WASHINGTON COUNTY’S FORGOTTEN BUSINESS PIONEER

 

Late last summer, former commissioner Bracken Burns knocked on our door in East Washington.  Burns was seeking information on the individual who had built the large ornate older homes in our neighborhood. Like most East Washington residents, we knew the age of our home but could not name the builder.

Despite my lack of knowledge on local architecture, Burns settled into a comfortable chair and began to tell us an incredible tale. A gentleman by the name of Major A.G. Happer returned to Washington County after the Civil War and proceeded to transform the area into a modern community. Among his projects, one of Happer’s businesses built many of East Washington’s finest homes.

Apart from a state historical marker in front of the Washington & Jefferson College Admissions building (the beautiful structure Happer built and lived in after the war), he has received little attention. To begin to correct this oversight, what follows is a summary of the local Civil War hero and business leader’s achievements.

Most of the information Burns related to me came from a book by Jim Douglas, a Pennsylvania Civil War historian and author. To research this commentary, I borrowed Burns’ copy of “Born to Serve: The Major A. G. Happer Story” (2015). I am only able to provide a short discussion on Happer’s family history and Civil War exploits. For those seeking more background, this book is an excellent source.

Andrew Gardner Happer was born on August 15, 1839 on the Washington County family farm in Union Township. In 1859, he enrolled in what was then Washington College. After Fort Sumter was attacked, Happer left school and enlisted in the First Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry.

Happer entered military service as a private soldier of low rank and left the Union army as a Major, a stunning accomplishment. He participated in the battles of First Bull Run, Dranesville, Thoroughfare Gap, Second Bull Run, Chantilly, South Mountain, Antietam (where he was first wounded, but remained in charge as senior officer), Fredericksburg, Burnside’s Advance, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Mine Run, and the first-and second-day battles of the Wilderness.

During his final encounter, Happer was severely wounded and left for dead on the battlefield. A kindhearted confederate soldier kept him alive and cleaned his wound until he was sent to an enemy field hospital. Soon after, he was transported to the notorious Libby Prison in Richmond, Virginia. Six months later, Happer was part of a prisoner exchange and began a slow, painful recuperation. The confederate mini-ball in his pelvis was never removed.

Following Lincoln’s assassination, the Governor of Pennsylvania chose now Major Happer as part of his delegation to accompany the coffin back to Illinois for burial, on the somber train called the “Lincoln Special”. Happer considered this duty the greatest honor of his life.

Happer’s initial employment after returning to Washington County was as Assessor of Internal Revenue. His time as a bureaucrat only lasted from 1866 until 1871. He then turned his attention to the business world for opportunities to modernize Washington and to help others.

Happer’s first venture was to open an insurance office at 55 South Main Street in Washington. The 1871 great Chicago fire convinced many customers that fire insurance was a necessary expense.  Happer’s business did exceptionally well. He soon married one of the most eligible young ladies in town, Matilda Morgan Watson, the daughter of a prominent attorney. Together they built the magnificent structure made of Cleveland stone on East Wheeling Street, now the W&J Admissions House.

Happer was interested in helping orphans and displaced children who were living in the floundering Western Pennsylvania House of Refuge. He convinced the Governor, John Hartranft, to support the building of a new facility, “Morganza,” on 503 acres of land owned by his wife’s family. The facility opened in 1876 with Happer serving as President of the Board of Managers until 1911.

Happer realized that a growing Washington required many modern upgrades to keep pace. Among the first was a stable source of capital to finance the new ventures. In 1885, he assembled some partners to form the Citizens Bank of Washington. The bank was successful, and by 1908, deposits exceeded $3 million. Happer was also a founding member and sat on the Board of the Union Trust Company.

Happer was instrumental in forming the Wheeling Oil Company and the first telephone exchange in 1884, the Citizen’s Water Company in 1885, and in developing the West End of Washington. In 1888, East Washington was subdivided by Happer’s real estate business. He then constructed many of the stately Victorian homes that grace our community.

Following the Civil War, Washington County had no hospital. Happer, along with three local physicians, petitioned the Commonwealth to obtain a charter. Happer joined with several other men and advanced their personal funds to purchase the Acheson homestead on what is now Acheson Avenue. This first hospital opened in May of 1898, and Happer was Board President for many years.

