TIME TO TRY SOMETHING NEW

Let me be clear.  I have a love-hate relationship with social media.  On the one hand, I think the proliferation of Facebook, twitter, internet news sites and blogs has encouraged many individuals, not otherwise inclined, to become more active in politics by choosing sides and expressing opinions.  But, on the other hand, social media has opened and intensified a partisan animosity which often make rational and reasonable arguments impossible.

It is not that the poison pen has not existed throughout history when it comes to biting political rhetoric. Consider this opinion from a conservative in the early 19^th century, not pleased with the socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who was against England’s involvement in the first World War: “The hag sedition was your mother and perversity begot you. Mischief was your midwife, and misrule your nurse. You are a freakish homunculus, germinated outside of lawful procreation.” The author, Henry Arthur Jones truly gave some thought before publishing this elegant way of calling his political adversary a bastard.

Consider also Cicero and his scathing attacks against his opponents in the Roman Senate.  Both his writings and his oratory left no political adversary unscathed.  Lastly, consider the inflammatory pamphlets circulated before and during the American and French Revolutions.  The content was not only scandalous against the ruling monarchies, it was treasonous and came with a death sentence if the phamphleters were arrested.

The difference, between then and now, is that prior to the internet, biting political opinion was accompanied by background information that supported the opinion.  Moreover, many days would pass between the time a thought was developed, pen was put to paper, the publication of the written material and ultimately the distribution to the public of a partisan point of view.

Today, the 280 characters permitted by twitter can release an opinion to the world without much thought and with little factual basis to support the assertions.  Sound bites are re-posted millions of times with no supporting documentation.  Images are photo shopped to make a point that has little to do with the original image.  Social media participants are being made angry and returning fire, based on emotion, with little or no fact based research or time for reflection to consider their positions.

 Our problem is not that citizens disagree and argue.  Red Sox fans will never become Yankees fans no matter what facts are placed before them.  Republicans are not likely to become Democrats simply because the latter are upset over comments made by a Republican President. The problem is the tone and quality of our interactions, made worse by the speed and content of social media and by cable news.

I was intrigued by a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal: To Get Along Better We Need Better Arguments by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of ethics at Duke University (WSJ 7/14/18).  The author’s thoughts are a summary of his new book: Think Again, How to Reason and Argue.

The professor starts from the premise that: “if your primary goal in arguing is just to stir up people who already agree with you, you might be happy to use rhetorical tricks.”  He recognizes that “not every audience will listen to reason” but that if we want to improve our political climate: “good arguments can help a lot when presented in the right way.”

The essay points out three qualities to develop good arguments: “be candid”, “be respectful” and “be patient.” A candid speaker or writer will spell out assumptions that are not facts and carefully articulate each premise leading up to a conclusion.  Respect is gained through rational conflict that recognizes the established facts made by the opponent.  Patience abhors twitter and sound bites.  It recognizes that a rational argument takes time and work to develop.  Listening and then responding to the opponent is an important part of the process.

Sometimes to be credible it is important for the commentator to walk the walk.  This would be one of those times. Accordingly, I propose a formal (or Parliamentary-style) debate challenge, with the Observer Reporter providing the political topic, the Judges and choosing a location accessible to the public.  There would be two debaters on each team representing the conservative and progressive positions.  Following the debate there would be a discussion with the audience.  I volunteer to be one of the members of the progressive team.

I am not sure anyone would show up to listen or that the public cares to participate in a formal debate where facts matter.  I do know that it cannot be detrimental to try something new.  Dave Ball, are you listening?

DEMOCRATS MUST DEVELOP A COHERENT TRADE POLICY

Democrats missed the boat when it came to trade policy as an issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. Donald Trump sealed an election victory by forcefully coming out against trade agreements and winning the support of Midwestern states devastated by the loss of its manufacturing base. This was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who argued that lost industrial jobs were gone for good but that the information age would create opportunities elsewhere in the economy.  Affected voters saw these new opportunities as a pipe dream and voted for the candidate who promised to bring the jobs back to their communities.

 Now, Democrats are losing yet another opportunity to make fair trade an issue in the 2018 mid-term elections.  President Trump, in an attempt to make good on his campaign promise, has begun to attack nations, friend and foe alike, in the name of fair trade. Democrats are sitting back and hoping that trade wars will upset the financial markets and anger enough farmers who have seen their produce slapped with tariffs, to work against Republican candidates. This approach is short sighted and demonstrates the lack of a long term strategy to formulate a lasting policy based on equality and justice.

