TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

“Everybody's joining up to fight
For the right to be wrong
I need some
Sentimental hygiene”         Warren Zevon

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

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

 I have concluded that as tolerance is utilized in practice today, it is often anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance as it relates to “the others”, with whom we are in conflict, can provide a roadmap to help us understand the difficult social, political and moral issues with which we struggle.  The key is to recognize the difference between intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.

In order to understand tolerance, it is important to recognize that majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance. 

Consider the following examples of permissive tolerance from American and European history.  Jews will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

The problem with permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, is that the majority may change its collective mind and have the original objection to the minority reinstated.  In this way intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted, with no rights at all.

 Moreover, permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  While some assimilation is necessary to encourage a “national identity”, when the majority demands changes to fundamental values of a minority, it becomes an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one who believes they are tolerant says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”; or: “homosexual behavior is against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”; or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue. 

The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equally in every respect.  This is called respectful tolerance.

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

This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism, homophobia, religious persecution and attacks on the LGLT community by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to show our displeasure of intolerant behavior? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant? 

Since the election of Donald Trump, this question has become a daily dilemma for many progressive Americans. Some take the position that Trump supporters must be met with intolerance because they will never change.  Others (myself included) believe that the key to winning back democratic supporters is to stay tolerant toward these voters who elected Trump and show respect for their opinions and concerns.

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

This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance. Rejection of an egregious behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms rather than by emotions or unsupported subjective standards of the majority.

By applying this simple test, it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect. The Trump supporter in the Mid-West, concerned about losing his job and worried that the information age and globalization are leaving him behind can be shown respect by progressive democrats, not intolerance.  

Under this model it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict, but with a high degree of understanding.  In weighing whether to be tolerant: rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment by minorities, trying to make their way in the modern world.

With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the concessions that are extended to them and remain angry. Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.   For example, I believe the Democratic Party was guilty of permissive tolerance in the last Presidential Election, toward many Mid-Western voters and their views. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” label on Trump supporters was even worse and bordered on intolerance toward a large portion of the electorate.   When there is no justifiable reason for an objection toward a minority view or behavior, it is time to demonstrate respectful tolerance, with no strings attached.

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

For those that take the time to understand tolerance, a new method of understanding “the other” opens up.  It compels each of us, when in the majority, to consider what it is like to be in the minority, where permissive tolerance feels a lot like no tolerance at all.

 It also works when confronted with a political debate, where both factions are too concerned with “being right” and complaining about the intolerance of the other.  Searching for objective justifications for the other’s position encourages respectful tolerance and civility as we seek to regain a semblance of political order in our fragmented society.

THE NEW CUBAN REVOLUTION

Part I of my commentary on Cuba concerned the Cuban people and their adaptation to socialism following the 1959 revolution. I will now review what our group from the Washington County Bar Association learned, concerning recent political events and the state of Cuban-American relations, on our recent trip to the island.

Other than the Miami Newspapers and the Latin American press, there has been little reporting on the significant changes that are taking place politically in Cuba.  With the notable exception of South Florida, Americans are not aware that a new Cuban Revolution is in full swing, one that is characterized by new leadership and a new constitution rather than by bullets.

For the first time since 1959, a man not named Castro is the head of state in Cuba. Effective in April 2018, Miguel Diaz-Canel, became Prime Minister. The previous head of state, Raul Castro, brother of former leader, Fidel Castro, remains First Secretary of the Communist Party and Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.  Diaz-Canel is scheduled to replace Castro as head of the Communist Party in 2021. This represents a clearly non-dynastic form of succession for the Communist Party as well as the Republic of Cuba.

With this background in place, the next phase of the revolution is underway with a new comprehensive constitution. A constitutional referendum is scheduled for February 24, 2019 following much debate and many amendments. Voters will be asked to approve the draft passed by the National Assembly in July 2018.  The referendum is expected to pass, with a large majority of Cubans casting ballots (86% of voters participated in the last general election) following an intense period of discussion, education and local media exposure. Cuban exiles were invited to participate in the discussions leading up to the final draft. In traveling around Havana, we saw many bill boards dedicated to explaining the referendum.

