THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

One of the more interesting debates brought center stage by the Trump presidency has been the conflict between globalism and nationalism.  These are two very different ways of viewing the world, its inhabitants, its international institutions and its limited resources.  Globalism calls for the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis. Nationalism does the opposite and advocates the economic and political independence of a particular country, often stressing the superiority of that nation and its people. 

Globalism encourages openness and sharing.  Some of the hallmarks are open borders, international legal and economic forums and multilateral trade agreements.  These approaches encourage diversity, decrease inequality and limit conflict. On the other hand, nationalism stresses protectionism and strategies that encourage winner take all policies.

I have found it helpful in understanding a world that favors globalism as opposed to one that advocates nationalism to dust off one of my favorite dilemmas in social philosophy: “the tragedy of the commons.”

Under this construct the “commons” is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.  The “tragedy” is that individual nations deplete these resources and that governments are unable to reach long term solutions to sustain and preserve these assets for the betterment of all global inhabitants.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons was introduced in 1833 when the English economist, William Forester Lloyd, published a pamphlet which highlighted the over use of a local common resource.   His example was the pastoral English village, where herders would traditionally use a common area of land, situated between the thatched huts, to graze their livestock. He postulated that the rational decision for each individual herder would be to exceed his individual allotment of livestock to maximize his use of the common area.  However, if numerous herders violated the rules, the common grazing area would be depleted or destroyed, resulting in a tragedy for the entire community.

Some modern examples of the tragedy of the commons are national in nature but the most serious ones are global.  Within the United States, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone caused by the over use of fertilizers; the conflict over division of limited groundwater in many western states; and traffic congestion in urban areas causing air pollution are tragedies brought on by the misuse of shared resources.

Internationally, the “tragedies” are in the headlines all too often. Among them are the depletion of fish stocks in the oceans of the world; overpopulation; carbon emissions; destruction of rain forests and wetlands; and the misuse of outer space and the polar regions.

The dilemma of the tragedy of the commons occurs when a nation’s short term economic or political interests are at odds with the long term group interests of the international community.  I would argue that under most circumstances nationalism makes the tragedy worse while globalism offers the best opportunity to fashion long term solutions.

The first problem with a nationalist view of resource preservation is that it often refuses to acknowledge that a tragedy exists in the first place. The most glaring example is President Trump and many Republicans declining to accept climate change as a man-made tragedy with long term consequences. While they avoid the growing disaster and its causes, the clock continues to advance past the point of meaningful recovery.   

The second problem with a nationalist perspective occurs even after acknowledgment of an endangered finite resource.  Nationalists often refuse to support global action to preserve the resource, claiming a national interest in continued exploitation.  When the President and his party withdraw from international environmental agreements and enthusiastically gut environmental regulations on auto emissions, on use of coal and on drilling in arctic regions, they are placing short term national economic interests before long term global concerns.  If there is no buy in by the United States to evert a tragedy, other nations are limited in what they can accomplish.

How serious are the tragedies that mankind has caused to our delicate planet? The atmosphere is a global common-pool resource in its function as a sink (storage system) for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Currently, it is a “no man’s land” that is available to everyone free of charge. Oceans and forests are closely linked to the atmospheric sink through the global carbon cycle and absorb some of the human generated CO₂. Oceans and forests are also global common-pool resources that serve as important sources of biodiversity, exhaustible minerals and fish resources. Due to modernity and the hydrocarbon driven industrial revolution the atmosphere and the oceans are threatened by excessive CO2 emissions, and the forests are being depleted by increasing food and bioenergy demand.

 In the United States, much of the discussion linking climate change caused by the human population, with tragedy to the planet, has centered on hurricanes and wild fires. As serious as these events are, a recent article in Foreign Affairs points out a more troubling trend. Research has concluded a direct link between climate change and disastrous outcomes for numerous third world countries, including violence, food crises and large scale displacement of populations. Climate Shocks and Humanitarian Crises, Foreign Affairs, 11/29/18.

