THE DARK SIDE OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS

In 2018 Washington County voters have had a unique election cycle, with two special elections packed into a busy primary season leading up to the mid-term elections. I have been paying close attention to the special election process as it has unfolded in South Western Pennsylvania.  On the whole I have decided that special elections are not designed to foster open democratic pluralism or participation.  Quite the opposite, special elections were constructed to favor a narrow political elite and provide committee members of both established parties with unreasonable control over which candidate will appear on the special election ballet.  As a result, the power that local committee representatives have lost in the primary process (endorsements from party officials mean less and less in open primaries) has been partially regained through the closed special election procedures.

First up on the 2018 election schedule was the congressional special election to replace disgraced Congressman, Tim Murphy.  Under Pennsylvania election law, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf had 10 days to call for a special election which resulted in a proclamation setting the voting date for March 13, 2018.  Because there is no election law requirement that primary elections be held for special elections, the Republican Party held a special convention on November 11 and the Democratic Party held a nominating convention on November 19, 2017.

I attended the Democratic Party affair at Washington High School as an observer.  It was clear from the packed galleries that only two candidates were in the running to win the nomination.  One portion of the bleachers were packed with supporters from Allegheny County on behalf of Conor Lamb.  Another portion was overrun with supporters of Commissioner Gina Cerilli from Westmoreland County.  The other candidates, all of whom had invested a great deal of time and shoe leather to secure the nomination, were window dressing.

 

Party bosses had taken the full measure of the field and determined that Conor Lamb offered the best opportunity to win a special election in a voting district that favored moderate to slightly conservative, Republican candidates.  Mr. Lamb’s well connected political family and Allegheny County Chief Executive Rick Fitzgerald rounded up the needed votes among their political supporters and the nomination was assured.

While the general electorate and national media were well pleased with the Lamb nomination they were disgruntled on the Republican side with the convention choice of Rick Saccone.  The well-orchestrated Republican Party procedures gave the edge to a Trump clone rather than a candidate who could actually win the traditionally Republican district, which was developing doubts about Trump, with a more acceptable platform.  Notwithstanding campaign appearances by the President, his family, and the Vice President and millions in Super PAC contributions, Lamb won by a narrow margin.

Ironically, the Democratic Party bosses seemed to lose control of the Lamb campaign after assuring he would be the candidate. Rather than hook his wagon to the Democratic or Congressional leadership, Lamb ran a grass roots campaign designed to paint himself as a new and independent voice, beholding to no one.  In my view, this independence was responsible for his victory.

The second special election confronting the residents of Washington County will take place on the same day as the May 15^th primary. This election was mandated by law after Representative Brandon Neuman was elected to serve on the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, last November.  While this contest has none of the national limelight or nonstop political advertising of the Lamb affair, it will have an important impact on Washington County citizens.

Democratic voters will face the daunting task of voting for a candidate chosen by party officials in the special election (with the winner serving in Harrisburg until the end of the year) while weighing the merits of two democratic candidates in the primary (with the winner facing off against the republican candidate in November).

The Washington County Democratic Committee called for a caucus of committee members: “for the purpose of recommending a candidate to the Pennsylvania State Democratic State Executive Committee.” To keep tight control over the process, on a bitter cold day when all of Washington County was either attending or watching the Steelers-Jaguars AFC Playoff game, the caucus was held in the local VFW Post 191.  Not surprisingly, only 27 of the estimated 58 qualified committee members showed up for the vote.  To seal the deal, vote by proxy was not permitted.  

This special election caucus was even less pluralistic than the Conor Lamb nominating convention by taking steps that guaranteed a low turnout of non-committed committee members.  As a result, there were few eligible caucus members with an open mind who were willing to listen to the candidates speak before casting their vote.

The favored choice of Party Leaders, political neophyte Clark Mitchell Jr. won the caucus, with the narrowest of votes, garnering 14 supporters. All other opponents bowed to party pressure and did not file to run in the May primary against Mitchell, with the exception of attorney Joseph Zupancic.

As the campaign winds its way to the May primary I have noticed the same grass roots swing toward the unendorsed candidate, Zupancic, that Conor Lamb experienced in the earlier special election. While Party bosses are supporting a candidate they can control, voters are examining the bonafides of both candidates to determine who will best represent them as an elected official over a full two-year term.

