WASHINGTON COUNTY’S WOMEN LEADERS SHOULD BE IN THE VANGUARD OF THE DIVERSITY CHALLENGE

          I read with great interest the reporting on the recent panel discussion sponsored in part by the Washington County Chamber of Commerce concerning diversity and the lack of women voted into elective office in Pennsylvania. This is an important topic and there is certainly work to be done to topple the “old boy’s network” in the Commonwealth.

          Women running for elective office are bottom up affairs and require dedicated, knowledgeable and well funded candidates willing to get involved.  Most diversity issues involve hiring, training and recruitment and are top down issues where enlightened leadership makes all the difference.  My challenge to the panel participants:  Commissioner Irey Vaughan, State Sen. Bartolotta and President Judge Emery is to turn the diversity imbalance on its head and to use their positions to make meaningful diversity change in Washington County.  I would add Washington County Bar Association President, Dawn Haber Esq., to this triumvirate because the law community faces many of the same challenges.

          Minority employees and staffing in county government and the court system are embarrassingly underrepresented.  Recruitment of minority lawyers to live and work in Washington County appears nonexistent.  Women leaders who have had to battle the status quo to achieve positions of power can speak from experience in developing diversity programs and policies for the hiring and advancement practices under their respective domains.

          Diversity is not a luxury that Washington County can afford to leave to chance.  Diversity programs are proactive and seek out qualified minority candidates.  They build a multicultural workplace and community because it is the right thing to do.

           A diverse workforce is many times stronger than the sum of its parts.  This is particularly true in the public and legal sectors where minorities must believe their interests are fairly represented.  Our knowledgeable and compassionate female leaders are in the best position to make this a reality.

TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

         The subject of tolerance in a mature democratic republic such as the United States would appear to require little thought or discussion.  One would suppose that tolerance of others is a harmless notion that always signifies good character and is an enlightened, liberal goal, above reproach. 

          The history of tolerance in political theory and philosophical circles reveals that the concept of tolerance is in fact complicated and is often exercised without any compassion or even true acceptance. Since the time of the ancients there have been two opposing schools of thought. On the one hand are those who believe tolerance is a positive force that can be used to strengthen pluralistic democracies.  On the other is the belief that tolerance is nothing more than another tool of the majority to keep well meaning minorities in their place.

         In an attempt to better understand the racial, religious, gender and sexual conflicts which have flooded our discourse in recent times, I have reexamined the literature on tolerance, trying to develop my own understanding of this important topic.  Is tolerance to be embraced or disgraced as a social and political tool?  Does it resolve conflicts among competing interests or produce conflict?

          I have found that tolerance is indeed elusive and full of contradictions, many of which are beyond the scope of this essay.  I conclude that as the term is used in practice today, tolerance deserves our attention and is anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance can provide a roadmap to help us through the difficult social, political and moral issues we face each day.

         To begin with, majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance.  Minority religions will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

         With permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, the majority may change its collective mind and have the objection reinstated.  In this case intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted.  Permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  This is an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

         The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”, or: “homosexuals are against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”, or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue.  The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equally in every respect.

         I will consider two additional questions raised by the tolerance debate.  First, when is intolerance the appropriate course to take?  After all, notwithstanding our democratic freedoms and liberties, the majority is rightfully intolerant of incest, pedophilia, terrorists and anyone who would exercise the “assassins veto” by killing another individual who disagrees with them.  But where do we draw the line? When do we come down on the side of individual freedom and when do we seek to ban unacceptable views and behavior?

                  This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism and homophobia by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to remove these views from the public mindset? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant?

         The conceptual framework developed by the esteemed political philosopher, Rainer Forst, offers a commonsense solution to some of these questions.  He believes that tolerance and justice are closely correlated. The majority or individual with an objection to a particular group or behavior must justify its objection by asking: “are my reasons for objecting sufficient to reject the group or practice as a law abiding citizen?… The objection cannot be based on religious or ethical views or some traditional belief that cannot be generally justified in a pluralist society.”  See: The Power of Tolerance, A Debate (2014)

         This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance.  Appropriate, justifiable reasons can be presented to those who do not conform to the ethical or legal norm because of their subjective practices and beliefs.  In this way both rejection and acceptance of a behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms.  There is still the problem of what is a “good justification.”  However it seems to me that it is better to have this objective debate requiring justification, rather than be limited by subjective intolerance and permissive tolerance, both of which often involve imbedded prejudices and misconceptions.

         By applying this simple test it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect.  Theoretically, it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict. In weighing whether to be tolerant, rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment in this country. 