Ironically, Republicans have traditionally been the bastion of free trade which on the whole favors capital at the expense of labor.  Corporations would prefer to utilize all global markets in building and distributing products, to maximize profit.  For this reason, the National Chamber of Commerce, a major Trump supporter on tax cuts and a campaign contributor has launched a campaign against his trade policy. 

But Trump has hitched his wagon to a populist ‘America First” view that anti free trade and anti-immigration policies are the key to maintaining his base and winning elections.  Traditional Republican objections will be futile as long as Trump controls the party messaging and apparatus.

Historically, Democrats were the party that sought to limit the negative aspects of free trade.  Since the FDR presidency, Democrats have followed the principle that it is a fundamental responsibility of government to ensure that a free market is managed in such a way as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Somehow this view began to lose its importance as liberals seemed to downplay labor interests and to support globalization. 

In its eagerness to leave the industrial age behind and to enter the information age, the Democratic party forgot that many of its blue collar supporters were also being left behind.  Instead, identity politics with the view that struggling Americans could only be labeled as minorities or female or non-heterosexuals or the disabled and did not include healthy white males dominated the 2016 campaign. Bernie Sanders was an outlier on this view and was roundly criticized by liberals during the Democratic Primary for proposing that the party adopt protectionist policies that favored blue collar workers.

The Democratic Party must not make this mistake again. What is needed is a new paradigm in setting trade policies that achieve two goals: (1) build and maintain a strong middle class; (2) serve and strengthen U.S. foreign policy. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, “A Trade Policy for All” (June 26, 2018), two Vanderbilt Law School professors, Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman offer what appears to me a responsible starting point.

The premise of the article is that liberalizing markets should be a means, not an end. The authors point out that tariffs are simply taxes on imported goods, economically beneficial to certain groups and detrimental to others.  They offer sound statistical evidence that from 1988 through 2008 free trade agreements overwhelming favored the corporate elite and middle classes in emerging markets at the expenses of the middle classes in advanced economies.  During this period the American middle class stagnated.  The conclusion is that these economic imbalances must be recognized and addressed, head on.

What is to be done in formulating a responsible trade policy?  First, take existing programs and fund them properly.  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been around since 1962 to retrain and help relocate displaced workers.  It has never been given priority status and has been labeled “burial insurance” by labor unions.

Second, trade agreements themselves need to address the imbalance between winners and losers within each agreement. Taxes can be imbedded in regional trade agreements such as NAFTA with the proceeds going directly to the communities negatively affected by each treaty.

Third, for other free trade agreements that overwhelmingly benefit multi- national corporations, an appropriate tax must be applied that goes directly to subsidize those national industries that suffer from an open trade environment.

Like so many of President Trump’s executive decisions, his implementation of trade policy is misplaced and dangerous. Trying to bully other political elites into dropping tariffs, which will in turn threaten their own political constituencies, is a fool’s game and is contrary to international law and order.  Creating new tariffs by haphazardly throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks will hurt as many Americans as it helps.  Moreover, such a “bull in the china shop” approach unravels the fabric of political alliances that have taken decades to weave together.

There is a better way forward.  Trade policy is the province of Congress.  The U.S. Constitution grants the legislative branch authority to regulate international trade including establishing tariffs, drafting and implementing trade agreements, and other provisions affecting commerce within the United States. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters.

The Democratic Party must make it clear to the voters that a fair and lasting trade policy will be a top priority once their members obtain a majority in Congress. They must articulate a trade policy that taxes the winners to help subsidize the losers within the terms of each Agreement.  In short: “A Trade Policy for All.”

A PATH FORWARD FOR PROGRESSIVES

I am troubled by the debate going on within the Democratic party on how to react to President Trump, his rhetoric, his policies and his supporters.  Specifically, the emotional reaction to certain administration decisions have increasingly invoked comments among those I know and respect like: “this is the last straw” or “my red line has been crossed.”  Progressives are threatening to end public discourse with family, friends and associates who continue to support the President on these “all or nothing” issues.  Examples (among many) would be the recent Trump policy to separate immigrant children from their parents; the President’s continued support for EPA Director, Scott Pruitt; and his vicious attacks on the lawful investigation of the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller.