Independence appears to be a virtue as Zupancic goes out into the community and explains why he is running and the goals he hopes to accomplish. (all voters are urged to review the websites of both candidates) Moreover, there is a developing apprehension among knowledgeable democrats that unless voters decide to split their vote and favor Zupancic in the primary, that Mitchell could lose the special election and win the primary.  This would all but guarantee that Republicans would control the 48^th district for the first time in many years.

What could be done to make special elections more democratic? It is not a good result to have lawmakers chosen by their respective political party’s rather than by winning through open competition.  It is not a good result to foster confusion in the electorate by holding a special election and a primary for the same position on the same day. 

In smaller races involving fewer voters I would recommend an open caucus procedure, organized and run by each state/local party, to permit all registered voters to participate. This would insure wider voter participation and avoid the expenses of holding a government run primary to determine each candidate in the special election.  And I would not hold the open caucus on the day of a Steeler game.

For larger races where the organization of a caucus is untenable, I would permit the Governor to appoint a placeholder from the same party as the displaced lawmaker.  The placeholder would not be permitted to run in the primary at the end of the term, giving no individual or party an undue advantage when running for a full term.  This would provide representation for citizens without an elected official until the end of a lawmaker’s term, save public funds by not requiring a special election, avoid all the confusion to voters that special elections invoke, and reset a level playing field at the time of the primary.

My suggestions are not the only solutions to insure open special elections with maximum participation. But back room politics filled with cigar smoke and back slapping should be a thing of the past in American politics.  Even the appearance of such is an affront to the modern voter.  There are better ways to fill vacant positions than party dominated special elections. 

(Disclosure: I serve on the Joe Zupancic campaign committee. None of my views on special elections have been vetted by or adopted by the committee or the candidate)

THE YEAR OF THE VULCAN

Last year I wrote a published commentary about the American electorate.  Borrowing from an excellent book Against Democracy, authored by Jason Brennan, a political philosopher from Georgetown I made the following comments: 

“Mr. Brennan 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.”  

After the recent special elections in Alabama (for a Senate seat) and in our own 18^th District (for the House of Representatives) I have changed my mind.  Vulcans are alive and well in greater numbers than our political culture would suggest and are capable of making wise, informed choices.  What Mr. Brennan did not investigate in his book and what I did not consider is that we need Vulcan candidates for office as much as we need Vulcan voters.  Where was Mr. Spock when we needed him to explain such an obvious logical point to us?

What does a Vulcan candidate look like?  Examine the Connor Lamb campaign and the answer is clear. A Vulcan candidate does not identify with the lightning rods of his party. Nancy Pelosi was rejected outright and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were not invited to speak at rallies. Joe Biden was welcome.  A Vulcan candidate puts his ear to the ground of his district and listens to what the voters are saying.  He takes to heart the sage words of Tip O’Neal that: “All politics are local.”  He does not criticize the President, sticking with local issues.  He carefully articulates his moderate positions.  He refuses help from Super PAC propaganda machines because to accept their help is to lose his message. 

Conor Lamb was all these things and more.  Because the special election did not involve a primary challenge, local Democratic leaders were able to carefully vet and choose their candidate.  They wanted a Vulcan moderate to enter the contest in what was largely a Republican district.  It helped that the opponent, Republican Rick Saccone, was a right wing hooligan, claiming that he was “Trump Before Trump was Trump” and relying on visits from the White House to put him over the top.

Of course under normal circumstances the bane of Vulcan candidates (and Vulcan voters) are the primaries. To return to Mr. Brennan’s terminology, primaries are controlled by ideological “Hooligans”.  It is difficult for a candidate to maintain a moderate, measured portfolio in a primary race that includes tea party candidates in Republican races and progressives in Democratic ones.  The hooligans control the process and the message.

I would argue that an excellent example would be Hillary Clinton who started out as a candidate acceptable to Vulcans but who was forced to the left because of the Bernie Sanders primary challenge.  As a result, she lost Vulcan voters to Trump.  Only 14 months later, the same voters refused to be swayed by two Trump visits to the District. Vulcans voted for the Democrat, Conor Lamb, because he better represented their views.

 Vulcan voters are turned off by the ideological battles that surface in the primaries. Because many are registered Independents, they could not vote anyway.  As a result, general elections often feature Hooligan candidates that are not attractive to Vulcan voters.