 As long as the United States insists on acting like the selfish livestock owner, overgrazing the common pasture area to gain an advantage, prospects for saving our planet for future generations are grim, indeed. Climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation will get worse and forever alter our way of life.  Nationalist policies have no place in a world facing unimaginable tragedy.  Only globalist cooperation can turn the tide.

THE YEAR OF THE WOMAN

RECOGNIZING THE EARLY FOUNDATIONS FOR THE “YEAR OF THE WOMAN” 

Many political pundits have labeled 2018 the year of the woman.  After all, the recent mid-term elections saw women demand a larger role in the political process than in any year in American history.  Two hundred and fifty-five women ran for office in the two major parties across America. Nearly half of them won.

An estimated 113 million Americans cast ballots in the first nationwide election of the Trump presidency, according to data compiled by The Associated Press. That’s 30 million more people than who participated in the 2014 midterms. This represents the highest raw vote total for a non-presidential election in U.S. history and the highest overall voter participation rate in a midterm election in a half century.  A number of these new voters were young women. 

Many believe President Donald Trump was responsible for this increased interest of women in the political process.  In January 2017 the Women’s March on Washington and in numerous other cities sought to protest his sexual misconduct and to highlight that women’s rights are human rights. The #Me Too Movementtook off shortly after. Both events laid the groundwork forwomen deciding to run for office and to get involved in the election process in 2018.

Will these election results have an effect on the legislative process? Studies have shown that women behave differently when elected to office than men. Women are more interested in family issues and are more likely to build coalitions and tocompromise. These tendencies will be a welcome change to many Americans.

As the election results played out, I could not help but think about those women that came before and built a foundation for the stunning surge of women into the political arena. I had spent much of the week after the election reviewing documents from my basement to pass on to my Quakertown New Jersey home town and the Quaker Monthly Meeting situated there.

I came across the history of a Quaker ancestor, Sarah Hampton Lundy, married in the “Province of East New Jersey” in 1768.Quakers believed in the equality of men and women in all affairs.  On several occasions Sarah left her family on horsebackto travel to other Quaker Meetings throughout New Jersey, NewYork, New England and Canada.  She wanted to share her religious experiences with other women of her faith. Quaker women were taught to read and write at an early age which expanded their ability to communicate beyond hearth and home.

My paternal grandmother was a product of this Quaker heritage.  In order to attend classes as a child, she would leave the farm of her birth and walk several miles to the train station. At the termination point, she would walk another half mile to the local Academy where she was one of five high school graduates. After the death of her Husband, the local New Jersey Tax Collector, she was re-elected multiple terms to serve in this position.

Quaker women were instrumental in the abolition, temperance, and suffrage movements.  Many of them helped draft the 1848Declaration of Sentiments” in Seneca Falls New York, which came to be known as the Women’s Declaration of Independence.  Finally, after a hard-fought series of votes in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures, the 19th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920. The Amendment states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The Quaker college, Oberlin, was a true pathbreaker in American higher education. In 1837 this institution was the first school to accept not onlywomen along with men but black students as well. Prior to that time, wealthy women had educational opportunities, but they were in the nature of finishing schools, not liberal arts institutions. 

Closer to home in Washington County, I recently had the honor of writing the profile of Mary Drake Korsmeyer, Esq. for the Washington County Bar Association.  Ms. Korsmeyer was the first woman partner at the law offices of Peacock Keller and the managing partner at the firm for three years.  

She related to me her early employment experiences as a security analyst in New York City.  Upon graduating from Cornell University with an excellent academic record, she was offered a position at half the salary of the new male employees. She was told in no uncertain terms that because she was a woman she would not be promoted.

Ms. Korsmeyer went on to law school and an exemplary career, but she never forgot this episode of blatant discrimination.  She was a charter member of the Zonta Club of Washington County and helped young women entering the business world at every opportunity.

Many of us can recall similar stories involving family and friends that helped pave the way for the year of the woman in 2018.  Now is the time to share these examples of courage and foresight that made the recent giant strides in women’s equalityand political involvement possible.