My reaction to these emotional responses against the Trump policies (which is rational) and against Trump supporters (which is overblown) can be summed up with a simple truth: elections have consequences.  Millions of Americans voted for Trump and will continue to support the President for a variety of reasons. While the President and his political elite traffic in fakery and nativism to maintain power, those who voted for him reflect real problems which progressives in the past have ignored.

Progressives have two very different paths to consider leading up to the mid-term elections.  They can either continue to reinforce each other on social media and to focus on their personal moral outrage not only toward Trump but also his followers, much like Hilary Clinton did in her “deplorable” speech in October 2016.  Or Progressives can get out of their moral indignation funk and join in the very practical and sweaty grass roots work needed to take back Congress and to handcuff the President from causing incalculable damage in the final two years of his presidency.

My view is that preaching to the choir and becoming intolerant toward the opposition is the path toward certain defeat. I am not suggesting that finding common ground with Trump supporters will be easy, or even fruitful.  I am suggesting that respectful tolerance, where conflict is recognized, but reasonable debate is encouraged, rather than unfettered moral outrage, will win back enough blue dog democrats and independent voters to make a difference.

 In the end, developing sound policy positions and gaining votes will “Trump” rancor and indignation.  As Michelle Obama has implored on several occasions: “When they take the low road, we will take the high road.”  

 Progressives will never over take Trump on the low road. The high road is paved with sound political strategy, not useless moral rants against those who support the President.  The high road is finding positive solutions under a broad Democratic tent, not spending resources retweeting or posting derogatory comments about the Trump presidency to gain an emotional high. 

I offer my heartfelt encouragement to those progressive Americans who care enough about our democratic republic to replace the “Circe like” obsession of social media with political activism centered on justice and equality.

1968

It was truly an enlightening experience to watch all four hours of the CNN production: “1968, The Year That Changed America”.  Fifty Years ago I was 16 during the momentous events of 1968 and as I watched and tried to recall my thoughts of the time, memories kept flowing back of my teenage life.  The next year, 1969, would be the end of my childhood as I graduated from high school, attended the counterculture gathering at Woodstock and entered liberal, politically active Swarthmore College.  But 1968 was still a sheltered existence in rural Hunterdon County New Jersey.

My most vivid memories are of running through the fields and woods surrounding our home in preparation for the cross country and track seasons; becoming acquainted with the opposite sex and alcohol; discovering new music; and spending the summer at Bucknell University on a National Science Foundation Grant. While I loved current events and debating, the earth shattering developments of 1968 do not spring easily to mind.

It is not because the issues that would define 1968 were not in plain sight.  Although my high school was predominantly white, protestant and conservative, our proximity to New York City and Philadelphia meant that the counterculture, both political and lifestyle, were not far away.  One of our classmates ended up on the cover of Newsweek Magazine, after he dropped out of high school to live in Greenwich Village.  The social activist David Dellinger and his family lived nearby. Mr. Dellinger would become “the father” of the Chicago Seven, following the 1968 Democratic Convention.  Though the draft lottery did not begin until 1969, a draft was still in effect in 1968. I was aware that my Quaker heritage would provide me with conscientious objector status, if I chose to use it.

My sheltered existence in 1968 contrasts with the timeline of that year as projected by the CNN documentary.  The presidential campaign was no doubt the most raucous and suspenseful in our history.  After the horrors of the Democratic Convention, Hubert Humphrey found his anti-Vietnam War voice late in the campaign and lost to Richard Nixon by the slimmest of margins. George Wallace, an avowed racist, carried five states and won 45 electoral votes. 

The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy lead many to question the ability of our democracy to survive. The riots and destruction in cities across the country mirrored by eruptions at college campuses, where radicals took over buildings and brought academia to its knees, seemed to foretell a political revolution.

  There was no question that a social revolution was sweeping the country as black power, feminist causes and anti-war sentiments came to the forefront.  But in the south, segregationists formed a coalition that would hide under the banner of conservatism to fight integration, political equality and social liberalism.

The two questions that spring to mind are: How do the events of 1968 compare with the political and cultural story that is playing out in 2018?  Second, what did we learn from 1968 and how much progress have we made as a nation, over the past 50 years.?