The Washington centennial celebration of 1910 was a grand affair. Happer at age 71 was still involved in many of the entities he had helped to create. Happer died in April, 1915, a modest man with no buildings or streets named in his honor. However, there is no doubt that Major Happer made significant contributions to Washington County, both as war hero and business leader.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A DIVIDED AMERICA CELEBRATES A BIRTHDAY

 

July 4, 2026, will mark a major event in the nation’s history. It is the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and our landmark semi-quincentennial birthday.

In less divisive times, the focus of the event would be on the meaning of the American Revolution, how we have grown as a nation, and where we go from here. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has attempted some positive spin by proclaiming, “2026 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to foster unity, celebrate our nation’s progress, and to identify our goals for the next 250 years.”

However, next year, there will be little unity, sparse agreement on the nation’s progress, and major arguments on future goals. Finding any common ground cannot happen in an environment where there are constant deployments of National Guard to American cities, masked ICE agents hauling immigrants off the streets, and American fighter jets blowing fishing boats out of the water. To add to the tension, there will be critical and contentious mid-term election campaigns occurring across the country.

Community civic organizations will make attempts to provide exhibits, parades, lectures, and picnics. Fireworks, hotdogs, and patriotic costumes will be on full display. But museums and educators across the country who receive federal funding, are confused and often terrified about what to present in explaining the Revolution and its 250-year aftermath.

This is because the Trump Administration holds the purse strings and wants to present its own MAGA version of our history, without debate. In the months before the event, the national institutions that would normally take the lead on planning for the nation’s birthday celebration have either come under attack or been dissolved. Trump has fired the Archivist of the United States and the Librarian of Congress. He has demanded that the Smithsonian Institute bow to his curatorial bidding.  The National Endowment for the Arts has been gutted. National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been defunded.

To replace these respected historians and institutions, Trump has signed an executive order establishing himself as chair of a White House “Taskforce 250.” The taskforce’s website touts a series of videos produced by Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian institution in Michigan. One of the videos seeks to compare Trump with Lincoln.

A few ventures have survived the Trump purge and successfully presented an unvarnished story of our improbable beginning and history. At the privately owned Philadelphia nonprofit, the Museum of the American Revolution, the exhibit “Declaration’s Journey” opened on October 18^th. To set the tone it features two borrowed artifacts. First is the Windsor chair in which Jefferson is believed to have written the Declaration of Independence. Second, a rusted metal prison bench, from which Martin Luther King wrote his “Letter from a Brimingham Jail.”

The six-part, twelve-hour Ken Burns PBS documentary, “The American Revolution” somehow escaped Trump’s authoritarian censors. In the opinion of Harvard historian Jill Lepore, “It restores truth and sanity to American history.” The Trump Administration has made it clear that it wants a clean and neat national origin story that praises its version of the good guys. “The American Revolution” documentary is not that story.

Lapore praises Burns for his ability to present “a political carrousel, a teeming moving, terrifying story, relating a chain of events forged in bravery and betrayal, of ferocity and torment, of ambition and terror, and yet a chain held together by a single organizing idea, of possibility.” In many respects, the Burns documentary is an act of defiance by PBS that pushes back against Trump’s white-washed version of history.

Amid our ongoing cultural divide, what important messages should come from the story fostered by the American Revolution? First, our nation is based on a written creed, not on a single ethnicity or religion. Citizens with ancestors who go back many generations are no more American than recent ones. Unlike European nations there is no “fatherland” to explain the formation of the state.

Second, now is the time to reflect and study the Founding Fathers and their legacy. Each of them has been the focus of outstanding biographies from reputable historians in recent years.

Overall, the Trump presidency would stun and anger the Founders who were reacting to the abuses of a monarch and his “accumulation of all powers in the same hands” (Federalist Paper No.47) They conceived of a decentralized and restrained executive, not an authoritarian Trump, supported by a weak Congress and ideologically driven Supreme Court.

Third, for those who believe in the central position of race in the national story, there is the New York Times “1619 Project.” This Pulitzer winning historical study argues that for 250 years, slavery has profoundly shaped every aspect of American society, from its founding principles and economy to its culture.

Lastly, if our semi-quincentennial birthday gives new meaning and momentum to the “No-Kings” movement against the president, much has been accomplished. What better way to breathe new life into our Declaration and its principles?