The new Constitution calls for the recognition of private property and the creation of a freer market, although it does not go as far as China or Viet Nam in establishing a market based economy.  Even before the referendum, private labor had expanded to 30% of the available jobs. Now, 200 legal forms of private employment will be recognized, mostly in the agricultural, restaurant and tourist trades. We saw firsthand that Cubans entering the private sector were among the wealthiest in Havana.  Private homes were doing double duty as restaurants and art galleries.  Tour guides were able to afford homes and vehicles well beyond the reach of the average Cuban.

The Constitution creates two consecutive five-year term limits imposed on the office of President.  There are provisions that ban discrimination and some general language that would seem to permit same-sex marriage.  There is a restoration of a “presumption of innocence” in the justice system.  A major reform calls for decentralization of decision making by allowing regional and local levels of government to discuss their problems, develop their own resources and to implement solutions.

To get to the heart of the new constitution one must carefully consider Article I as well as the reforms that were not introduced.  Article I, which sounds like it was written with Thomas Jefferson in mind calls for: “A socialist state based on the rule of law, democratic…aimed at the employment of political freedom, equity, justice and social equality…welfare and individual and collective prosperity.” But the devil is in the details.  Despite the new constitution Cuba will remain an authoritarian state with the communist party and military still firmly in control of the political apparatus and major institutions.

 While in the United States we move ever so slowly toward more “collective prosperity” with changes to health care and inequality, Cuba does the opposite, moving at a snail’s pace toward “individual prosperity”.  The age old democratic debate between the principles of liberty versus those of equality plays out in two countries 90 miles apart.

In light of these transformative political changes, what is the state of Cuban-U.S. relations?  One would think that our foreign policy would be to encourage these reforms and to reward Cuba by finally lifting the crippling embargo, that has caused untold suffering to the Cuban people for years.  This assessment would be wrong.

 The Obama administration recognized that Cuba was taking steps to become less authoritarian and no longer posed a threat to America by exporting communism to Latin America.  At the end of his second term Obama took the necessary steps to re-establish diplomatic relations and to ease the embargo.  When President Trump assumed office he immediately reversed course and again placed relations on a belligerent footing.  This was despite the fact that during the presidential campaign, the Trump business interests actively pursued the building of a hotel in the resort area of Cuba.

Some observers would attribute Trump’s actions to a simple knee jerk reaction toward any foreign policy initiative formulated by Obama. Others have focused on a more sinister political motivation based on the politics of South Florida. Marco Rubio and the politically powerful group of wealthy Cubans who defend the United States embargo against Cuba can deliver a great deal of money and enough votes to keep Florida in the Republican fold. Trump needed Florida to win the presidency in 2016 and will need Rubio’s support again in 2020.

It seems obvious to most observers of recent events in Cuba that tourism, foreign investment, and fewer restrictions would do more to encourage further change than a seventh decade of embargo.  Unlike our ally, Saudi Arabia, the Cuban government does not execute political critics.  Our group’s discussions with Cuban intellectuals revealed that politics are openly discussed and that a great deal of political dissent is tolerated.

A recent poll conducted by the Miami press (see Sun-Sentinel, February 1, 2019) shows that as fewer Cubans in South Florida are actually born in Cuba, attitudes are changing. Cuba came in dead last as the social issue Cuban-Americans care most about in elections.  Overall support for the embargo has declined significantly over time with 51% now in favor versus 78% in 1997. 83% of Cuban Americans now believe that the embargo has not worked at all or not worked very well.

Young Cuban voters are overwhelmingly against the embargo. The diplomatic relations resumed by President Obama at the end of his administration were supported by 77% of Cubans born in America.

With this degree of sea change, it is difficult to imagine that the old school conservative Cuban “hate machine” against Cuban socialism can hold together its grip on Miami politics much longer. Once Cuban Americans decide that freely visiting their homeland and removing the economic hardships for the average Cuban are more important than waiting for a regime change that will never happen, Cuban-U.S. relations will permanently open up. 