When comparing 1968 to 2018, present events seem a bit superficial.  How could any drama from the Trump White House come close to the symbolism of the three most famous widows in American history, Jacqueline Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy and Coretta Scott King, returning on the same plane with Robert Kennedy’s body following his assassination.  Or the race riots following King’s assassination, leaving 39 dead and 2600 injured. Or the 16,600 American soldiers killed in Vietnam, in 1968. Or the Chicago police force and Illinois National Guard gone mad and attacking the youth of America at the Democratic National Convention.  Or the worldwide student protests, characterized by popular rebellions against military and bureaucratic elites.  2018 seems tame when juxtaposed with 1968.

Of course there was no 24/7 news cycle in 1968.  The three networks and major newspapers all reported the same facts, once a day, for public consumption.  Commentary was limited to the editorial page, usually with only two well-rehearsed points of view, one party line Democratic, the other Republican.

In 1968 the role of every journalist was to report the news, not to take a position. When Walter Cronkite broke this tradition and gave a personal editorial, calling for a negotiated end to the war in Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson was so shocked he commented that: ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”  A month later Johnson announced he would not seek another term as President.  Vietnam peace talks began shortly after.

In today’s media world every political and social nuance, no matter how insignificant, is immediately reported by hundreds of sources, many of whom are not trained journalists and who have a personal axe to grind.  Moreover, politicians, corporations and celebrities not only make news, they manufacture it, in order to drive public opinion in a favorable direction.

One can only imagine how the events of 1968 would be media driven in the information age of 2018.  No doubt it would truly feel like the world was falling apart. Following each shocking development in 1968, institutions and individuals would not be given the time to absorb, consider, understand and to heal.

Some would argue that my second query, what did we learn from the upheavals of 1968 and how much progress have we made as a nation, depends on who is responding to the question.  For example, older African Americans who grew up not being able to vote, obtain a proper education, or find meaningful work and who have now witnessed eight years of an Obama presidency would argue that important changes have occurred.  Their grandchildren would probably disagree, pointing to prevalent racial profiling and systemic white intolerance.  The same can be said for the different points of view among older and younger women and those in the LBGTQ community.

In truth, progress has been made on cultural values and race but much more needs to be done.  The focus has shifted from the granting of legal rights, now more or less completed, to changing attitudes, which lag far behind.  This latter goal is a multigenerational process.

Not all problems have improved and new ones have surfaced.  Without question, the equality gap between rich and poor is even wider than what existed in 1968.  Immigration, border security, religious fundamentalism and terrorism were not issues of national concern in 1968.  Western democracies were united against a common ideological enemy, communism, with no one focused on a resurgence of tribal or nativist self-interests.  Today, climate change threatens to cause massive disruptions to agriculture and coastal communities.

Regrettably, some problems have remained the same. America is involved in a war that has lasted twice as long as the Vietnam conflict, costing billions each year in national treasure.  Gun violence has moved from political assassination to our schoolyards as the United States refuses to follow the rest of the civilized world in placing controls on the proliferation of the deadliest weapons.

 In 1968 the country elected a President who resigned after the exposure of massive criminal actives.  In 2018 the country is dealing with a President who has no respect for democratic institutions or the rule of law.  Thankfully, the Watergate era of Richard Nixon has provided us with a roadmap on how to deal with presidential improprieties. 

The country survived 1968 and it will survive 2018 as well. While I will not be alive to review the state of the union in 2068, I have no doubt we will be a more diverse and tolerant nation, living up to the challenge our founders placed before us.

THE BIG PICTURE

The political climate in 2018 serves up enough action and surprises to rival the new Avengers movie. The emotions it invokes are so over the moon, no matter what ones’ political allegiance, that it feels like history is being made each day, if not each hour. 

The President’s supporters believe the dark state is working to bring down his term in office.  His detractors are convinced Trump is undermining the foundations of our democracy.  But while the daily media output may be the outline of history, it is not the final determination of what will one day be considered historically significant. There is a danger in getting overrun in detail and losing sight of the big picture.

Lately, I have been trying to force myself to view the barrage of information and new political developments within the framework of Google Maps.  The closer I zoom in on the news of the day, the smaller, more intricate things I learn about the political climate. However, to gain perspective and really determine what is important, it pays to zoom out, sometimes very far out, to place current events into an historical time frame covering decades.