I only wish I could fit the following words, written by Thomas Paine, on a tee-shirt or protest sign. “Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it. But I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by searing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HOLIDAY SEASON IS A RESET FOR OUR EMOTIONS

 

The holiday season represents many different things. For Christianity, it celebrates the birth of the centerpiece of the faith. For Judaism, it recognizes an important historical event. Kwanzaa is a cultural holiday that celebrates African American and Pan-African culture. For retailers, it constitutes 20 percent of annual sales.

For those of us seeking a respite from the negativity in the world, it offers a welcome reset for our emotions. It takes a holiday season that recognizes the joy of children, surrounded by comfort food, friends, and family to have this wonderful effect.

My holiday commentary offers three short stories that may help to reset emotions. These examples take place in three very different and unusual settings. They occur in Central Africa, within a Fortune 500 corporation, and in a courtroom that was virtually made-up for Veterans Day. May these offerings engender a sense of hope and joy.

The Albino African. My first selection comes from the travels and pen of New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof. He reminds us that “People in the poorest countries are often, of necessity, masters of strength, adaptability, and resilience.”

Twenty-three-year-old Chantale Zuzi was born with albinism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Her body lacks melanin). Chantale’s maternal grandmother labeled her cursed and wanted to kill her. Her parents intervened and Chantale survived. In the village school other students refused to touch her.

At age 13, Chantale’s parents were murdered by another ethnic group. She became a refugee in Uganda, helping to care for her nine siblings. Chantale’s albinism again placed her in danger, and she fled to Nairobi, Kenya. Fate intervened, and she was resettled in the United States because of the continued threats against her.

In 2017, at age 17, Chantale was adopted by a Massachusetts couple. After three years of learning English, she took advanced courses and entered Wellesley College. Following graduation, she has expanded her nonprofit, “Refugee Can Be,” to lift up young girls in the Uganda refugee camps. Kristof concludes his piece by saying, “Talent is universal, even if opportunity is not. Sprinkle some education on village girls, and the world can be transformed.”

The Corporation with a Heart.  I recently became aware of a corporation, Tyson Foods, that goes above and beyond the business world of seeking profit to demonstrate a profound concern for the well-being of its employees. Tyson Foods has a heart.

Animal rights activists and ethical vegans might initially disagree with my assessment. After all, Tyson Foods is a massive company, considered the world's second-largest animal protein producer and the largest in North America, with 133,000 employees. It produces roughly one of every five pounds of chicken, pork, and beef consumed in the U.S. and has sales of over $53 billion. 

A nonprofit organization called Jobs for the Future has estimated that 60% of front-line workers in Tyson processing plants are immigrants and refugees.  Within one plant, more than 25 different languages are spoken. While the company requires all employees to be legally authorized to work in the United States, Trump’s immigration policies have presented challenges.

Tyson created a program of dedicated chaplains to provide employees and their families with compassionate care for their physical and psychological needs, regardless of the employee’s ethnicity or religious beliefs. The chaplains are “faith friendly,” but do not preach. Tyson provides nearly 100 chaplains in more than 150 facilities across 22 states. These resolute individuals, trained in clinical pastoral education, suicide prevention, domestic violence, and other psychological assessments, offer support to all employees.

In a statement describing the program, the past Director Karen Diefendorf, explains, “Some days, they visit a team member’s family who is sick, or maybe help a team member in need of community resources like housing or transportation. The chaplaincy is an important benefit that provides a sense of comfort during high-anxiety situations, while also helping team members celebrate their greatest wins—either at work or at home.”

The Made-up Virtual Courtroom. My last story is more of a fairy tale. Around Veterans Day this past November, a story appeared on social media that fact checkers could not document as true. An 88-year-old Vietnam veteran was seated in a wheelchair before a stern judge known for his strict rulings. The city attorney presented a long list of housing violations and unpaid fines and requested an eviction of the veteran from his home.

As the man sat trembling the Judge took a recess and left the bench. When the judge returned, he announced to the defendant that he had contacted the local VFW and the county’s veteran’s fund. All fines were dismissed. In addition, the judge had contacted a local construction union that agreed to make repairs to the veteran’s home. As the man was overcome with joy, the judge came down from the bench and hugged him, thanking him for his service.

