hard choices to preserve democracy.

Ultimately, our political future depends on Congress’s ability to deliberate.  It is an indispensable pillar of the American constitutional system. Congress must find its backbone and exercise its power.