LIFE IMITATES ART ON THE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON CAMPUS

 LIFE IMITATES ART ON THE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON CAMPUS

The creative arts in general and drama in particular have always compelled patrons to think about the unthinkable by focusing popular culture on the unspoken issues of the day.  Chaucer, Shakespeare, Moliere and Montaigne “set the stage” by dancing through the political and theological raindrops to usher in the age of modern man. More recently, Oscar Wilde famously opined in his 1889 essay, The Decay of Lying, that “Life imitates art far more than art imitates life”.

Now Washington and Jefferson College has been caught up in this tradition of life imitating art, beginning with a 2016 drama piece written by Communication Arts Professor William Cameron, followed by actual events played out on the W&J Campus in April of 2017.  Cameron’s play and the issues it raises along with these events at the College have compelled me to rethink and draw new conclusions on the role of millennials in our national debate on racism and diversity.  After a bit of background, I will explain.

Professor Cameron’s play, titled Intersect was presented on campus in April 2106.  It explored the lives of several diverse students at a small unnamed liberal arts college.  Rather than present a setting of students from different races, religions and backgrounds living in harmony within a safe ivory tower, the play addresses deep seated prejudices and misunderstandings that lead to verbal and physical confrontations.  This play does not present academe as a shining light ready to lead the next generation of students into an era of respectful tolerance.  Instead the play exposes the imbedded intolerance in our future leaders. (Ironically, a second new play, This Kind of HATE, written by a student, Ty Greenwood, recently premiered at the College which also explores racial issues, not in the context of college life)

As predicted by Oscar Wilde, the issues in the play have come to life in real time on the W&J campus.  Several weeks ago a social media post, approved by the Student Government Association President, was interpreted as racist by many students.  He stepped down and the incident has sparked a deeper focus on and discussion about racism and racial insensitivity on campus.  Indirectly, diversity concerns have also moved to the forefront.

The following quote by the incoming Student Government President, an African American Student, ideally summarizes the problem: “It’s the little things that add up. If it’s a big thing it’s going to get attention. The little things stick with me.  I don’t want students to sit on it and swallow it.  I think W&J needs to act so that students know what to do when a racial incident happens.” (O.R. editorial May 1, 2017)

By all accounts, the attention focused on racism and diversity is seen as a positive development by the W&J student body, faculty and administration. This is not the late 60s when students felt it necessary to provoke conflict and take over campus buildings in order to facilitate change.  The issues first raised in Professor Cameron’s play and that later became all too real on campus appear headed for a peaceful and forward thinking resolution.

After viewing the Cameron play and conducting some further research my thoughts on millennials and the future social development of our country has radically changed. Before, I believed that age was the most important factor in lifting us away from prejudice, fear of diversity and intolerance.  I sincerely thought that as our nation became younger, better educated and more in tune with multiculturalism, old ways of thinking would disappear.

As the Cameron play demonstrates, age actually has little to do with changing these attitudes. I have now come to understand that students, who grew up in homogeneous locations with little exposure to others with different backgrounds, are more likely to share the prejudices of their parents and community.  A light bulb does not suddenly go on and enlighten them to the benefits of different life styles and backgrounds simply because they enter a community full of diverse college students.

On the other hand I have come to appreciate that early exposure to an urban environment makes all the difference.  Young people who grow up in  multicultural communities are way ahead of the curve when it comes to not simply accepting but demanding diversity.

I will provide two examples.  First, I know several millennials who were born and raised in the sprawling farmland of Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  These young people have had little social contact with anyone who is not white and/or Protestant.  Those that attended college tended to graduate from State schools in the area that offered few opportunities to meet students with diverse backgrounds. 

These individuals, now in their 30s are most often anti immigrant and believe that Blacks are not discriminated against.  They also believe that whites and Christians, the only groups with which they are associated, are discriminated against and have been left behind in the social and economic pecking order.  They have no wish to live in an urban area and do not want ethnic or religious minorities moving into their community.

 In contrast, are my recent experiences in observing the restaurant traffic in Vancouver, Toronto, Washington DC and Miami.  All of the outdoor patios are overflowing with millennials from every conceivable ethnic and religious orientation. At every table multicultural discussions are taking place. Clearly these young people are enjoying the benefits of diversity.  Moreover, these young diners are the millennials who will continue to spearhead the resurgence in diverse, urban, residential living.