This apparently fictional story attracted me because of its application of a moral precept made famous by Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe in their 2011 book, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to do the Right Thing. The authors urge each of us to learn to do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time rather than to blindly follow unbending laws and established procedures. The message is, “Wise people know when and how to make the exception to every rule.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONER’S ILL-ADVISED CONTRACT TERMINATION

 

Before diving into this inaugural “point-counterpoint” commentary I want to thank Dave Ball for proposing the idea. I also want to thank the Observer Reporter editorial staff for agreeing to provide topics and a monthly forum.

Dave and I have contrasting political views but we both agree on the importance of presenting topics important to the Washington County community. We seek to do so using proven facts and with civility. We hope that readers will respond to this “point-counterpoint” approach with support and comments.

The recently terminated economic development contract between Washington County and the Chamber has been prominently featured in this newspaper over the past two years. Before Diana Irey Vaughan retired as commissioner, she joined with Larry Maggi in September 2023 to finalize the contract in the amount of $1.6 million over 10 years. The contract called for an initial 5-year term followed by a 5-year option period.  

The agreement required the Chamber to provide staffing, plans and updates on economic development for Washington County.  Nick Sherman voted against the initial contract. When he and Electra Janis became majority commissioners, they began a crusade to undermine the deal.

In my view, a careful reading of the contract makes it clear that the Commissioners’ ill-advised decision to terminate the agreement eliminated a successful and important resource, with the region’s second largest Chamber. The decision to cancel, without one year’s notice or evidence of a breach on the Chamber’s part, also obligated the County to pay substantial liquidated damages of 50%. The Chamber has announced it will seek the contract’s designated penalty payment of $460,000 from County taxpayers, unless Sherman and Janis reconsider.

The agreement’s intent was to establish a “cooperative arrangement” where the Chamber and County work together to foster economic development and growth. The contract commits the County to “provide assistance and support as may be requested, including coordination of activities among public and private parties and in seeking grants for economic development.”

Instead, the two Republican commissioners have fought the intent of the contract at every opportunity. Despite having seats on the Chamber’s board, they have failed to regularly attend meetings, ignored Chamber reports, and offered little constructive input on advancing this highly successful project to promote economic development.

Notwithstanding the Commissioners’ intransigence, there is no evidence that the Chamber has not met its obligations under the contract. These include the promotion and marketing Washington County to prospective employers, providing assistance, the maintenance of a database of sites for new businesses, and the hiring of qualified staff.

The County’s payment responsibilities are clearly defined. These include liquidated damages in the event the county unilaterally terminates the arrangement without the designated notice or good cause.

It is important to point out that while the five year “initial term” of this contract was new, the County and Chamber have entered into similar one-year economic development agreements since 1999. Until Sherman and Janis became majority commissioners, disagreements were minimal and this “County-public,” “Chamber-private”, partnership for economic development reaped over-the-moon results for Washington County.

In a statement concerning the contract termination, Sherman announced, “At this time I feel it would be irresponsible to fund a contract that we’ve had zero return on our investment for the money.” However, a very different picture emerges from the 2024, Southwestern Pennsylvania Business Investment Scorecard for Washington County.

Last year, over $35 million in new capital investments were secured by the Chamber for our community. The Chamber was only paid $140 thousand to perform its contractual obligations, a significant return on investment. Had Sherman and Janis fulfilled the county’s contract responsibilities and cooperated, the results could have been even better.

In their search for excuses to end the agreement, the Commissioners have cited the need for “budget cuts.” But this contract was in no way dependent on funding from the recent state or federal budget impasses. Moreover, no budget cuts to other less productive county programs have been announced. Without the Chamber’s work product, the County will be obligated to develop and fund an internal economic development program at great expense.

I am not disputing the Commissioner’s right to oversee how funds are managed or which projects are prioritized. But the actions of Sherman and Janis to terminate this long-standing, productive arrangement to provide economic development, was imprudent and will be costly.

The citizens of Washington county deserve better cooperation between its elected officials and the business community; not a quagmire of no collaboration, made-up excuses and unsupported finger-pointing.

THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP & MAGA

 

Now that we are almost a year into Trump’s second term, it is an appropriate time to stand back from the head scratching and frustration to pose an important question. Where did Trumpism and MAGA come from? I am not referring to the man himself, but rather to the ideological and political movement that supports the president.

The contrast between Trump’s first term in office and today’s version is striking. The years 2016-2020 were characterized by internal dysfunction. Moreover, there were enough adults in the room to save the country from Trump’s worst impulses. The first administration’s inability to formulate coherent policies, the constant turnover of cabinet members, and the impeachment proceedings all slowed him down.