America will learn to live with its small socialist neighbor, as it has with other illiberal regimes around the world.  The trade and investment opportunities available in Cuba will far outweigh the continuation of an ideological conflict that most Americans do not remember, or care much about.

CUBA: IT’S COMPLICATED

When one asks a native Cuban a question about the state of affairs in their fascinating country, the answer is invariably, “it’s complicated”.  After spending five days in Havana and being introduced to all aspects of Cuban political, social, economic and artistic culture, I have come to believe that this remark is an understatement.

Recently, 24 intrepid lawyers, spouses and friends, interested in learning more about our neighbor off the coast of Miami, took advantage of a whirl wind cultural exchange sponsored by the Washington County Bar Association.  The tour was packed with lectures, diverse eating experiences, museums, an art colony and music/dance ensembles.  By the end of the five days, many of the questions and misconceptions surrounding this socialist island nation had been addressed.  But no one would disagree that Cuba remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma……and very complicated.

In talking to Cubans about their history and place in the world, the generation gaps are even more pronounced than in America.  Those born BC (before Castro) remember the inequality and corruption rampant in the Batista regime.  These older Cubans, now in their 70s and 80s tend to favor the revolution despite the many hardships.  Cubans born AC (after Castro) base their more pessimistic views on the Russian-Soviet withdrawal from the island during in the 90s.  This was a period of extreme economic hardship when many believed Cuba’s socialist experiment would not survive.

The even younger Cubans, now entering adulthood, are less conscious of the advances in education, healthcare and social equality achieved under socialism.  Many cannot wait to receive their excellent free education and seek to leave the island.   They are no doubt influenced by the siren call of uncensored internet and accessible media broadcasts from the U.S. mainland.

Another complication of Cuban culture is the dichotomy between the significant advances Castro’s socialism has achieved for the Cuban people, particularly those disadvantaged under the previous regime, and the massive dysfunctions caused by the same system.  On the one hand is the highest literacy rate in Latin America that turns out some of the best engineers and physicians in the world.  On the other hand, there are few employment opportunities in many segments of the economy. Professionals, even in essential fields, are poorly paid.  With the increase in tourism, it is not uncommon for a private restaurant owner or even a taxi driver with tips to earn more than a top surgeon.

Free comprehensive health care for all, with less infant mortality than the United States, is contrasted with little access to high tech medical equipment, because of the embargo. (see Nicholas Kristof NYT 1/18/19) As a result, every Cuban has some of the best basic universal health care in the world, with no opportunity to be treated with cutting edge procedures.

Housing in Cuba is complicated.  The homes of wealthy citizens who left the island following the revolution were turned into multifamily residences.  Cubans were permitted to purchase their living space from the government over a 15 year period.  The good news is that most Cubans now own their homes.  The bad news is that several generations of the same family often occupy the same space. Transfers of real estate are difficult with the value on the deed much lower than the market value.  Non Cubans are not permitted to own property which encourages very creative transactions with ex-pats who seek to live on the island.

New infrastructure and renovation of Cuban buildings has been nonexistent since the 1959 revolution.  Havana, once the pride of the Caribbean and Latin America, is now shabby at best.  Certain streets would not look out of place in the war torn Middle East. The problem is complicated by the embargo which makes it difficult to import building materials when other necessities are in high demand.  Moreover, Cuban housing regulations do not provide for maintaining common areas of residential buildings. Accordingly, there is no incentive for owners in a building to repair stained facades, crumbling steps, or dingy hallways. Lastly, new investment on the island is going to build up the resort area, not Havana.

The Cuban citizens’ relationship with their country is complicated.  My observation is that many complain about socialism with its dysfunctional economy, authoritarian government and stifling bureaucracy that manages to “find a problem for every solution.”  At the same time, Cubans are strongly nationalistic and are well aware that the violence and abject poverty found throughout Latin America does not exist in Cuba.

Guns are not permitted, with even long guns used for hunting in rural areas tightly controlled. Illegal drug use is nominal with strict criminal penalties and there are no gangs of disillusioned youth.  Havana streets are among the safest in the world.