My task in searching for a larger context was helped along when I recently read a feature article in Foreign Affairs by Walter Russell Mead. (The Big Shift: How American Democracy Fails its Way to Success) Mr. Mead sets the stage with the following observation:

“As Americans struggle to make sense of a series of uncomfortable economic changes and disturbing political developments, a worrying picture emerges: of ineffective politicians, frequent scandals, racial backsliding, polarized and irresponsible news media, populists spouting quack economic remedies, growing suspicion of elites and experts, frightening outbreaks of violence, major job losses, high-profile terrorist attacks, anti-immigrant agitation, declining social mobility, giant corporations dominating the economy, rising inequality, and the appearance of a new class of super-empowered billionaires in finance and technology-heavy industries.”

What is being described above by Mr. Mead, with a great deal of convincing historical accuracy, is not 2018 America but rather the 35 years between the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and that of President William McKinley in 1901. Clearly our present political turmoil offers little that is new to the history of our country.  We have seen and survived it all before.

However, Mr. Mead is not seeking to highlight another period in American history much like our own.  His premise is that the earlier historical period was a time when the United States “failed its way to success” by making the difficult transition from an agricultural society to an industrial one.  He sees a similar dynamic at work today, observing that: “The information revolution is disrupting the country’s social and economic order as profoundly as the industrial revolution did.”

In my view, Mr. Mead is spot on in focusing on the effects of rapid change that will lead to a major transformation in the United States rather than to become overly concerned with day to day political events. Not many Americans well versed in today’s tribal politics can name the Presidents, senators or representatives who passed through history in the latter part of the 19^th century.  One hundred years from now the same will be true of today’s leaders and turbulent events.  The years from 2016 through 2020 will be best remembered for the advances in technology and information sharing, not for Russian election meddling, special prosecutors, or payoffs to porn stars.  The history books will discuss Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, testifying before Congress on issues of internet reform, not the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey discussing Presidential conversations.

One might ask why it is important to reserve resources for the big picture rather than commit all on day to day events.  First, political capital is limited.  If well-meaning progressives spent it all on attacking the President rather than on developing policies for the information revolution, they will miss a valuable opportunity.  Second, as pointed out by Mr. Mead, our American brand of democracy is messy but well suited to grow and develop and not decline and fall when faced with what appear to be periods of insurmountable dysfunction.  When under attack American institutions (the courts, the press, the bureaucracy, the rule of law) are strong and have always been able to withstand temporary setbacks. 

Third, elections matter in our representative democracy and have always protected us from the extremes on the left and right. Over time, elected officials on the fringes are consistently voted out of office.

If Mr. Mead’s thesis is correct, that American democracy will prevail and that as a country we will fail our way to success in the information revolution, much like we did in the industrial revolution, what steps can be taken by concerned progressives to help matters along?

Similar to our experience during the industrial revolution, the most profound changes will occur to the American worker.  President Trump was wrong in assuming that resources should be spent in recapturing the past glory of industrialization.  This may have garnered votes in 2016 but is a false hope.   No one could imagine in 1890 that only 2% of the American work force would be employed in agriculture in 2018. Similarly, old line industrial jobs will continue to disappear. But the information revolution will provide a wealth of new jobs, many as yet undefined. As the information revolution gathers momentum, education and job training must be ever changing to provide qualified workers.

On the other hand, President Trump was partially correct in calling for deregulation of business, but only for small businesses that are becoming prevalent in the information age.  Startups in the “gig economy” struggle when competing with large corporations and deserve more governmental assistance and less governmental interference and nuisance paperwork that inhibits them becoming established. 

Well placed small business regulation reform in taxes, health care, overtime rules, and licensing requirements contrasts with the ill-advised tax reform which permitted Apple (which may soon be our first trillion-dollar company) to repatriate billions in overseas profits.  The Apple corporation just announced a 100-billion-dollar share repurchase plan for investors that will do nothing to aid the American worker or the economy.

My point is that once progressive political forces step back and see the big picture, the Donald Trump Presidency, as earth shattering as it may seem, has little to do with our future.  The future is the information revolution.  We must harness its potential by electing officials who understand the transformation and who will utilize the public sector to improve the lives of all Americans.

 For those who believe my assessment is overly optimistic, please consider historian John Meacham’s new book: The Soul of America.  Mr. Meacham reviews a large swath of American history to prove his point that the “better angels of our nature” have, without exception, prevailed.  Following periods of intrigue and dysfunction the country has always looked forward rather than back, to assert hope over fear.  It is time to stop wasting time and effort attacking the latest Trump tweet and to begin planning for the information revolution.

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.