The next presidential election in 2020 will mark 100 years since women were granted the right to vote. One would expect, that to celebrate this milestone, a new Year of the Woman will be created, with even greater involvement in political campaigns and elections.  The ultimate prize, electing the first woman president, remains in play.

When celebrating the most recent milestones for women, it is important to remember the progress that has been achieved by women of past generations. As stated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a Quaker, American suffragist, social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early women's rights movement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal”.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING?

Now that the mid-term elections are over and the electorate has performed its voting responsibilities, it is an excellent time to examine the national mind set. The question that has been vexing me for some time is what has happened to critical thinking in America? Many of us are unwilling to weigh the facts or to think independently.  There are certainly many suspects that may be responsible this dilemma, including the lack of civics and social studies in the public schools; too much conflicting news on social media; one sided cable news networks and poverty in America.

 To highlight what dystopia looks like when open minded debate is not permitted by a central government, I will examine two authoritarian societies that are trying to eradicate critical thinking. Then I will return to this country, where critical thinking is not regulated but is not widely practiced by our citizens.  Lastly, I will  offer some solutions.

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our ego and native biases.

My first example of a country where there is a concerted effort to eradicate critical thinking is China. Since Xi Jinping has taken power, China has worked to mold the country into a singular ethnic and moral identity in tune with the Communist Party. The authoritarian leaders have come to fear critical thinking among Tibetans, Uighurs (who are Muslim) and Christians, among others.

 Recently, to mandate additional conformity, the government has adopted a nationwide “social credit score.” This project, which employees a massive amount of computing power, is designed to record not only economic activity of its 1.4 billion citizens, but is also designed to monitor behavior and moral character as defined by the Party. Twelve “core socialist values” were developed in 2012. They have become a direct rivalry with all religions and independent thought and are now taught to children starting with Kindergarten.  Those citizens that achieve low social credit scores because of their critical thinking are denied jobs and may be subjected to reeducation programs that resemble concentration camps.

My second example of an authoritarian country that does not permit critical thinking is Russia.  Vladimir Putin, although an elected President, has taken steps to eliminate all independent thought.  There is no neutral media or political opposition in Russia. Wearing the mantle of the liberator of the Russian people, Putin wages war on Russia’s enemies: namely, his own citizens who want democratic rights; Ukrainians and other neighbors who want independent states; or the European Union and the United States because they offer a way of life based on democratic principles.

A majority of the citizens in Russia simply choose to fall in line and not question their government. As Timothy Synder points out in his excellent book The Road to Unfreedom: Putin’s dominance is based on: “lies so enormous that they could not be doubted, because doubting them would mean doubting everything.”

There are many other authoritarian countries where critical thinking is either limited or eliminated by government policies.  These regimes claim they are trying to foster trust and eliminate partisan violence.  What they are really trying to achieve is more absolute power.  They are stark examples of what can happen when the public is not permitted to independently consider alternative political opinion.

While the checks and balances in our democratic constitutional republic present many problems on decision making and in recent years have caused gridlock, many freedoms, include the right of every citizen to exercise critical thinking, is not abridged in any way. Why then, is this basic privilege in such short supply and how can we encourage it?

The first key is simply to teach American history, social studies and democratic principles at an early age.  When one in three of our citizens cannot name the Vice President, political and social critical thinking is not possible.  The country cannot rationally address concerns such as gun violence or racism without a well-informed polity that has studied the history of these issues.  

  

In addition, once basic civics and social studies are taught to young students, they must be presented with tools that will help them to discern what questions to ask and when. This will enable them to gather and organize information necessary to reach sound conclusions. If students cannot think through social problems and are enslaved to their feelings and their opinions are reinforced by social media critical thinking is not possible. 

A few points from Forbes Magazine on sharpening critical thinking skills make sense for all of us when trying to escape the online, cable news propaganda world: (1) Imagine and envision what can work better, not just what has worked before; (2) seek continuous learning;(3) open up to curiosity and a “what if” mindset; (4) avoid all dogmatism and fundamentalism; and (5) investigate beyond the social media headlines.