I have several thoughts on addressing this diversity gap among young adults. 

  First, more geographically isolated colleges like W&J should consider having a diversity orientation session for all incoming freshman.  Unlike an urban College or University, surrounded by the fabric of ethnic diversity, Washington County has little to offer students seeking new experiences in different cultures or religions. The college is literally the only game in town. In fact, we can only hope that the College can act as a positive influence for Washington County diversification efforts.

Second, student travel, work study and internships offer opportunities to learn a new culture.  I have long been in favor of a Peace Corps type federal program that would forgive student loans in return for overseas service in third world countries following college graduation.

Third, before young people can get beyond their misinformation and prejudices about those groups with whom they have had limited contact, they need a forum to ask and receive feedback on the uncomfortable questions.  Washington and Jefferson College is the best venue to facilitate such forums.  The public should also be invited to, for example, meet “the young Muslim female student who immigrated from abroad” and learn her story.

Professor Cameron’s play, Interact, highlights the folly of ignoring diversity issues until it is too late. Events at the College show that racial and diversity conflicts are real concerns that require action.  The sooner and more forcefully these problems are addressed the better.  Then Washington and Jefferson College can become a shining example of open dialogue and respectful tolerance for the rest of our community.

VOTING FOR OUR NEXT JUDGE

 Is it possible that we care more about the NFL draft and the rookie crop of players that will perform as Pittsburgh Steelers than who will be the newest elected Judge in Washington County?  The unqualified answer is that football captures our attention and the local judicial election does not.

Many bright individuals make it their life’s work as scouts and prognosticators to evaluate talent for the NFL draft.  Countless hours are dedicated to reviewing game film, talking to former coaches and developing psychological profiles to determine who will succeed in the National Football League. Each year, books are written on the qualifications of eligible players. Steeler fans (which are more numerous than voters) eagerly follow the draft on social media, in the sports pages of newspapers and on the news.  When the final picks are made, the names of the newest Steelers are quickly committed to memory by the public.

Contrast this football draft frenzy with electing a Judge in the upcoming May 16 Primary. The candidates who win the popular vote in the democratic and republican primary (all candidates are permitted to cross file) will face off in the November election to decide who will serve the citizens of Washington County for years to come.

Election forums held by the local League of Women’s Voters and by the local Democratic party are sparsely attended.  Those who make it a point to take part in the proceedings are by and large supporters of one of the candidates.  The uninformed voting public is nowhere to be seen.

In addition to this lack of interest is the fact that the judicial primary is being held in an off election year when there are no other significant contests on the ballot.  Moreover, judicial candidates are not permitted to take positions on social issues that invigorate voters so that the campaigns tend to be low key affairs.  Ironically, those lawyers most qualified to serve as judge are often not polished politicians or campaigners.  The stellar candidates would  prefer practicing their profession to fund raising and other campaign activities.

I challenge any non lawyer reading these words to name the five individuals running for Judge.  I further challenge anyone who knows of a candidate to explain the background or legal accomplishments that qualify the individual to serve as Judge. When one considers that an elected judge may easily serve for twenty years or more and pass judgment on thousands of matters affecting the citizens of Washington County, this lack of knowledge and urgency in choosing the best candidate becomes, in my view, an affront to the democratic election process.

So what is to be done?  The bad news is that unlike the 2016 Presidential freak show, during which voters were bombarded with information on the candidates 24/7, performing due diligence on the judicial candidates takes some work.  The good news is that each voter’s investigation will be rewarding and result in a well reasoned vote not based on name recognition or what “Uncle Ralph” has to say.

First, the League of Women Voters forum, highlighting the judicial candidates, is available on YouTube. (Judicial Candidates Forum Washington County Court of Common Pleas;https://youtube/Dn_JcKy6OtE) By spending an hour watching this commercial free debate, voters will gain insightful information on each candidate’s background and qualifications.  

Second, the Washington County Bar Association has published the results of a survey of its membership, rating each of the candidates.  Attorneys who work with the candidates on a daily basis are best able to inform the voting public on which candidate will make the grade as judge.  These results were published in the April 26, 2017 Observer Reporter and can be found on the WCBA website.