         With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the good faith concession and remain angry.  Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.  When there is no justifiable reason for an objection to a minority view or behavior, it is time to provide unmitigated acceptance with no strings attached.

         I will finish with an observation that may not be obvious to all.  When one respectfully accepts another religion, racial minority, political ideology or the like, this does not mean that one is adopting that person or belief as one’s own.  Conflict between competing interests remains and the (civilized) debate continues on a level playing field.  After all, this healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy.

THE ARAB SPRING’S NAPOLEON CHALLENGE

         At the end of the 18^th century a “European Spring” swept through France, on the heels of the American Revolution.  This movement, in the largest and most influential country on the Continent, promised the end of monarchs and the beginning of the rights of man.  The experiment was short lived and ended in horrible bloodshed as an unbalanced democracy without developed institutions ate its young.

          In the political vacuum that followed, a military genius small in stature with an unbounded ego, united the French people and influenced many others.  For those who had nothing and the fledgling middle class shopkeepers trying to grasp a purchase, his vision of a modern Roman imperialism was enticing.  Equality for all, governed by the rule of law appeared worth the price of a glorious death with a guaranteed pension for the family.  Many were Roman Catholics who feared the Protestant heretics from Britain and Sweden and the Orthodox Russians most of all.

         Napoleon Bonaparte kept Europe in flames for almost 20 years.  His ideology was shared by commoners in all corners and abhorred by the political elites. Napoleon’s propaganda spread throughout Europe in the form of pamphlets.  The information was never true but always inspirational and inflammatory.  At the beginning of important battles all the languages of Europe could be heard among the assembled soldiers fighting for Napoleon.  Geographical borders meant nothing as French victories carved out new principalities that were handed out like candy to Napoleon’s family and favorite generals.

         The Vatican States were conquered and the Pope fled. Napoleon was excommunicated from the Catholic faith as an extremist not worthy of the church’s support.  Britain stayed out of the fray until the end, paying other monarchs from Prussia, Russia, Saxony, and Sweden vast sums of money to fight the evil that sought to end the status quo.  Spies and assassins worked behind the scenes with impunity, blowing things up and killing political leaders.

         This short, incomplete summary of the Napoleonic wars has many parallels to the rise of ISIS in the Middle East.  While there are numerous differences as well, my point is not that history repeats itself.  I simply believe it is a dangerous mistake to treat ISIS as a terrorist organization like the al Qaeda of the past.  The point is also to remember that social and political change took time in the West and will take time in the Mid East.

         ISIS sees itself as a legitimate Islamic State.  It holds territory, runs municipal government, collects tolls, exports oil, passes laws and executes enemies.   It is more like the Taliban on steroids, a phenomena similar to Napoleon that seeks to conquer and rule a large geographical area in disarray.   ISIS is self contained, does not depend on outside funding and raises an army by promising glory, sexual partners and a purpose in life to dissatisfied young men.  Militarily, ISIS is run by former Iraqi military Sunnis, trained by the United States back in the day.

         In my view the United States should follow the British example from the Napoleonic Wars and stay removed from this singularly Islamic conflict as long as possible. Let those countries most affected by ISIS do the heavy lifting. This is a battle for the heart and soul of Islam with multiple agendas and forms of government in play.  Threats to our homeland are minimal.  If we take the ISIS bait and increase our military presence it will prolong the conflict and accomplish little.  With ISIS, patience and backseat containment are the best course.

         During the Napoleonic Wars, our country minded its own business, completed the Louisiana Purchase with the French and began the march West that made us into a great nation.  During the ISIS wars, we should concentrate foreign policy on Russia and the Far East, leaving the Mid East to sort out its own Napoleonic moment.

        

         

THERE IS NOTHING TO LEARN FROM THE PRIMARY CANDIDATES

         In the best of times our political culture does not leave room for intelligent, balanced debate.  As we ramp up for another primary season preceding the presidential election, this is not the best of times. For the next 18 months, candidate communications, particularly in the wide open republican primary, will be all about the sound bite, the sarcastic tweet and the canned stump speech.  The message from each candidate will be repeated over and over in a superficial, cardboard manner.  An informed electorate must look behind and beyond the primary candidates’ comments, to determine what is really in play.

         For example, when the candidates say: “I vaccinate my children, but others should have a choice”, the answer was carefully thought out and has little to do with public health.  Democratic candidates in 2008 made this statement because liberal, wealthy holistic minded donors from Silicon Valley, Palm Springs and university towns do not vaccinate their children.  More recently, republican candidates have done the same because conservative libertarians do not vaccinate their children.  In other words, campaign contributions and garnering votes trump public safety and common sense when you are running for president.