Pew Research released poll results showing that two-thirds of Americans said they used social media sites to get news.  This will not change in the information age.  Either Americans will be taught to live in a world where ideas are open ended and debated to reach solutions, or one in which we live in parallel realities of alternate facts. The latter result will provide fertile ground for authoritarian leaders to hijack our democracy.

More critical thinking does not imply that more of us will favor the same policies. There will continue to be heated debates among well informed and well intentioned citizens. After all, disagreement is the basis of a well-functioning pluralistic constitutional republic.

The difference will be that those employing critical thinking will realize that politics, economics and social issues are not a zero sum game. We will come to understand that there are many solutions and that compromise among actors is acceptable. The playing field will become one of respectful tolerance for the contrary position. Well informed contributors will be in conflict with each another but will respect established facts and the opinion of opposing participants based on those facts.  Authoritarian principles will not gain a foothold.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CREATED A NATIONALIST POLITICAL PARTY

America is no longer a two party political system. Donald Trump has accomplished what no politician since our founding has been able to achieve.  He has created a third political party as strong and vibrant as the two traditional parties that have thrived since the Civil War. 40% of the voting public now support this new political party, marginalizing the Republican Party. President Trump has started labeling himself a nationalist at his political rallies. Accordingly, I will name our third political party, the Nationalist Party.

Many Americans are not familiar with nationalism as a political ideology. Because nationalist political parties have a long history in Central and Western Europe, examining these organizations gives us a reasonable method of understanding nationalism.  Generally, European nationalists are described as “right wing populists.” Historians agree that the most unifying position of Nationalist Parties until recently was antisemitism.  Within the past 20 years the unifying factor has morphed into Islamophobia. 

Nationalist Parties have thrived only when they were able to use propaganda and conspiracy theories to identify an “other” group of citizens on which to blame past economic and social disruptions.  This was most evident in three of the most notorious Nationalist Parties, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Franco’s Spain.  Nationalist Parties in their modern incarnation have been able to gain more main stream acceptance by substituting Muslims for Jews as the number one enemy of the state and by preaching “nation first” positions attractive to working class citizens still suffering economically from the last recession.

With this brief background on nationalism, we must examine the specific platform of Donald Trump’s Nationalist party.  It will be clear that this platform has little to do with traditional Republicanism.  In fact, many policy positions are so anti conservative that modern conservative political pundits have been unable to support them.  Republican politicians, on the other hand, have embraced Trump’s Nationalist Party in order to ensure reelection. Moreover, these Republicans can no longer count on their own fading traditional party apparatus to achieve tax cuts, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to place conservative Judges and Justices into the federal court system.

First, Trump’s Nationalist Party is vehemently against diversity. Homogenous rural communities are favored over urban multicultural ones.  Urban, diverse sections of the country are viewed as havens for providing sanctuaries for illegal immigrants and as election districts that overwhelmingly vote against the Nationalist Party’s agenda. Conversely, rural areas are valued for their attachment to authority, family and the native land.  But mostly, rural areas are valued for their votes.

 Squirrel Hill in Pittsburgh is the most diverse neighborhood in Western Pennsylvania.  While the Jewish community is the backbone of the community, many others of varied religious and ethnic backgrounds seek to live there because of this diversity.   The Trump Nationalist party views Squirrel Hill and urban areas like it as the antithesis of everything it stands for.  The fringe element of his Nationalist Party, where hate is inflamed by the President’s rhetoric, will fully embrace the message sent to the Squirrel Hill Jewish community through the recent horrific act of domestic terrorism: “only white protestant Americans are welcome here.”

Second, Trump’s Nationalist Party is against most immigration into the United States and holds an elevated dislike for Islamic and Spanish speaking immigrants from below our Southern border.  Trump began his presidential campaign by attacking Mexicans.  Among his first acts as President, were attempts to unlawfully exclude many Islamic individuals from gaining entry into the country.  His policies of “building a wall” and punishing urban areas for not utilizing their scarce resources to round up illegal aliens are more political Nationalist Party statements than actual remedies to combat illegal immigration.