So what are Vulcan candidates and voters to do?  The 2018 mid-term elections are shaping up to make this the year of the Vulcan.  If Democratic leaders are to learn from the Conor Lamb experience they must rethink the primaries and offer grassroots support to those candidates who are a good fit for the local Vulcan electorate, not the Hooligan ideological base.

After watching progressives support Conor Lamb in large numbers I believe placing moderates in general elections will garner more votes than any alternative. Constructing a congressional ring-fence around the Trump presidency and not ideology must become the primary goal.

I am mindful that because all politics are local this is not a winning prescription in traditionally progressive Urban areas. But for the rust belt congressional districts that saw Trump capture a majority in 2016, the Conor Lamb formula may be the only way for the Democratic Party to regain a majority in the House of Representatives.

To my progressive friends, I would remind them that I share their pain that the independent electorate is not yet ready to be “all in” with progressive positions.  Our time will come as the country’s voters continue to change in age and ethnic composition.  For now, the social and economic havoc caused by the Trump administration must be curtailed and every moderate Vulcan must be given a reason to join the cause.  While progressive hooligans may be our favorite voters, Vulcans are not far behind.

A TOUGH TASK FOR VOTERS

These are confusing times for Washington County voters.  In a matter of weeks, the March 13^th special election in the 18^th congressional district has morphed into the hottest election story in the Country and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a redistricting map recasting all Congressional Districts in the Commonwealth.  

The result is that both candidates seeking the voters favor in the 18^th district, Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone will not reside in the newly constructed 18^th district. By all appearances both will run for office in congressional districts other than the 18th in the 2018 primary later this year, no matter which candidate wins the special election.  The effect is that on March 13^th, voters will likely elect a representative who will spend the rest of 2018 running for a different office with different constituents.

If that were not enough, this entire election cycle is under the cloud of Russian interference, fear of hacking at polling places and new reports of electronic voting machines that cannot be trusted to deliver accurate results.

So what is a voter to do? I have touched base with some long established politicos from both parties.  They all agree that this election cycle will be the most challenging that any local voter is likely to face in his or her lifetime.  In my view there are three likely outcomes for prospective voters.

First, voters can choose to throw up their hands in light of new election dates on the calendar, modified congressional districts, changing candidates and buckets of online negativity and not vote at all.  This would be a shame in light of the significance of these elections.  In the March 13^th Special Election, no two candidates could be further apart in their support/disdain of the Trump Presidency.  Think of this contest as the “Spanish Civil War” before the main event midterm elections in the Fall.  Whichever party wins will gain untold national momentum as the Democrats seek to take control of the House of Representatives.  

It is true that in the special election voters will be sending a message on their principles rather than electing an individual to look after their long term interests.  This is a good thing and not a wasted effort.  At this crossroads in our political life, such a referendum on the Trump presidency is necessary and valuable.

Second, voters may become caught up in the political crossfire between partisan actors over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to issue a remedial redistricting map this close to the congressional elections.  Any attempt to undue the Republican gerrymandered districts was bound to upset them and to please Democrats.  Not surprisingly in the present political climate, the redistricting has caused a firestorm, including immediate appeals by both the Pennsylvania and National Republican parties and calls to impeach all of the Justices who voted for the redistricting.

Voters will be unable to influence any of the turmoil over redistricting in the short term.  Most lawyers and political scientists believe the remedial map will stay in place until after the 2018 midterms. 

Nonetheless, I encourage all voters to read the two readily available Supreme Court opinions, the first ordering the redistricting and the second issuing the revised remedial map. The opinions are well reasoned and make a strong case for the unconstitutionality of the Republican prepared district maps.  It is clear that all points of view were considered and that the remedial map now in effect was the work product of nonpartisan experts from around the country.  The remedial map does not reflect any partisan bias. 

While some would take issue with the timing of the opinions, the State Supreme Court does not control when matters are brought before them. Not unlike the earlier challenge to reassessment in Washington County, when a government process is found to be unconstitutional, it must go, the sooner the better.  Moreover, our Supreme Court recognizes that it is ultimately the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth’s legislature and Governor to replace the remedial map with their own version that passes constitutional muster.

Lastly, voters can decide to not avoid these important elections because of the confusion, and not to get caught up in partisan diversions from their civic responsibility. The task of voters in these unique elections is the same as any other.  To study the candidates (even as their faces change), study the issues, make common cause with fellow citizens and to vote.