         Foreign policy positions are often complicated and not easy to define with a sound bite.  This does not stop republican candidates from making simplistic authoritative statements like: “We must arm Ukraine to fight Russian aggression.” or “We need boots on the ground to fight Isis”; and “More sanctions against Iran will result in a nuclear treaty.”  Each of these issues has layers of complexity.  Diplomats and specialists, with vast knowledge of the culture, language and history of each region are often unable to agree on a specific policy.

         To highlight one example, among political experts in Western Countries, particularly in Europe, there are many who believe arming Ukraine to fight the Russian proxies would result in a disaster.  This view holds that Ukrainian troops would become “cannon fodder” for superior pro Russian separatists and that prolonged hostilities aid Putin in consolidating power within Russia.  For a candidate to thoroughly grasp a foreign policy issue like the Ukraine takes time. Why bother, when a candidate is seeking votes, not a diplomatic consensus? Moreover, the candidate might find that the research does not comport with the views of the political base needed to win the primary.  Better to leave well enough alone, stick with sound bites and let the Obama administration do the heavy lifting.

         When New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, recently ventured across the pond to London, he sharply refused to answer questions on foreign policy.  He knew that he was in over his head with the British Press and that superficial answers would not cut it.  While he was ridiculed throughout Europe for his non answers, my guess is that his political base could not care less, as long as his attacks against the President remain strong.  It makes more sense to tell supporters what they want to hear and leave meaningful foreign policy discussions for the final Presidential debates in 2016.

         The situation is similar when primary candidates address domestic issues.  Well articulated positions on tax reform, immigration, education, funding infrastructure and the like are nonexistent during this time of primary shape shifting.  It is more expedient to attack the guys in power for their misguided and/or lack of accomplishments, than to offer a solution that may turn off a prospective voter.

         The key for candidates in primary politics is to not offend potential supporters.  This tricky process involves courting votes to the extreme right if you are a republican or extreme left a democrat.  Not committing to specific policies leaves enough wiggle room to swing back to the center if you are fortunate enough to win the party nomination. Those of us who want to understand the issues facing our country and possible solutions must not count on the primary candidates.  Wait until after the confetti at the party conventions is swept up in late summer, 2016.

SECOND POT OF COFFEE THOUGHTS

Wall Street will be a thorny issue for the candidates in 2016.  While it is clear to all that the Street benefited from economic policy since the 2008 recession and the middle class did not, its deep pockets can buy a great deal of campaign advertising.  This makes it difficult for candidates to campaign on cutting back Wall Street’s piece of the pie to provide a larger slice for the middle class.

As Hillary Clinton crafts the message for her campaign run, will she appear as the Barrack Obama Clinton, the Elizabeth Warren Clinton or the Bill Clinton Clinton?  Because she is a candidate with so much baggage, it is hard to image a message that presents her as a unique Hillary Clinton.

In the next election voters will have a clear cut policy choice regarding radical islamists and foreign policy. Some candidates will advocate “boots on the ground”, the use of force and filling up Guantanamo.  Others will call for diplomacy, strategic bombing and closing down Gitmo.

The republicans would do well to learn from the NCAA football playoff championship in choosing a presidential candidate for 2016.  As Ohio State has proven, the beaten down mid west has risen from the ashes.  Those scruffy, average looking mid western republican Governors appear more electable than the dapper high flying politicians from the coasts or the new South.

 No new ideas articulated by Obama in the State of the Union Address will actually become law in the next two years.  It is more realistic to view the President’s proposals as democratic talking points for the 2016 campaign.

The President’s decision last October to not close our airports to passengers arriving from Ebola ravaged countries in the face of media and Republican fear mongering turns out to be the right call.  Unfortunately misplaced hysteria trumped rationale decision making and voters punished democratic candidates at the polls as the Ebola crisis unfolded during the last election.   

After viewing the movie Selma, I agree that it is a great piece of film making.  However the director did not do the movie any favors by fictionalizing President Lyndon Johnson’s role in passing the Voting Rights Act.  To suggest that Johnson was not a positive influence on the process and not an ally of Martin Luther King Jr. was misplaced, given the importance of the message and the need for an accurate portrayal.

How times have changed.  Ten years ago ever American would have been thrilled at the dropping price of oil.  Today, there are many working in the shale belts who would not be disappointed if the ghost of Saddam Hussein blew up some mid east oil fields, lowering production and sending prices up.

FREE SPEECH IS ONE LESSON OF PARIS

          Watching world leaders join hands and march along with 3.7 million French citizens as a response to state terrorism was a heartwarming image. However, there is another issue which has percolated to the surface in light of the madness in Paris which must be addressed, if the deaths of the magazine victims are to be honored.   This issue has nothing to do with terrorism, how to stop it or refusing to live in fear.  It is a fundamental principle of free speech that: in a pluralistic democratic society none of us, including our beliefs, has the right to not be offended. 