Trump learned from his earlier debacle and began laying the groundwork for a different approach well before he won reelection. He enlisted the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 to provide a road map for a second term. The president hit the ground running with a more ideologically developed and institutionally robust movement.

He now surrounds himself with sycophants that never say no. His advisers all believe: 1) that foreign policy is transactional and does not require long-term goals; 2) that the free movement of goods is not acceptable; and 3) that the free movement of people is even less acceptable.

Trumpism and MAGA did not begin with the Heritage Foundation. The ideological position which supports a white Christian, isolated America, empty of as much diversity as possible, has a long and entrenched history.

These views can be traced back to early colonial Puritan beliefs, followed by the vision of 19^th century American exceptionalism, disengaged from the world. Manifest Destiny held that the U.S. had a divinely ordained mission to expand across the continent. Before the Civil War, slavery supported white nationalism. Following black emancipation, a segregated South kept the ideology alive. Over time, these ideas coalesced to create a movement that resulted in the Heritage Foundation and the alt-right.

Since WWII, a number of movements and individuals have been important in the making of Donald Trump. A new book with an unusual title helps provide historical background into the intellectual origins of today’s alt-right movement. Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right, by Quinn Slobodian outlines the genesis of right-wing ideology with a colorful cast of characters.

The book introduces Friedrich August von Hayek, an Austrian-born British economist and philosopher. Hayek (1899-1992) had considerable influence on a variety of political and economic thinkers, including the alt-right.

Slobodian traces a history of ideas inspired by Hayek based on “hardwired human nature, hard borders, and hard money” (gold or silver). The early movement “forged an alliance with racial psychologists, neo-confederates, ethno-nationalists, and goldbugs” that would become known as the alt-right.

Historians have linked the making of Donald Trump to several national politicians from America’s recent past. Gillis Harp, a retired professor of history at Grove City College draws a comparison with George Wallace in his recent commentary, “The first Trump ran for president in 1968.” Harp notes that in this Vietnam dominated election year “political violence and rapid social change opened the door to a candidate well outside of the mainstream.”

In a familiar theme, white working-class Americans became alienated from the conventional political order. Harp points out that “Wallace drew support from Northern blue-collar voters who were attracted to his folksy populism, social conservatism, and frontal attack on the political, journalistic, and educational establishment.” Wallace exploited “cultural war” issues. He campaigned on “taking the handcuffs off the police.”

“Make America Great Again” is not a Trump invention. Ronald Reagan made the same promise during his 1980 presidential campaign. Reagan was the first presidential candidate to use the slogan on campaign merchandise. Reagan and Trump are similar in their shared backgrounds in the entertainment industry and their strong communication skills. Both successfully tapped into a narrative that someone from outside the traditional political establishment could capture the presidency.

Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent in 1992, provides another comparison to Trump due to their shared similarities as wealthy political outsiders. Both men ran anti-establishment populist campaigns focused on objections to free trade and government corruption. Like Trump, Perot called for a tougher stand on immigration. He also employed a Trump-like, blunt, communication style that appealed to voters not happy with “smooth-talking” Bill Clinton. My father, like many other life-long Democrats who always supported the Party’s nominee, voted for Perot.

In the online Politico Magazine, editor John Harris, wrote a feature article, Ross Perot: The Father of Trump. Harris reminds us that “Perot was a secular prophet who in his time anticipated and personified the disruptive currents of the present. Idiosyncrasy, or at a minimum an eagerness to break standard political molds was part of Perot’s charm.”

Harris concludes, “Perot’s campaign revealed clear evidence of a constituency in national politics, radicalized in its disaffection with the major parties and with a nagging sense of American decline. This constituency did not go away after Perot did.”

On a daily basis, we are gob-smacked by the barrage of statements, executive orders and policies issued by the Trump administration. Clearly, our political past was a prelude to our present predicament. What changed was the Republican Party’s willingness to capitulate to Trump and make him a mainstream candidate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM PROVIDES IMPORTANT GUIDEPOSTS

 

On Oct. 27, Tom Flickinger presented Observer-Reporter readers with a political commentary entitled, “What is socialism and has it ever worked?” I found it interesting that Flickinger would choose this moment to debunk socialism when Donald Trump and his MAGA followers are firmly in charge. Before the Nov. election, aside from Vt. Senator Bernie Sanders, the avowed number of democratic socialists serving in office represented very few voices in a very large country.

When democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defeated the more traditional Andrew Cuomo (running as an independent) to become mayor of New York City, Republican motivations became clearer. Going into next year’s mid-term campaigns, based on Mamdani’s election, the plan is to label all Democrats as “dangerous socialists.” Republicans are inventing a scary diversion to take attention away from the most mean-spirited, anti-democratic administration in the nation’s history.

The truth is that most Democrats, like most Americans, would label themselves democratic capitalists, not democratic socialists. The United States is a country that believes in the former while often borrowing ideas from the latter, like recent agreement on the importance of “affordability”.

It is important to understand the differences in the two ideologies. Democratic capitalism maintains a private, free-market economy while using democratic processes to regulate it and to provide a social safety net.

In contrast, democratic socialism calls for greater social ownership, worker control, and gradual redistribution of wealth. Its adherents use democratic means, never violence, to achieve these goals. 

Key goals of democratic socialism include: 1) Addressing inequality 2) Providing universal access to necessities like healthcare, education, and childcare 3) Giving ordinary citizens a greater voice in the decisions that affect their working lives and communities 4) Managing the economy with democratic goals, not just profit-making 5) Advocating for an environmentally sound economy. Many Americans support some or all of these objectives without realizing they are basic pillars of democratic socialism.

In our 250-year history, the United States has relied on democratic capitalism to contain free-markets by enacting laws and implementing safeguards to prevent abuses. Our country has never strayed far from its democratic capitalism roots. Unlike Europeans and Scandinavians, Americans are too enthralled with owning and accumulating private property and inherited wealth. However, democratic socialist principles like progressive taxes, civil rights legislation, and the Affordable Care Act have encouraged equality.

For the past year, the policies of President Trump and his right-wing administration have ambushed democratic capitalism by attacking democracy and adopting policies of unregulated capitalism. In many respects, unregulated capitalism of the wealthy is a larger threat to democracy than unregulated socialism of the masses.

I have no disagreement with Flickinger’s conclusion, in his criticism of socialism, that “Most countries experienced severe economic decline and authoritarianism, while others, which blend socialism with elements of capitalism, achieved greater social stability and prosperity.”

The examples he cites of failed socialism were either based on totalitarian communism, or were outright dictatorships. None of his failed examples were democratic. However, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland) that employ many elements of democratic socialism have been highly successful. These nations have strong social safety nets, higher taxes, and a commitment to social welfare programs. They operate within a regulated market economy and democratic framework. 

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that combines democratic governance with public ownership of important societal functions like healthcare and education. It encourages economic equality. Over the years in times of crisis, the country has adopted elements of this philosophy to move the country forward. FDR did so with his social engineering in the “New Deal” and LBJ likewise with his domestic “Great Society.”

There are two important points to emphasize. First, it is time to stand firm against Republican efforts to brand Democrats as “democratic socialists.” In fact, the “large D” Democratic Party is hard at work attempting to save “small d” democratic capitalism from a cruel authoritarian president.

Second, we should stop maligning democratic socialism and seek to understand what it has to offer our pluralistic democracy. There is much to learn from its guideposts. There are elements of democratic socialism that can help the nation recover from the recent economic and social carnage caused by the Trump administration.

For those looking for a short book on democratic socialism, what it stands for, and how it can address societal problems, I highly recommend “Ill Fares the Land” by historian Tony Judt (1948-2010).  He carefully lays out the “ills” of modern society and what democratic socialism can do to address them.

Judt admits that “democratic socialism is a hard sell in the United States.” Conservatives have incorrectly equated it with communism and argued it would replace constitutional liberties. Judt believes the problem is how we talk about it. Americans seem to forget the past laws we have implemented to expand social policy in favor of equality.

One reason Judt wrote the book was to explain the difference in liberalism (tolerance for dissenting attitudes) and social democracy (tolerance with the possibility of collective action for the collective good). Judt believed one key is teaching young people the value of moving away from material self-interest toward a better way to organize our lives.

In the final analysis, democratic socialism is simply a refreshing way to view the world through different lenses. Following the Trump administration’s decimation of our democratic institutions, we may again need to call on its wisdom.