Third, each candidate has a Facebook page and Website which expands on personal information and credentials permitted under the rules of professional conduct.     Most candidates will include a telephone number permitting voters to call and ask questions, again as permitted under the rules.

Voters are understandably burned out after the 2016 election.  But choosing the most competent candidate to serve as judge is too important to ignore.  So after the Steeler draft is in the rearview mirror, watch, read and ask about the judicial candidates.  Most importantly, vote in the primary on May 16.

CONGRATULATIONS ARE IN ORDER

Recently Pennsylvania Governor Wolf appointed two Washington County Commissioners to committees serving the entire Commonwealth.  This is no small accomplishment and deserves to be recognized by all Washington County residents.  First, Commissioner Harlan Shober was placed on the Pennsylvania Local Government Advisory Committee.  Second, Commissioner Larry Maggi was chosen to serve on the state wide County Probation and Parole Officers’ Firearm Education and Training Committee. In addition to these appointments Commissioner Shober is in the middle of his term as President of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.

These appointments are not ceremonial and require hard work on the part of our Commissioners. Pennsylvania has 67 counties, many with larger populations than Washington.  There is much effort involved in gaining a consensus on important issues across the Commonwealth.  

The needs and prospective of Pennsylvania counties are as diverse as the entire country and span all demographics from urban, to growing bedroom communities to farmland to low populated forested areas. Too often Philadelphia and Allegheny counties monopolize the state wide boards, committees and commissions.  This leaves less urban areas with limited voice in setting the state wide agenda or in formulating policy.

 Our Commissioners have been chosen because of their singular talents and ability to bring a unique point of view to the table.  County governments have special needs that are often ignored by our elected state representatives.  Property taxes, funding the court system and Marcellus Shale Act 13 funding are among these pressing issues.  Both Washington County and the Commonwealth are well served by these appointments and our Commissioners should be congratulated.

HOW WILL WE SAVE EXPERTISE ?

Over the past several decades my live has changed.  I now seem to know much more about matters that directly affect me and have a willingness to act on my knowledge. Twenty years ago I would have left such decisions to the experts.  Ten years ago I would have searched the internet for information, but not have acted on self knowledge.  Today, I am often willing to challenge the experts.

 Before seeing my physician, I wade through articles and blogs so that I can provide alternatives to her diagnosis and impress her with my self-knowledge on medicine.  I attempt to argue with my brother, the CPA, on how to save money on my taxes.  Like-wise I am always attempting to undermine plumbers, electricians, garden experts and those who make their living in appliance repair, even though replacing a light bulb can be a task for me. Without training or experience in many vocations, I seek to make my opinion known and sometimes dare to follow it against expert advice.

The American political landscape has seen a demise of expertise as well. When Trump campaigned on “draining the swamp” to his populist base, in practice this meant terminating thousands of government jobs of professionals with vast amounts of knowledge and experience.  Government workers in all areas, from foreign affairs to climate change to financial regulation to running the National Parks are now unemployed.

Trump has put an exclamation point on his dislike for governmental expertise by refusing to fill 533 key executive branch positions through April, 2017.  As Tom Nichols points out in his excellent new study: “The Death of Expertise”: “Donald Trump ran a one man campaign against established knowledge.”  As President he is now in a position to turn the full force of the White House on reality itself.

Of course what has changed is not me, but the availability of the internet.  What has changed in our democracy is a populist disdain for experts who tell us what to do.  Who needs a climate expert in the EPA when there are thousands of opinions a click away?   The great globalization of knowledge and communication has turned many of us, including global political leaders, into experts in areas where we have no training or experience.

 I believe that as time goes by individuals and governments will learn that an expert’s view is likely to be more informed than my (their) own.  Hopefully this will be discovered before I flood the basement while attempting to fix a pipe or the short handed, fact challenged, Trump administration wades into an international crisis that could have been avoided.

As if the internet and populism were not enough to encourage a mindset that “everyone’s opinion about anything is about as good as anyone else’s”, there is a new attack on expertise on the horizon that will provide a greater challenge.  I am referring to those mysterious concepts of “big data” and “artificial intelligence.”

Big Data (BD) has been defined as: “extremely large data sets that may be analyzed computationally to reveal patterns, trends and associations, especially related to human behavior and interactions. (It helps me to remember that “computing” is a synonym for big data.)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is understood as: “the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, including decision making.” 