The unique nature of the March 13^th special election and midterm elections that will follow with unfamiliar congressional districts will require close attention and hard work on the part of our electorate and those organizations that have a duty keep them informed. This newspaper, the Washington County Bar Association and other civic groups are needed to explain the process and unwind the confusion. It must be carefully pointed out by respected nonpartisan entities that the election process is not being manipulated for partisan gain, it is being improved to meet the requirements of our constitution.

The upcoming elections are about more than simply getting out the vote.  They are a true test of voters doing their due diligence, of avoiding partisan noise and of maintaining trust in our most important democratic right.

“THERE IS SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE, WHAT IT IS AIN’T EXACTLY CLEAR”

There is something happening here when the attention of the national political juggernaut turns toward Southwestern Pennsylvania and will keep us in the spotlight until March 13th, 2018. What may not be exactly clear is that this is the day that has been set aside for a special election to decide who will fill the remainder of disgraced Republican Congressman Tim Murphy’s seat in the 18^th Congressional District. 

This unusual special election involves voters in portions of Greene, Washington, Allegheny and Westmoreland counties.  What is also not exactly clear is which voters will be voting in the special election and again in the May 15, primary in the 18^th District.

  On January 22, 2018 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order finding unconstitutional the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011.  The court held that the Act cannot be used: “In elections for Pennsylvania seats in the United States House of Representatives commencing with the upcoming May 15, 2018 Primary.”  But for March 13th an exception was carved out and the special election: “shall proceed under the Congressional Redistricting Act and is unaffected by this order.”  The end result is that voters for the March 13th special election may not be the same voters on May 15^th, the scheduled primary for the full two-year term in the 18^th District.  Confusing yes.  But the show must go on. 

To emphasize the importance of this contest President Trump flew into Pittsburgh on February 18^th to heap praise on the Republican candidate, Rick Saccone.  Mr. Saccone is in many ways Trump’s “Mini-Me” avatar who proudly boasts he was: “Trump before Trump was Trump.”

 That is, Trump without the billions of dollars, golf courses or trophy wife. But Trump in all things political when it comes to: racist immigration policies that fly in the face long accepted norms; contempt for women’s rights; a tax bonanza for the wealthy and corporations; and a promise to cut social programs for the less fortunate. 

Mr. Saccone has further endeared himself to President Trump by introducing a Resolution in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives calling for 2012 to be declared the “Year of the Bible.”  During his tenure in the House he has received a 0% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 6% rating from the Sierra Club on environmental issues.

Saccone’s Democratic opponent is attorney Conor Lamb, a fresh political face with impressive credentials to bring to the table.  He attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate and earned his law degree from its prestigious law school. Lamb’s stellar professional career has been as a federal prosecutor, bringing to justice drug dealers responsible for the opioid crisis.  Prior to that he served as a Captain in the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserves, where he prosecuted and obtained a conviction from an officer charged with sexual misconduct.

Unlike Saccone who has hitched his wagon to the Trump party line, Lamb is running as a moderate Democrat with an independent voice to bring to Congress. He has said: “It is clear this Congress is not working for the people.  I think we need new leadership (including Nancy Pelosi) on both sides.”  The bedrock issues of his campaign include: bringing an end to the opioid crisis; seeking an immediate infrastructure bill; fighting for continuation of affordable health care; protecting Medicare & Social Security; finding a solution for student loan relief and supporting modern energy development.

Even though the special election is almost two months away, both Saccone and Lamb have bought up blocks of media to place their respective positions before the local voters.  Significantly, Saccone is relying on large conservative and corporate Super PACS to raise money while Lamb is counting on individual donations to fund his campaign.

So what is all the fuss about and why should voters trudge to the polls for a one off election in early March?  First and foremost, political pundits of all persuasions view this special election as an advanced preview of the all-important November 2018 midterm elections, where the Democrats hope to recapture the House of Representatives.

Many nationwide political questions will become clearer after our local March 13^th special election.  Can a moderate Democrat win in a conservative Pennsylvania House district?  What will be the Democratic Party’s appeal with white working class voters in the rust belt who voted for Trump in 2016?  Will these voters feel betrayed by a President who promised he would fight for them, but instead has favored corporate America?  Does the 58% of Americans who disapprove of the President’s job performance include a majority of voters in the 18^th Congressional District?  

The optics of this election are enormous and the result far outweighs the importance of this one congressional seat.