Third, Trump’s Nationalist Party deplores globalism.  This often misunderstood term can best be understood as describing a world that is: “characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances.” Multinational Corporations, international military, economic and legal organizations, European countries banding together to form the European Union, and trade agreements are all examples of globalism.  Nationalists view globalism as placing the needs of the international community before the national interest. In fact, globalism generally promotes international cooperation and helps control economic crises.

During the presidential campaign, Trump was quoted as saying: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. And under my administration we will never enter America into any agreements that reduce our ability to control our own affairs.” He has lived up to this pledge by canceling trade agreements; canceling the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; threatening to canceling the agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; and by berating our military and economic alliances around the world.

 Fourth, Trump’s Nationalist Party attacks the main stream media at every opportunity. After mocking and insulting penned-in reporters at his campaign rallies, Mr. Trump continued going after journalists the day after he was sworn in, over the size of his Inauguration Day crowd. Then came the “fake news,” “enemy of the people” Stalin like campaign against journalists who would hold him accountable for his words and actions.

By attacking the source of balanced reporting and fact checking, Trump’s Nationalist Party is able to manufacture yet another enemy and to accuse the media of working to take away his election victory and defeat his agenda.  The Nationalist Party must always be the victim, even as it controls all three houses of Congress.

Lastly, Trump’s Nationalist Party supports and admires authoritarian elected officials from around the world.  Most of these leaders have used the above elements of a nationalist platform to consolidate power and to develop illiberal democracies in their own countries.  These authoritarian countries that have received Trump’s blessing include Russia, Hungary, Poland, Egypt, Turkey, Austria and the Philippines.  I would include Saudi Arabia, which is a kingdom and not a democracy.

All of these countries have strong nationalist tendencies.  Trump would like to join their elite club by reconfiguring the principles of our constitutional democratic republic.  This would include increasing executive powers without the need to consult Congress, a reduction in the rule of law, a reduction in the economic influence of the Federal Reserve and the marginalization of the media.

It is often said that only in a democracy do people get the government they deserve.  In order to preserve our rights and liberties, we must vote.  Please keep in mind the platform of Trump’s Nationalist party when fulfilling this most sacred duty on Tuesday. Elections matter.

THE DEATH KNELL OF NEWSPAPERS

This year has been a bewildering adjustment for those of us living in Southwestern Pennsylvania who find it difficult to give up our print newspapers. Recently, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stopped publishing print editions on Tuesdays and Saturdays and began running head scratching existentialist commercials to explain their move to digital. The finale of Pittsburgh print news seems inevitable. After all, the Tribune-Review is already a mostly ignored news source after going totally digital to avoid bankruptcy.

To add insult to injury, many of us also stopped receiving our print addition of the Wall Street Journal on Tuesdays and Saturdays because the Journal uses the Post Gazette’s delivery network.  After many weeks of promising a fix, still no Journals delivered on the off days.  Heaven help us if the stock market blows up on a Monday.

The final blow arrived when our reliable local Observer Reporter was sold to a larger network of local papers.  We had all come to rely on the Northrop Family to maintain and publish the O-R. With the sale came uncertainty and many questions: would the O-R go digital?; what would be the new editorial policy?;  would there be less coverage of local events?;  would our favorite comic strips disappear?. (So far there have been minimal changes to the paper.)

I read a great deal of internet digital news, but only those sources to which I do not subscribe.  When I was forced to tackle the Saturday WSJ online, (because of the above non-delivery issue) no section of the paper or article was where it was supposed to be.  What was an enjoyable experience in print, turned into a headache on my IPad.  Sometimes I go to a store with a newsstand and pay for a replacement printed paper.

Aside from my personal discomfort, the time has arrived to consider the once unthinkable.  What would the end of printed newspapers mean to our society and to the fabric of communities across America? Would the digital press continue to report on municipal meetings, the local theater groups, or the High School Sports teams?  Would expensive, time consuming investigative journalism be supported?

First, we must consider why newspapers are leaving print and moving online in the first place.  It is basic economics, accelerated by the recession of 2009. Major advertisers such as department stores, supermarkets, boutique retailers and car dealerships, consolidated or went out of business.  Those that survived often moved advertising and sales online to compete with Amazon. The profitable classified section of print newspapers saw listings for used cars, real estate, and employment move to Craig’s List or other dedicated online services.