As these two concepts are improved and better understood, the implications for many of our professions are enormous.  The practice of law, medicine, accounting, teaching, journalism, psychological therapy and others will change and may dramatically shift decision making from the trained experts to the individual lay person.

Consider the practice of law. BD makes it possible to review and analysis every judicial opinion in the history of American Jurisprudence.  AI will soon have the capacity to draw conclusions on the outcome of legal matters based on how all prior cases were decided, the judge who decided each opinion, counsel who were involved in each case and a host of other factors.  If this capability were for sale to the public, how would it affect the need to hire an attorney?  Would a divorcing couple who could spend a thousand dollars to learn the most likely judicial result in dividing their property and reordering their life find it necessary to retain legal advice?

BD is already having an effect on psychological therapy.  According to the April issue of Atlantic Magazine (What Your Therapist Doesn’t Know) researchers at Brigham Young University have developed psychotherapy metrics, drawing on historical data from thousands of cases, to create algorithms predicting when clients are at risk from mental deterioration.  By having clients take simple question surveys therapists incorporating this tool into their practice claim great success in preventing drug relapse, suicide and other mental health crises. As these algorithms become perfected, what is to prevent them from being monetized and from family members employing them to determine when a psychiatrist is necessary?

The teaching and journalism professions present their own unique set of problems in light of advances in BD and AI. Many young students already view teachers as the hired help and themselves as consumers of a high priced product.  This leads to them being catered to and not instructed.  Online Colleges have begun to remove “hands on” teaching from the equation. The availability of BD and AI problem solving may lead many students who are “confident but dumb” to strike out on their own. Qualified or not, they will ask themselves: “If the founder of Facebook could do it, why not me?”

Journalism faces the toughest task of all in light of BA and IA advances. Social media has already turned many of us into our own journalistic universes.  We have our own set of facts, opinions and conclusions.  Before long we will be able to use BD to find some algorithm that supports our facts and AI that supports our conclusions. The further decline of print media and unbiased reporting seems assured.

The above discussion applies in equal measure to all of our professions. The ability to self diagnosis medical conditions and unravel complex tax questions will improve as BA and AI improve.

Will these technological advances combined with the internet transform us into a society of polymaths, each of us knowing enough to solve all daily problems without consulting someone with training and experience? I doubt this will be the result. The professions I have discussed above will not go the way of travel agents, realtors and mortgage facilitators (all of which are downsized but still exist and provide valuable niche services in their brick and mortar form).  The human factor in analyzing data for professional services will never be replaced.  Many of these professions will mutate into different formats and service delivery models because of BD and AI.

 In the end, both advances will become valuable tools to make us healthier and more secure.  For example, In the case of journalism, I am convinced that old fashion “Sixty Minute” door knocking investigations will never be replaced by social media, BD or AI.

 Those of us who insist on ignoring expertise and seeking our own solutions, based on technological “cliff notes” and not based on education or experience, will ultimately fail.  Better to trust our health and our bank accounts to those experts who learn the tools of the trade and put them to work alongside the new advances in gathering and interpreting information. 

In the case of the Trump administration we must hope that expertise will regain its purchase in a disorganized, reality challenged White House before something really bad happens.

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN AMERICA

What does economic inequality mean in our American democracy?  It has certainly been a central focus of our political and social policy over the past two election cycles, beginning with the great recession.  After the stock and real estate markets crashed in 2007, 16 trillion dollars in value was lost. Shortly thereafter an African American with a message of hope became President. Because of the danger of total economic collapse, Obama could not favor the “Occupy Wall Street” socialist crowd. Instead, he worked to save the great American Banks and the auto industry. 

Despite gloom and doom forecasts, individuals with means invested wisely (it was a no brainer buying stocks at all time lows) and the financial markets rose from the ashes, stronger than before. For the wealthy the aftermath of the great recession was a greater increase in net worth.

Throughout the Obama years the economy got stronger.  But putting meat back on the bones of American commerce and industry did nothing for the middle class.  Jobs disappeared and wages stagnated.  Unsophisticated and older investors were afraid of the financial markets and their savings  did not grow in minimal interest savings accounts.

 For much of rural America the post recession economic boom was nonexistent.  Economic inequality reached an all time high in the West, with vast amounts of wealth accumulated in very few families.