Apart from the campaign and the candidates, much work is still to be done by local elected officials, local newspapers and organizations like the League of Women Voters in getting the word out and explaining the background and need for this special election. It is not enough to leave voters with the idea that “something is happening here” without ‘making clear” the purpose and importance.

Luckily, voters need only look back to last month to understand the significance of special elections.  The historic Alabama Senate special election which saw another moderate Democrat and prosecutor, Doug Jones, capture the seat over a Trump supported candidate, Roy Moore, gained national attention in the weeks before Christmas.  While Moore had been accused of pedophilia and other improprieties, he was expected to win because Alabama had not elected a Democratic Senator since 1992.

Moreover, it will be hard to miss the fact that an election is taking place given all the media attention that will be focused on this race.  The outcome will be viewed as a referendum on President Trump’s first year in office.

 I have met Mr. Lamb and was struck by his calm demeanor and young vibrant Kennedyesque appearance.  You know right away that you are in the presence of the real deal.  Many voters will experience this face to face opportunity with the candidate as Conor schedules events and knocks on doors throughout the district.  Those who take the time to meet with him will find a candidate more than ready for the challenge.

 It is not often that local voters get to decide an election with such national implications and to make a statement to the rest of the country.  It is not often that the two candidates offer such a stark contrast on their views of the nation and how to address its problems.  But this special election offers more opportunity than simply meeting the candidates and voting.  

If you are depressed with the Steeler’s loss or the weather, bring some excitement your way and get involved in the process.  Become a volunteer for a candidate and see for yourself what is happening here.  Help clarify for your friends and neighbors why this special election is so important. 

 You will be helping to make history in this landmark political year of 2018.  And when the May primary and November midterm elections roll around, you can do it all over as Lamb again battles Saccone for a full two-year term as your elected representative in Congress.

SONIC BOOMERS

My wife and I were born weeks apart in September, 1951.  No doubt both of us the product of some over the top New Year’s Eve celebrations.  But we are also part of that large bump in post war demographics known as “the baby boomers”.  This term has come to represent the 76 million American children born between 1946 and 1964, without doubt the most influential population explosion in our nation’s history.

Looking back and comparing our childhoods to the present norms, it seems a miracle we have made it this far.  Many of the mothers who brought us into the world smoked and drank with abandon. I was raised on gallons of unpasteurized milk from the local dairy farmer.  Meals were meat and potatoes seven days a week. The only fish on the menu were the occasional breaded fish sticks.  Sugar, butter and salt were considered a necessary part of our diet.  Second hand smoke was everywhere we lived and went. 

Vehicles must have been death traps.  Adults drank and drove with little fear of being arrested. Seatbelts at first did not exist and then were not mandatory. There were no car safety seats or air bags.

Dangerous disease and viruses were prevalent during our childhoods.  Most of us suffered through the chicken pox, strep throat and the mumps and measles.  The hundreds of anti-bacterial products now available to contain all the bad microbes did not exist.

As children we were often subjected to those with pedophilic proclivities with our parents none the wiser that such a psychological profile existed.  Schools, religious institutions and sports/scout activities were fertile grounds for abuse.  Our parents were thrilled that a third party was actually taking an interest in their children.

Many of us suffered from learning disabilities that were not recognized beyond the label of “underachieving student.”  Dyslexia, ADHD and autism were rarely diagnosed and those who were afflicted struggled through school wondering what was wrong.

Young women were treated like second class citizens, by parents, guidance counselors and other mentors who steered bright young ladies into home economics, secretarial work and elementary school teaching.  Women who did break into the male world were under constant sexual and emotional harassment, doing the same work at reduced wages.

In 1960 64% of white Americans graduated from high school but only 39% of black Americans.  The comparable numbers for college graduates were 12% white and 5% black.  Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Jim Crow prevailed in the South, with major social, education and work barriers hindering boomers of color from making their way in the world.

Against this gauntlet of disadvantages and horrors, how is it possible that so many of us survived in relatively good emotional and physical shape?  After all, 1950s America looked like a third world country when compared to the medical, social and technological advances available today.

The truth is, we had some cultural and social assets that served us well. First, helicopter parents did not exist. Adults wanted us out from under their feet.  As a result, we had more bruises and broken bones, but became more independent.