One comes away from Cuba amazed at the resourcefulness of the people in dealing with the many complications.  The fact that 60,000 American vintage cars are still on the streets of Havana, wowing tourists, is itself a testimony to making the best of things. A “hybrid” vehicle is one that is kept running from parts pirated from many makes and models.

For under $5.00 Cuban young people can enjoy a romantic night on the town. This would include a movie (prices are subsidized by the government) ice cream at one of the famous parlors and a moon lit stroll down the Malecon, the five-mile sea walk that separates Havana from the ocean.

Cubans have learned how to circumvent the socialist system to get what they need in a variety of ways.  Many have second and third sources of income in addition to the low government wages.  When there is a crack in the monolithic socialist economy that permits a small degree of private enterprise, restaurants, creative arts groups and small businesses flourish.  Families work around the slim pickings on Cuban television by renting a black market video box full of current media, streamed from the U.S. over the internet.

Part two of this commentary will discuss the changing political environment in Cuba and the state of Cuban-American relations.

  

THE REAL CRISIS: LOSS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

As we enter 2019, there is a long list of problems to concern the neutral observer on the health of American governance.  In my view, almost all the ongoing crises, including trade wars, a prolonged governmental shutdown, uncertainty in foreign policy (that has allies and opponents alike scratching their heads) and even the threat of impeachment can all be traced to one overriding factor.  

There is a pronounced lack of knowledgeable advisors in the White House, in Congress and throughout the federal bureaucracy.  I am speaking of the paucity in today’s White House and federal government of old school political operatives; of foreign policy experts who are well versed in strategic options as well how foreign regimes think and act; and of economists and international experts with experience in negotiating agreements with other countries.

First, consider the Senate and the House of Representatives.  On matters of trade, the use of force, international agreements and even crafting bipartisan legislation on complex technical matters, Congress has gone AWOL. The past practice of members of Congress developing expertise in a certain area of governance in order to advise and challenge the President is no longer the case. It has been reported that new Republican members in the House of Representatives proudly announced their lack of a passport rather than their eagerness to learn and dive deeply into foreign policy. Exasperating the problem, today’s members of Congress seek to be placed on more committees then in the past, giving them little opportunity to gain proficiency in any one area.

The world is a complicated and dangerous place.  When we elect legislators who are partisan ideologues rather than those with the desire to get involved with policy and to govern, a valuable check and balance is lost. Power is ceded to the Presidency by default.  The White House is relied on to provide the expertise necessary to navigate through troubled waters without Congressional input or oversite.

Which brings us to Donald Trump’s two-year-old presidency. In the modern era, Presidents have been pleased that Congress has shirked its responsibilities. For example, shortly after 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force to combat terrorism. The AUMF has remained in place and given subsequent presidents the unchecked ability to expand military operations throughout the Middle East. Presidents Bush 43 and Obama gladly assumed the additional responsibility and staffed up the National Security Council with well-versed policy experts to replace what was clearly a congressional duty.  No one seemed to care.

Unfortunately, President Trump, while welcoming the lack of constraint on his actions, has not taken the manpower steps necessary to run an effective presidency. Where Obama hired the best experts he could find to present multiple options and encouraged debate, Trump openly criticizes or terminates those who disagree with him and seeks minimal input.

Now, two years into his presidency, Trump has left himself a skeleton crew of ideologically loyal staffers, with questionable expertise, who are willing to accept his “hunches” as the best way forward. The result has been a basketful of questionable unilateral decisions, made by the President with enormous consequences and no Congressional debate. While the media is reporting on Presidential tweets and the Mueller probe, Trump has walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Iran nuclear deal. His international travels have disrupted relations with our allies while embracing totalitarian regimes around the world.

The same can be said of Trump’s use of White House political operatives.  Their main task should be to protect the President from himself. Even with Trump’s loose cannon tendencies, it is difficult to believe that White House political advisors with the accumulated wisdom of a James Baker (Ronald Reagan) or John Podesta (Clinton, Obama) would have permitted Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey and to make the incriminating comments that lead to appointment of an Independent Counsel.