In 2016, along came two very different candidates to run for the Presidency, a new kind of Republican who thrived on conspiracy theories and a Socialist from Vermont. Both seemed to favor many of the same policies designed to help the middle class.  They campaigned on keeping jobs in America and replacing free trade agreements; making health care and education less expensive and letting middle class white males move to the front of the economic line in place of immigrants and minorities.

The populist republican got elected and here we are. But will we actually see more income equality in America?  The tea leaves are not encouraging. First, the new President’s conservative allies believe in trickle-down economics that would continue to favor the wealthy who are viewed as the most talented and hard working of Americans, best able to create jobs for the struggling masses. 

Second, Trump’s white middle class base that got him elected does not have the political power of either the tea party or the traditional conservatives that now control both houses of Congress.  Trump will be forced to choose between keeping his promises to white populists who have little power and wealthy conservatives who run the government. It will be much easier to move the conservative agenda forward (witness Trump’s signing on to the Ryan health care plan) than to favor a populist movement that lacks an institutional base in Washington.

The realities of daily politics aside, recent research into the social and historical causes of economic equality are not encouraging and do not lead to simple policy remedies.  On the social side, pure luck, or the rolling of the economic dice, may be one of the most important factors in determining economic success. Consider the comments made by former Federal Reserve chairperson Ben Bernake at a Princeton University Baccalaureate speech in 2013:

“A meritocracy (often praised by conservatives as an ideal) is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement and, probably income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities and luckiest in so many other ways too difficult to enumerate – these are the folks that reap the largest rewards.”

The renowned economist, Robert H. Frank, published a short but instructive book in 2016, “Success and Luck, Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy” which concludes that inequality is driven by sheer luck.  The book demonstrates how in  our complex world, often dominated by winner take all scenarios, chance opportunities and trivial initial advantages often translate into much larger opportunities with enormous economic payoffs.  Those of us who have had success in our lives can easily point to examples of pure circumstance that have little to do with our intellect or drive to succeed.  Conversely, we all know of talented well educated people who continue to roll snake eyes and never achieved economic prosperity.

As if the influence of luck were not enough to depress us in addressing inequality, along comes a new masterful historical study of the history of inequality, “The Great Leveller” by Walter Schendel. This work concludes that governmental policy decisions do little to move the needle to make societies more equitable.  Schendel finds that only four historical events lead to economic leveling: epidemics like the Black Death; complete collapse of whole states (think the decline of the Roman Empire); revolutions and wars of mass mobilization, such as those experienced in the 20^th century. When society is leveled by one of these events, the rich lose the most and inequality is defeated until civilization recovers.

Of the book’s many examples, one that stands out is the comparison of classical Athenian culture and America during the Second World War.  In both cases the elites were forced to give up vast resources to support mass mobilization of the population for war.  How soon we forget that our top income tax rate reached 94% in 1944 and that the income leveling from trade unions and middle class expansion lasted well into the 1980s.

So where does this leave us in 2017?  Luck will certainly remain a factor and no one wants to encourage mass violence or a worldwide pandemic to achieve equality.  While some would argue that it is the goal of alt right members of the Trump inner circle to bring the established government down in flames to create a new utopia for the white middle class, it is hard to see this theory coming to fruition.

What is undisputed is that whatever was holding large scale inequality in check in America is now spent.  But this does not mean we must adopt Mr. Schendel’s conclusion that the future is more likely than not to remain stable and to have very high inequality.  Why should a sense of social cohesion and sacrifice by the wealthiest among us, for the greater good of us all, only be inspired by war or extreme social disruption?

It is my view that little will change to address income inequality during the Trump Presidency.  When his experiment fails, as it surely must, the political pendulum will swing back toward progressive values. A universal basic wage to help curb poverty will become possible.  Sharply higher income taxes for the rich and a wealth tax on inheritance will be implemented.  Thoughtful regulations will reign in abuses by corporate elites and protect the most vulnerable among us. 

  At a minimum these policies will prevent economic inequality from becoming more pronounced.  In the words of the great Social Democrat, Tony Judt: “Incremental improvements upon unsatisfactory circumstances are the best we can hope for, and probably all we should seek.”

IS THERE A CASE AGAINST DEMOCRACY?