 Moreover, baby boomers were born into a more forgiving, slower environment in which life did not happen at the speed of social media or 24/7 news cycles.  Early on, our best adventures were in the nearby woods or as far as our bikes would take us on a lazy summer day.  We enjoyed talking face to face with interesting people.  We enjoyed reading.  As we became older, hitch hiking across the nation, or through another country opened our eyes to the world. Growing up felt real, populated by new experiences that did not come from a smart phone.

Unlike today’s young adults, we outgrew our smaller childhood homes and had little desire to return to live in our parent’s basements.  For those of us who wanted a total break from our upbringing, the major metropolitan areas offered cheap rent as we forged our careers.  For those of us that valued close knit communities and stayed closer to home, there were plenty of opportunities to build for the future. 

As teenagers and twenty somethings we were not a comfort to our elders.  For our parents, new ways of thinking, new modes of appearance and dress, new sexual mores, new music and new methods of getting intoxicated were beyond the pale. Most of us outgrew this phase of social experimentation and settled into lifestyles that were very different from our earlier actions and beliefs.  Political radicals turned into financial advisors and commune dwellers into suburbanites.

Boomers fought the war in Vietnam and protested against it with equal fervor. This major split in political views would continue to define the boomer generation from the 60s through the election of Donald Trump.  Boomer conservatives, the “somewhere” adults, were deeply rooted and suspicious of the constant social/economic churn. Conversely boomer liberals, the “anywhere” adults, tended to be urbanites and comfortable with change.  Following these characteristics, boomers lined up on opposite sides of the political divide, and determined the outcome of many national elections.

As we boomers enter our retirement years, those of us now populating the landscape in our mid 60s do not consider ourselves old.  Many of us expect to live to at least one hundred (God help our children). We look forward to using our experience to spread wisdom among the younger generations.  Never mind that we had our chance to improve the world and often made a mess of things. 

Baby boomers still have some teeth left because of our large numbers. Elected officials would be well advised to give deference to AARP and not poke retired boomers by attacking Medicare or Social Security.

Whatever the future holds for our final chapters, one thing is certain, the world will never see our likes again.

THE ATTACK ON RATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

I thought Dave Ball was on to something important when he posed the question, Totalitarianism in America? in the commentary section of the 11/26/17 Observer Reporter.  His comments on the dangers of “eliminating independent thinking in society” were spot on and deserve consideration.  Unfortunately, his conclusion that progressive democrats and the “new world order” were the sole cause of the swing away from democratic principles, was a disappointment. 

Mr. Ball went from the profound to the partisan, ending his article with this reference to a popular right wing conspiracy theory (the new world order) in which a secretive liberal elite is dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties. In fact, all political ideologies in America have been responsible for eroding rational political discourse and responsible governance.

 Political discourse has been defined as the exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve societal problems.  Rational political discourse provides the framework that permits a pluralistic society to function. All political views should seek to find common cause to work within this framework and to achieve responsible governance.

For our democracy to function properly elected officials must work within an environment of ongoing negotiation which seeks to reconcile the views of citizens with different social, economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds. 

  In the American political system, rational discourse is the referee that sets and enforces the rules for those with an ideology to pursue.  The game itself is messy and never ending.  But no political win or loss can be considered final because the ideas of the loser may become the wiser choice as the chess game continues, and opinions change over time. Only rational discourse and the need for responsible governance remain constant.

I could not agree more with Mr. Ball’s observation that there is a pervasive: “focus on eliminating critical and independent thinking at all levels of society.”  This troubling trend steps outside the rules of rational discourse which are based on “respectful tolerance” in which participants are in conflict but agree to listen to each other on a level playing field.  Instead the American public and its elected officials have too readily adopted both intolerance, where no discourse takes place and permissive tolerance where there is discourse, but unfair playing conditions placed on others, usually minorities.

How do we place the rational discourse referee back in the game and return to the playing field of respectful tolerance? First there must be the recognition that no political ideology is a replacement for rational discourse and responsible governance.  A political actor may hold an ideology within the democratic framework, but must be ready to listen and to compromise.  Unfortunately, each of our prevalent ideologies within American democracy are guilty of doing just the opposite.  This makes our polity operate more like an ongoing battle between fixed religions or one based on tribal loyalties and less like the pluralist system of conflict/compromise between competing views that was envisioned by our founders.

No political ideology can claim clean hands when it comes to undermining rational discourse.  I will start in my corner of the playing field with liberalism. Since the end of WWII and with greater zeal, since the end of Soviet Communism, liberals have sought to replace elements of nationalism with elements of “global equality” and “global democracy”.  Open trade, open borders and transnational legal systems seemed like the wave of the future in 1990.