Lastly, the federal bureaucracy has been severely compromised in its ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities since Trump assumed the presidency.  In 2017, the State Department, lost 60 percent of its career ambassadors and a substantial cut to its budget. After more than 24 months in office, hundreds of key jobs that require Senate confirmation have yet to be filled.  In most cases a candidate has not been chosen by the White House. Thirteen Inspector General positions, charged with rooting out waste fraud and abuse, remain unfilled.  So much for Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp in Washington.

All of the above is a crisis, not simply a talking point.  It is not Trump’s fault that over the past several decades Congress has relinquished powers granted to it under the Constitution.  But he is responsible for firing NJ Governor, Chris Christie, who attempted to put a rational transition plan in place and for refusing to recognize his new responsibilities.

A president who states he “knows more than the Generals”, who refuses to read his daily security brief and who despises expertise is a danger indeed.  In the event of a real national emergency, one not manufactured by President Trump, the challenge may be beyond his ability to cope.

THE MEANING OF JUSTICE

The wordsmiths at Merriam-Webster recently declared “justice” the word of the year.  This difficult to define concept, arguably one of the foundations of our constitutional republic, saw a 74% increase in lookups in 2018 over the previous year.  No doubt the public’s interest in “obstruction of Justice” and “Justice Brett Kavanaugh” had something to do with the increase. But whatever the cause of additional focus, justice deserves a more in depth analysis than most Americans are willing to give it.

The origins of justice can be traced to a Gallicized version of the Latin word “iustitia” meaning fairness or equity. Over time the Roman goddess of Justice, portrayed as a woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other was adopted as an important symbol.  In the 16^th century, Lady Justice began wearing a blindfold to represent impartiality. The English common law turned justice into the watchword for a new type of court process, later faithfully imported into the American legal system. 

Justice is now used to impart a variety of meanings including equity, objectivity, honesty, morality and a judge of the supreme court.  For those willing to get down in the weeds and consider political philosophy, there are much deeper meanings.

  Understanding the manner in which justice has evolved from Plato and Aristotle through Immanuel Kant to John Rawls gives us a way to understand the deep political conflicts that divide our citizens into unrelenting tribes. It also explains why conservative and liberal judges have such different views on interpreting the law and in deciding what is just.

In a nutshell, the Hellenistic ancients believed that a just society should seek to promote the virtue of its citizens.  This would include passing laws that reflect the most desirable way for people to live.  On the other hand, more modern political philosophers have placed the emphasis on each person’s freedom to choose his or her subjective concept of how to live. Other recent philosophers have focused on the common good or on inequality. These conflicts of virtue versus freedom versus inequality have always been at the heart of the justice debate and remain with us today.

To investigate all of the philosophical nuances of justice is a long and complicated undertaking. Thankfully we have the excellent book by Michael J. Sandel: Justice, What’s The Right Thing To Do?, to help us along.  Professor Sandel teaches the most popular and discussed course at Harvard University, on understanding Justice.  His book is the summary of his scholarship for the rest of us.

Sandel starts with Utilitarianism: the principle of the most good for the most people.  This type of justice maximizes pleasure for the majority no matter how much pain for the minority.  Because we cannot all agree on what is good, utilitarianism and individual freedom are always in conflict.  Should we ban tobacco smoking?  How about soft drinks that lead to obesity?

Second, is Libertarianism: the idea that individual freedom trumps other factors.  Individuals can choose to harm themselves as long as others are not affected. No one should be deprived of individual liberty to help others. This includes taxing the well off to help the poor.  The government does not get the right to decide what is best for the individual.

The problem with formulating a system of justice based on libertarian thought is that we live in a society, not on individual islands.  For example, while it may seem logical to let each person determine their own healthcare, when the individual without insurance gets sick, we all pay for it. To many of us, leaving the social safety net to chance, with no safeguards, seems like cruel punishment to the disadvantaged.

Next, Professor Sandel considers the teachings of Immanuel Kant, which turned libertarian thought on its head.  Kant wrote that justice is a moral precept where it is rational for everyone to act in a way that harms no one. If individual actions cannot be scaled up to be good for everyone, without bad consequences for anyone, the actions are not moral and therefore not just. Conveniently, Kant never explained what his rules of morality should be.  Many consider his concept of justice difficult to follow in the real world.