          This means that when the world adopts the slogan:  JE SUIS CHARLIE (I am Charlie), it is recognizing the right of a group of magazine writers and cartoonists to satirize any individual or any group of people for any reason, no matter how politically incorrect the message may be.  The message is that the right of others to offend us is the mirror image of the right of our individual political and religious views to be legitimate and not be subject to state censure.  We cannot have one without the other.

          The employees of the French magazine were assassinated for poking fun at Islam and its leaders.  It was in fact an equal opportunity offender, taking bold shots at all religions and ethnic groups.  Many commentators believe that if this magazine tried to open a branch office on an American college campus, it would be shut down for being too offensive and divisive.

          If anything is to be learned from this horrible episode, it may be that while our political, economic and mainstream media institutions need on some level to be politically correct, the satirical media does not.  It is ok and even healthy in a democracy to offend. While America tends to err in favor of political correctness and to place burdens on free speech, I think we have gotten better at laughing at ourselves in recent years.  Using humor to criticize the Pope for being too conservative, African Americans for their urban culture, wealthy blue bloods at the Duquesne Club for caring only about money, or Jews for supporting Israel on all matters, is not racist commentary.  It is social commentary designed to make us think through the issues and to realize our view is not the only one.  The truth is that if you are being lampooned by a standup comic, the weekly newspaper the Onion, the animated show South Park or the political cartoon in the daily newspaper, you have arrived in the mainstream of American culture.  Get over it and join the debate.

          What makes this issue difficult to resolve is that extreme and racist speech is also protected by our First Amendment and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. In the rural areas of France, racism, anti Semitism and Islamophobia are gaining strength along with right wing fringe political parties.  These groups spew racist rhetoric and are every bit as dangerous to the French Republic as fundamental Islamists.  This collective insanity among homogeneous populations, to racially attack rather than to criticize, is also present, to a lesser degree, in rural America.  Interestingly, these more isolated citizens have almost no knowledge of or contact with the minorities they believe are dangerous and may cause a threat to their way of life.

          Diversity is the catalyst for constructive free speech.  In diverse communities where different cultures, backgrounds and religions meet and define the local culture, free speech tends to be productive and non threatening.  There is a balance between criticism on the one hand and acceptance of diverse views, on the other.

           The fact that Muslim immigrants in Paris have never assimilated into the overall population and remain “ghetto bound” may help explain the horrendous acts of last week.  The fact that Muslim immigrants to the United States, while far fewer, are better educated and assimilate by the second generation, may explain our good fortune in minimizing such events.

         

2015

          Each New Year begins with changes, questions and possibilities.  This year, such an overused cliché actually carries some weight.  Let us count the ways.

          Will a breath of fresh air in the Washington County Courthouse translate into an improved justice system, not just for court employees, but for the community?  First, the Supreme Court must turn the reigns of administration back to the local judiciary.  Second, our local court must function for a year with “one judge shy of a load”.  Third, administrative shortcomings must be addressed, including diversity in the hiring of court personnel and recruitment of legal professionals.

          Will the Mayor of the City of Washington run for another term or seek higher office, presumably a County job with a regular paycheck that is commensurate with the work performed?

          In Washington County, will 2015 be remembered as the year of continued boom or unanticipated bust in connection with the oil and gas industry?  As we start the year with unprecedented low oil and gas prices, will some producers be forced out of business, resulting in higher unemployment and lower revenue for the County?

          What will be the results of tax assessment reform in Washington County?  Will a fair and impartial system be met with cheers or jeers?

          Our new Governor will discover the difference between running a campaign and running a large bureaucracy with hostile elements controlling the legislature.  Will we see an aloof Wolf, a Wolf in sheep’s clothing, or a compromising Wolf? Unfortunately, a Wolf does not do well in a sea of sharks.  It might help to have President Obama on speed dial, an understanding soul mate who will face many of the same political difficulties.

          Speaking of the President, will 2015 be a year of accomplishments in domestic issues or in foreign affairs?  Holding on to Obama Care, keeping Congress from appointing special persecutors to look under the rug, getting an immigration bill passed and reaching a long term accommodation with Iran would make for a good year.

          Lastly by the end of the year, we will know the players for the 2016 Presidential campaign.  Will it be a dynasty race between a Bush and a Clinton, or an ideological battle between a far right republican and a leftist democrat?

          One thing is for sure. For political junkies and courthouse watchers, 2015 will produce a great deal of drama and excitement.