 

 

 

 

 

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS ARE HURTING THE ECONOMY

 

There is more to the immigration story than the constant images of masked ICE agents chasing people of Hispanic heritage through parking lots and forcibly removing them from vehicles, schools, and workplaces. These operations, using racial profiling and aggressive military tactics, lack basic due process protections and require a full-throated protest. However, what is escaping the attention of many Americans are the negative economic effects that the Trump immigration restrictions are having on the economy.

Two weeks ago, my commentary addressed the tariff barriers that are being imposed across specific industries and against countries with whom the president has a political axe to grind. This commentary will discuss the second part of the Trump strategy to turn America into an isolated bunker at a substantial economic cost. His immigration policies are keeping talented foreigners from entering the country and is deporting those who are productive workers.

According to the Economist, until Trump took office in 2025, in every year since the 1930s, more people arrived in America than moved abroad. America’s borders have now been closed to the “huddled masses yearning to be free.”

The one astonishing exception has been a group of right-wing, White South Africans who claim to be victims of racial discrimination. Under a special program they have been resettled. This appears to be a politically motivated effort rather than a humanitarian one.

A recent report issued by the American Immigration Council concludes, “The first six months of the second Trump administration have arguably seen the most significant changes to U.S. immigration policy in the nation’s history. Taken one by one, as they have been announced or revealed, the effect can be overwhelming.”

National surveys conducted after recent ICE raids on workplaces and the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops by the Trump administration reveal the public’s changing views. Many Americans have softened their opposition to legal immigration in the space of a year. Overall, just one in three Republicans (34%) want to see lower legal immigration levels today compared to 50% last year. Regarding undocumented immigrants, a CBS/YouGov poll conducted on July 16-18, 2025 shows 51% of Americans overall now disapprove of Trump’s program of deportation, which is up from 41% disapproval in February.

This recent history provides background to review the economic fallout from the Trump immigration policies. This issue has not received the same attention as the moral/legal objections.

H1-B Visas. The H-1B visa category allows employers to petition for highly educated/skilled foreign professionals to temporarily work in “specialty occupations.”  These jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent and include positions like civil engineers, software developers, and researchers. Typically, the initial duration of an H-1B visa classification is three years but may be extended.

The administration claims that this type of visa displaces American workers and suppresses wages. On Sept. 19, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order mandating that foreign nationals seeking to enter the Unites States as H-1B temporary workers must pay a $100,000 fee.

In fact, studies have found that H-1B workers complement and strengthen employment opportunities for native-born workers in the United States. Unemployment rates are relatively low in occupations that hire large numbers of these workers. Economists have sounded the alarm that this astronomical fee will likely hurt the U.S. economy by causing a “brain drain” of qualified workers who will now move on to other countries.

Reduced GDP and Larger Deficits.  The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects that a four-year deportation program that removes 19% of migrant workers per year would cut our GDP by at least 1% over that period. Reduced tax revenues from fewer workers and the $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement in the “Big Beautiful Bill” will expand the federal deficit.

Job Losses for Native-Born Americans and Labor Shortages.  Rather than focus on the “worst of the worst,” the Trump administration has increasingly targeted worksites for immigration raids, picking up delivery drivers, restaurant employees, farmworkers, meatpackers, and other essential employees.

Because immigrant and native-born workers often have complementary jobs, there is a ripple effect when immigrants are deported. Consider the restaurants, construction companies, and farm operations that will close or reduce operations because of the inability to fill positions. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that deporting 4 million people over four years could result in nearly 6 million total job losses, including 2.6 million job losses for Americans.

Before deportations, an aging population and lower birth rates were already causing a shortage in labor-intensive jobs. As Trump’s efforts ramp up, restaurant, construction, landscaping, agriculture, and food processing businesses will experience increased labor shortages.

Trump needs to take off his blinders and consider what other right-wing populist leaders are doing to strengthen their countries through immigration. For example, in Italy, ultra conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni intends to issue 165,000 low-skilled work visas next year. Even Trump’s authoritarian pal, Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, has recently embraced a guest worker scheme permitting 78,000 non-EU migrants to work in Hungary.

Four of the seven corporate leaders of America’s most profitable technology companies were born abroad. They entered America through the immigration programs that Trump is attacking. A smaller population and workforce will constrain our economy. It will devastate labor-intensive work forces including on farms (50%) and construction companies (25%). Trump’s push for net-zero migration is ill-conceived and bad for the economy.