While each day brings a new shock to the American political system, Trump is basically implementing policies he called for during the campaign.  The fact that he is doing so with little tact or political skill should come as no surprise.  It is simply Trump being Trump.  At some point his misguided experiment will either implode or become more conventional. For now, approximately one half of the electorate unequivocally believes Trump is on their side and taking appropriate measures to protect their interests.

The country will survive Trump. A more fundamental issue deserves our consideration. Does the recent election make a case against democracy? Was Plato correct that political power should be entrusted only to carefully trained educated guardians? Should we adopt a form of government that is less democratic but makes good decisions more often because it is run by what has been termed a “epistocracy” (Greek for knowledge and rule).  Is it justifiable to remove or limit the power to vote from those who are arguably irrational, ignorant or incompetent?

The political illiteracy of the voting public is well known and often the subject of late night television comedy sketches. A well dressed millennial is interviewed and cannot name the Vice President or their elected Senator and Congressman. Everyone laughs and forgets this person is a voter.

Comedy aside, how bad is America’s political literacy? A 2007 National Constitution Center Poll provides some answers.  Two thirds of Americans could not name all three branches of government, nor a single Supreme Court Justice.  More than a third could not name any first amendment rights.  42% believed that English was the first language of the Constitution and 25% believed Christianity was established as the official government religion. Only 40% knew there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Congress.

Henry Giroux, author of Zombie Politics has written: “It {emotionalism and political illiteracy} is perfectly suited for emptying the language of public life of all substantive content, reducing it in the end to a playground for hawking commodities, promoting celebrity culture and enacting the spectacle of right wing fantasies fueled by the fear that the public sphere is an exclusive club for white male Christians in danger of collapsing.” 

“Americans for Prosperity” has a nice ring to it if a disinterested voter does not realize it is the slogan of the Koch brothers designed to support their economic empire. “Make America Great Again” propelled Trump to the White House with few of his supporters bothering to research that the slogan originated in the propaganda of white supremacists calling for exclusion, intolerance and vitriol.

A recent book, Against Democracy, authored by Jason Brennan, a political philosopher from Georgetown, is instructive in this debate.  He divides the electorate into three groups.  First, are the hobbits that do not bother to learn about politics.  Second are the hooligans who follow political news with the partisan zealotry of sports fans.  Hooligans support their candidate or party under any and all circumstances. Lastly are the cream of the voter crop, Vulcans, who investigate politics with rational objectivity, respect all views and adjust opinions as the facts warrant.

 The problem is that there is no strong evidence that Vulcans exist in great numbers or that they would actually do a better job in choosing elected officials.  There are also the well founded objections of elitism and racism.  Most poor women, a group in desperate need of representation, would fail even an elementary voter qualification exam.

Clearly we need to look in other areas to improve the national political IQ.  A 2010 Pew Research Center survey of public affairs knowledge found that political literacy since the 1950s is in steady decline. The civic and social studies classes that baby boomers remember from their elementary school curriculum are a distant memory.  These classes need to be revived and quickly.

Making hobbits politically literate is important. Turning hobbits into Vulcans and not into liberal or conservative hooligans may be a more difficult task.  For too long many of us who value our political literacy have turned our  positions into a zero sum game.  The view that it is better to be right than to understand has turned us into warring camps with a great deal of bluster and little discourse.  Today, in the United States Senate there is no longer meaningful advise and consent only talk of the nuclear option.

For my part, as a lifelong democrat and progressive, I have found it necessary to reevaluate my views on the direction of the country and dig deeply into the mindset of the new American populism that brought Trump to power.

I have learned that the populist distrust toward existing political elites imbedded in both established parties is not irrational.  Trump supporters seem to care deeply about political power and are insisting that it protect them rather than oppress them.  While their views on gun control and immigration are not my own, I can now see how liberal positions on these issues foster suspicions of elite control and forced diversity.  Two recent books, one a memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, and the second a sociological study, Strangers in Their Own Land, have helped me understand the recent surge in nationalist populism. The post election Democratic Party must be receptive to this movement if it is to remain relevant moving forward.

Many of my progressive friends find solace in protesting every move made by the new administration and vowing to be as uncooperative as their political opposites during the Obama years.  Certainly immoral policy calls for stout resistance.  In the long run however, coalition building and political literacy is the answer to achieve liberal goals.