Following a devastating recession, many Americans did not buy into this vision.  These voters were convinced that such policies attacked their civic identity and that liberalism no longer spoke to their needs. Similar opposition occurred all over the Western World as liberal policies on trade and immigration were vilified. Clearly for progressives to regain the high ground, not only morally in the age of Donald Trump (hopefully only a very strange and temporary outlier) but also politically as an active participant in achieving pluralist solutions, we must open our minds and find a new path that more voters can identify with.  Not unlike the philosopher Kings praised by Plato in the Republic, liberals thought the game plan was beyond reproach and that the country would follow.  We were wrong on both counts.

On a second point, liberals have been too open to embracing identity politics at the expense of overlooking policies that are attractive to all Americans.  For example, once Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton identified prospective Trump voters as “deplorables” there was little opportunity for liberals to engage them through rational discourse, either during or after the election.  Moreover, Clinton speeches praising and evoking the rights of Immigrants, minorities and the LPGT community were interpreted by many white Americans as a plan to leave them behind.

Conservative ideology has offered no better track record in encouraging rational discourse. The Republican party has welcomed tea party ideologues into their ranks, who by definition refuse to compromise on social issues, taxes or spending. 

Moreover, the Republican goal of staying in power over adopting respectful tolerance and a level playing field has resulted in their embrace of a populism that appeals to some of the worst instincts of their constituency.  This tendency has included the support of candidates and elected officials who are guilty of exploitation, dehumanization, cruelty and the abuse of power in order to achieve political goals.   Now there are few elected Republicans who are willing to seek bi partisan solutions on a level playing field. There is no willingness to utilize rational discourse in order to achieve responsible governance.

Lastly, there are libertarians, who perhaps are the most ideological of all voters. Under their worldview individual liberty trumps equality, the need for regulations and government involvement in many areas of social and economic life. Libertarians, once the forgotten sister of American politics received a huge boost when the Supreme Court issued its holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

Now political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and corporations have the same rights as individuals in providing unlimited political contributions.  Much of the funding contributed by billionaires and corporations has been earmarked for libertarian and conservative positions. The resulting media driven political propaganda is most often inflammatory and does nothing to encourage rational discourse.

 Libertarians generally believe that all forms of property rights should be beyond the reach of the state and that state functions should be limited to such matters as national defense, law enforcement, curbing infringements on property rights and operating a judicial system.  Less state involvement changes the rules of rational discourse by seeking to eliminate many issues that other voters care about from the political arena.

Democracy by itself can never guaranteed rational discourse and reasonable governance.  The citizens must demand such conduct from their political leaders.  The world is full of absolute majorities that appear democratic but impose their will on minorities without any sense of respectful tolerance.  The Unites States has avoided this outcome only because our founding fathers had the foresight to insist on The Bill of Rights and such institutions as judicial review, separation of powers, supermajority voting rules, and federalism. These checks and balances have greatly reduced the danger of a majority espousing a single ideology from turning the nation into a kind of totalitarian state.

Even with these constitutional safeguards, we need rational discourse and responsible governance to weed out morally unacceptable lawmakers, avoid stagnation, and to minimize partisan law making. Ideologues may not like the rules of open rational discourse, but they do need to follow them if we are to return to governance that encourages all views to be shared, considered and voted on. After all, the ideology in the majority, will someday be in the minority and be thankful the referee is overseeing the playing field.

In the end, a good, just and fair society depends on well thought out insights into our ever changing culture and the world around us. Open discussion, delivered by elected officials with competence and clarity, not conformed solely to ideology, will guarantee rational results and the survival of our constitutional democratic republic.

WHY I AM GRATEFUL THAT DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT

There is a ritual that I perform each evening as an attitude adjustment and to maintain some balance in a world full of uncertainty. The ritual involves simply recalling the best and worst event that I experience each day and to be grateful for both.  I try to give back the best event to the deserving source and not take credit for myself. (My wife usually gets the nod) With greater difficulty, I try to find something rewarding or a teaching moment in the worst event of the day that might support some positive gratitude.  In viewing the Trump presidency through this lens I surprisingly found several reasons to be grateful for what the country is enduring, despite the anger, disruption and scandal our President invokes.