Previously, print publishers could always count on young adults gravitating to the purchase of newspapers as they made their way into the world.  With millennials, who were raised getting all of their information online, this trend is over.  This guarantees that along with advertising, print readership will decline overtime, never to be replenished.

Before print newspapers (and magazines) began to disappear, they spent years getting smaller. Shrinking newsrooms, budgets, print runs and page counts all accelerated as the “cost to print” came closer to exceeding the “revenue from print.”  It is simply more cost effective to publish a digital newspaper.

What will the effect of this trend be on the news reading public? One study, supported by a research grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, has closely followed the reading habits of the British when the national British daily, The Independent, stopped print publishing and went online in 2016. It first appeared that the number of digital readers it gained basically replaced the number of print readers it lost. But many believe the explosive news events of both Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are responsible for the digital readership and make the number of new digital readers unsustainable over the long run.

The other results of the study are far more troubling. Print readers were found to spend significantly more time consuming news than digital readers, prior to the all-digital transition.  After the transition, in depth reading disappeared when the paper did. 50% of its print readers read the newspaper almost every day (37-50 minutes each day) while online visitors read one story on the average of twice a month (6 minutes a month).  The study concluded: “By going online only, The Independent decimated the attention it receives. The paper is now a thing more glanced at, it seems, than gorged on.  It has sustainability but less centrality.”

One bright result from the study was that the international English speaking readership expanded greatly with the all-digital format of this national newspaper. Of course, local papers that transition to all digital will not benefit from this overseas expansion because the readership interest in local issues is minimal.  On the other hand, one could argue that a local digital paper has a captive audience for local information, including the crime blotter, obituaries, local sports and calendar of events that will compel print readers to make the switch to digital.

Many astute observers of how digital content is prepared and distributed do not believe that the future of digital newspapers is any more intact over the long run than print journalism is today.  Vice News co-founder Shane Smith forecasts: “a bloodbath that will wipe out 30 percent of digital sites.”  Those sites that dominate the internet, Facebook and Google, lack any dedication toward original news.  They have expressed no desire to act as responsible publishers, with reporters on the ground backed up by fact checkers dedicated to balanced reporting.

If indeed, the existing model for producing unbiased original news is not profitable or sustainable in the digital format, there is a grave danger that all news on the internet will be suspected of being manufactured, fake or dissembled. Once the trust is lost, the famous mottos of the Financial Times: “Without Fear or Favor” and of the New York Times: “All the News That’s Fit to Print” will mean nothing and a fundamental democratic institution will cease to function.

While it is true that Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, who purchased the Washington Post and Philanthropist, Patrick Soon-Shiong, who now owns the Los Angeles Times are willing to absorb large losses to keep responsible journalism alive, a few billionaires preserving a few urban newspapers is not the answer. A comprehensive plan and new business models must be developed to save the Fifth Estate, with no time to waste.

Thomas Jefferson wisely made an observation on newspapers that rings true today: “This formidable censor of the public opinion functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peacefully, which must otherwise be done by revolution.”  It is not difficult to imagine pitched battles in the streets, if balanced original news disappears and elected officials are permitted to say whatever they please to remain in office, with no reliable counter-balance.

RACE IN AMERICA

Washington County was treated to a gem of a lecture on race in America on a cool Monday evening at W&J College.  The event was well attended by students and interested citizens to hear author, journalist and academic, Jelani Cobb present the first lecture sponsored by W&J’s African American Studies Program.

The first half of the talk dealt with the importance of interpreting American History within the context of slavery and race.  The Constitution, addition of States to the Union, the Civil War and fundamental Supreme Court decisions must be studied within the framework of slavery and later, segregation in order to understand our “original sin” and its continuing influence on American society. Those who would prefer to sugarcoat the past are only making it more difficult for the nation to heal in 2018.