 I will end with the appropriate thoughts of James Madison, writing in Federalist #63, on the power of the executive:  "There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."

This is one of those particular moments. Democracy will survive and be the stronger for it.  In the breach, find a Trump voter and make a friend.  When his or her support for Trump turns to condemnation, capture a vote.

WHAT DO TAXPAYERS WANT?

Three hot button issues in Washington County: tax reassessment, the County Health Center and Citizens Library have something important in common.  All three are part of an ongoing tug of war between providing public funds to correct inequalities and/or pay for public services on the one hand and to provide relief to the elusive “taxpayer” on the other.  It is important for taxpayers to understand and weigh in on this debate. We must collectively consider what is an acceptable quality of life and how much we are willing to pay in the form of taxes to achieve it. We must stop electing our officials with the singular goal of “saving taxes” to the detriment of other projects and public institutions.

Many view the classic property tax revolt of the modern era to be the adoption of Proposition 13 in California.  The framers of this drastic cut in public funds argued that because bureaucrats squander collected revenues and because property taxes are unfair to older residents on fixed incomes, property taxes should be minimal. 

The right to have and preserve a home was seen as paramount to funding schools, nursing homes, parks, street repair, libraries and garbage collection.  Wealthy California citizens in their palatial estates came out on top by saving enough in property taxes to send their children to private schools.  While slowly, other types of taxing authority were created to take up the slack, many average citizens in California watched their communities deteriorate beyond repair.

What Californians and others who have adopted similar plans have learned is that you get what you pay for.  Roads and streetlights are unimportant until the former are riddled with pot holes and the latter go dark and invite crime.  Inferior schools result in lower property values and hinder business growth in the community.  Closing libraries and fewer green spaces lower the quality of life.

So what does this have to do with Washington County?   It is time for citizens, tax payers all, to take stock of what they expect from their elected officials.  Not raising taxes cannot be the only measure of success.  While we must certainly take a stand to insure that tax revenues are spent wisely, we must also insist that there be adequate revenue to maintain a public space worth living in.

The County reassessment process was expensive and is causing short term uncertainty for local officials until the appeal process is completed.  To those who claim the process was a waste of public funds I would point out two simple facts.  First, many poorer and older County homeowners now have their property taxes lowered to reflect actual values in their neighborhoods. (Ironically, in aiding the over assessed and making the process equitable, reassessment accomplished one of the major goals of Proposition 13) Second, those who have an increased tax burden should be overjoyed at their savings after many years of paying too little and if these homeowners are reflective, even proud to step up and pay their fair share.

County taxpayer dollars and the future of the County Health Center are closely linked.  It is clear that the more taxpayer dollars committed to the Home (with less privatization) the higher the level of care for residents and the more jobs preserved at the facility. 

The taxpayer dollars of municipalities who come under the jurisdiction of Citizens Library and the future of Citizens Library are closely linked.  If these municipalities continue to cut long standing library commitments, hours will be cut, employees will be laid off and as surpluses are depleted the building will be shuttered.

I understand that attacking a complicated tax reform process is an easier target for elected officials than reducing tax incentives given to large Southpointe Corporations.  I get it that the County Home is a more expedient way to save tax dollars than taking on the too rich salaries, medical benefits and pensions of County employees.  I know it is easier to get elected to Council in East Washington with one campaign promise of “no new taxes”, then to develop a contingency plan for emergency road work or to merge with another municipality.  But as a taxpayer, I do not have to agree with the easier and softer way.

For those of us interested in encouraging what is just and worth saving in Washington County it is time to throw down the gauntlet.  On my part, I urge the Commissioners to dedicate public funds to maintain and update the assessment process on a regular basis.  Second, I am in favor of maintaining the County Health Center in its present form, with no or limited privatization.  Third, my message to the East Washington Council is to reinstate the commitment of $15,000.00 in funding to support Citizens Library. 

Other responsible options to save tax dollars should be explored. In the event taxes must be increased to cover any or all of these expenditures, I welcome the increase.

Hopefully, other taxpayers will let our elected officials know that “saving and/or lower taxes” is not the sole reason for supporting their election or tenure in office.  Equitable assessments, public health centers and funded libraries matter.  Concerned citizens should be willing to speak up, suggest alternatives to save on expenditures and ultimately to pay for the projects and institutions worth preserving.