Over the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats lost, on net, more than one thousand elected offices, including thirteen Senate seats, sixty-nine House seats, twelve governorships, and more than nine hundred state legislature seats. Republicans dominated Congress and state governments, and then Donald Trump became president.  Clearly, Democrats were heading in the wrong direction well before Trump was elected.  Moreover, while President Obama was in office, much of the time his party was not able to govern.

While I supported Hillary Clinton and mourn the damage that the Trump presidency has wrought to progressive policies and democratic principles, I am not sure that a Clinton presidency would have done much to turn the tide of Republican gains.  I fear her election to our highest office would have resulted in years of rancor and calls for investigations, uniting the Republican Party as never before.  With a Clinton victory, Republicans could have quickly moved past Trump and added to their number of elected officials across the political landscape, all the while blaming her for problems both domestic and foreign.

 Clinton did not win and a man with dubious Republican credentials, questionable moral character and no interest in party unity, now heads the Republican Party.  Whether he is replaced, impeached or remains the laughing stock of the civilized world for the remainder of his term, the Trump presidency cannot end well for Republicans.  I believe the traditional pendulum effect that moves the electorate away from the party in power will be magnified because of the Trump presidency and his party’s inability to coalesce around him or to move the country forward.  Assuming that Democrats stop gloating over Trump gaffes and get to work with grass roots campaigns, the fall out will give democrats a distinct advantage in 2018, 2020 and well beyond.

Second, I am grateful that the Trump election has performed a valuable service in compelling the reorganization of the Democratic Party.  It has united both moderate and progressive Democrats (and some Republicans) with the singular goal of replacing Trump and his nationalist-nativist views. The Trump election has provoked serious soul searching among Democratic Party officials as to whether the party made fatal errors in forsaking previous supporters, most notably white high school graduates.  It has forced the party to begin a new post Clinton era where fresh faces must be groomed to carry the banner in upcoming national elections. 

Thanks to Trump, while no one knows who will lead the Democratic Party out of the wilderness, I am certain there will be plenty of qualified candidates to do so.  This is one of those moments when one step backward could easily result in three steps forward, as the next FDR, JFK or Barrack Obama comes into focus.

Third, race relations, LGBT rights, women’s issues and religious tolerance all appeared to have made significant gains over the eight years Obama was in office.  I am grateful that President Trump has exposed this fallacy and has shined a bright light on how much work remains to be done. 

Having a President who: belittles women, openly supports white supremacists and the Confederacy, has no regard for the civil rights of immigrants or refugees, calls for the exclusion of transgender individuals from the military and who attacks the rule of law, has caused a national debate to open up on each topic.  These rigorous and informative debates have been focused on the most important social issues of our day and in some cases achieved positive results. 

Confederate statues have been removed from public display and moved to museums; more urban areas have declared themselves sanctuary cities; immigration restrictions have been denied by the courts following Trump’s incendiary comments; and women in business, the arts and in elected office have declared themselves the victims of sexual harassment.  In the case of women’s rights, a sea change is sweeping the country as dirty secrets are exposed and powerful male abusers fall faster than dead trees in a high wind.

Fourth, I am grateful that political scientists, journalists and historians have quickly weighed in on the Trump election and presidency. Books on the meaning of impeachment; the 25^th Amendment which deals with removing a president from office; and writings on the separation of powers are appearing with great frequency.  Elected officials are writing tomes on what it means to be a republican, or a democrat in the age of Trump. Experts are pouring over the 2016 election results to gain insight on the Trump victory.  The general public needs to be informed about the Trump fallout, beyond what cable news and sound bites can supply. These books and articles will help.

Lastly, as a progressive Democrat, I must admit there is a certain perverse gratitude in being “outside the walls” and placing those in power under constant siege after eight years of surviving unrelenting bombardment from “inside the walls”, defending Obama.  And now I get to laugh at all the political cartoons and late night comedic jokes directed at a president who each day provides new material, like no other in history.

Of course, I would not wish the disaster that is Trump on any of us.  While his missteps are laughable, the progressive advances in policy he has erased may not be recovered for decades.  But Trump is giving us valuable insight into the elasticity of our democratic institutions and how they function under stress. 

When I can agree with the commentary of conservatives George Will and Peggy Noonan and see them making some of the same points as liberals Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof, I know that there is hope for the American political system. I am truly grateful that we are learning from all that has transpired so that we can work to prevent it from happening again.