The lecture concluded with some of Mr. Cobb’s personal experiences with diversity.  He grew up in Queens, New York, a melting pot for established minorities and new immigrants alike.  Hundreds of languages are spoken within the Borough. As a child the speaker’s baseball team was a cornucopia of different cultures all dedicated to winning a game.

These remarks reminded me that diversity is a circumstance to be encouraged, not a problem to be managed.  My belief that Washington County needs a diversity council to explore and strengthen its ties to multiculturalism was reaffirmed by the lecture.

ELECTIONS MATTER

Two issues have dominated political journalism since the election of Donald Trump. First, how was Trump and the Republican party able to cobble together a victory in 2016?  Second, will our democratic processes and institutions survive his presidency?  By my count over 25 books have been penned to address these issues.  In addition, hundreds of essays and articles have been written by journalists weighing in with their own take on the election and its aftermath.

The books and articles that discuss the election have covered the effects of social media on the election; the lower than expected voter turnout in urban areas with Obama off the ballet; Russian interference influencing the vote count; Democrats ignoring the issues important to the working class in the rust belt; and the botched FBI investigations. 

Those books and articles that discuss the functioning of the Trump presidency over the past two years have critiqued an administration that is dedicated to deconstructing the “rules based” international order in foreign policy. Other studies have researched how the White House bases domestic policy on anti-immigration; on protectionism; on lower taxes and on fewer regulations.  Some authors have written detailed analyses explaining Trump’s support for authoritarian leaders abroad and for nativist policies at home and its effect on our democratic institutions.  Others have chronicled the dysfunction and turnover within the White House itself.

 Most recently the acclaimed writer Michael Lewis has released a deep dive well researched study that asks, who is really running the government? (The Fifth Risk) Rather than address Trump’s character defects, Lewis centers on the President’s ignorance on what the federal bureaucracy is and how it works.  Lewis exposes the dangers in ignoring the complexities of federal agencies and the need for leadership from the White House in supporting them.

All of these investigative works that uncover the limitations and degradations of the Trump presidency are illuminating and necessary, but it is time to flip the switch and to concentrate on the upcoming mid-term elections.  Elections matter and can change the future. Placing Democrats in House and Senate seats around the country is the only path that guarantees Trump will be investigated for his past actions and challenged on his new initiatives.  It is time to stop reading and complaining and to place all efforts into getting Democrats elected. Time to stop agonizing and to start organizing.

After the unexpected results in the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic “blue wave” that is predicted for the 2018 mid-term elections and the belief that Democrats will capture the House of Representatives leaves me somewhat skeptical. First, I am convinced that the 84% of registered Republicans who approve of Trump are not going to change their preference in the mid-term elections and unless there is a sea change not in 2020.  Moreover, even dissatisfied Republicans may stick with the party of their President who has kept most of his campaign promises and who is taking credit for a booming economy.

Second, while the numbers of Democratic voters in the primaries and the new voter registrations are encouraging, the Republican base tends to show up with greater frequency in off year elections. Third, I do not trust polls in the age of Trump when voters are hesitant to name their preferences.  Fourth, Trump is capable in springing an “October surprise” on the electorate in order to the hold the House of Representatives in Republican hands.

I believe that for Democrats to win the House and to have a chance in flipping the Senate, the national and state Democratic Parties must show the type of organization over these last several weeks that is typical in presidential elections.  This would include rallies in vulnerable districts headlined with well-known national figures.  Advertising funds should not be spared for those candidates who are running for the first time and who present new faces to the voting public.  The election day get out the vote effort should take nothing for granted.  The Democratic overconfidence that was on full display during the 2016 Presidential race must not take hold during the mid-terms.

Normally issues would define an election, including the upcoming House and Senate races.  But Trump has defined this election cycle and placing checks and balances on his abuses is the overriding concern.  If a democratic blue wave is successful, a base will be in place for the 2020 presidential contest when a full slate of issues can be presented to the electorate.

 Voters will then have a real choice: to reelect a demagogue who uses the twin evils of race and tribe to placate the millions of disgruntled Americans who have fallen behind; or to choose a candidate and a party dedicated to building an equitable and just society for all Americans, based on real progress rather than fear.