Fourth, Sandel focuses on John Rawls, often credited with being the most important political philosopher of the 20^th century. The basis of his theory of justice is reason devoid of self-interest. He asks each of us to image a just society where there are no identity politics and where we have no subjective idea of where each of us would fit in, in terms of wealth or social structure.  His conclusion is that as rational beings we would all choose a society where those who have impediments in achieving social or economic standing would be well taken care of and inequality would be frowned upon.

The only inequality permitted in Rawls’ system would be if it were necessary to make all people better off.  For example, it might be required to pay certain professionals more money in medicine and other fields to maintain quality for the greater good.  As a contrast, libertarians believe that “value creators” deserve to keep all the value they create.  Rawls theorized that the entrepreneurs and professionals among us should only get enough “value” to be willing to do what they do.

Of course the Rawls model of justice is the kind of social liberal democratic model, now in vogue in Scandinavia and under severe attack by many illiberal, populist governments. While the western world appeared to accept the Rawls premise after the end of WWII and again after the defeat of Soviet communism, we are moving away from this justice concept that maximizes equality, with basic rights guaranteed for everyone, including minorities.

The last justice concept introduced by Professor Sandel is the virtue ethics of Aristotle. Here, a well-run society is one that encourages virtue, both by rewarding it and by building it through just laws and in the education of young people.  Aristotle disagreed with Kant that a society could develop rules for all people in all situations.  Instead, “the right thing to do” changes with the circumstances. Good people make good societies where good decisions are made, based on virtue. 

Consider four individuals arrested for theft.  The first stole solely to feed his family; the second was a young immature teenager following peer pressure; the third was an addict; the fourth a professional thief. Aristotelian virtue would not apply one hard and fast law to all four cases, but rather consider the right thing to do in each situation.  With Aristotle, “practical wisdom” goes a long way in forming a just society.

These diverse approaches to justice all ask the same question, how do we distribute the things we value in the right way? Each idea, rational in some respects and questionable in others, comes up with a different answer. This debate is important because how we view justice determines how we approach problems as diverse as affirmative action, incarceration, climate change, economic recession and paying for higher education.

The best political philosophers throughout history have been unable to provide one answer acceptable to all citizens living in our democratic republic.  But to understand the underpinnings of the different theories we have regarding justice is to bring moral clarity to the choices that must be made.

When it comes to justice, perhaps the best we can hope for is that informed citizens will consider the validity of different solutions in building a just society.

INTERNATIONAL AND ECONOMOC PREDICTIONS FOR 2019

While making political predictions for 2019 are fraught with uncertainty (my last commentary) predictions on the international scene and on the economy, guarantee almost certain disappointment. Nonetheless, I will pull out the crystal ball and gaze into the foggy future.

The attempt by Great Britain to forge an orderly exit from the European Union must be completed by March of the new year.  I predict that the pessimists who see economic collapse of Great Britain and substantial damage to the world economy are wrong. We have been down this road before. The same negative thinkers called for the end of the world at the turn of the century with the “Y2K crisis” which failed to materialize. When the clock struck midnight in 2000 to ring in the new century, the chickens continued to lay eggs and there was no collapse. The same will be true for Brexit whether a comprehensive agreement is reached, or not.

I predict that 2019 will be a worse year for the European Union than for Great Britain.  Populist impulses will continue to gain strength. In Europe, political affiliations are no longer being drawn along progressive versus conservative lines as much as along globalist/humanist views versus those that favor cultural/ethnic boundaries.  2019 will determine how this monumental shift in sentiment plays out for the future of the European Union.

The hope that France would join with Germany to forge a stronger union has been dashed by President Macron’s setbacks after the Paris riots and by uncertainty in Germany as Angela Merkel’s government is replaced.  Italy is on the brink of an economic crisis, which will affect all the member states.

I predict that ISIS will gain both territory and volunteers in 2019.  With President Trump taking steps to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan and the Iraq government demanding withdraw of the American presence from Northern Iraq, conditions for a resurgence are in place.

I predict that President Trump will continue to curry favor from authoritarian leaders around the world including those in Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Turkey, Russia and Brazil. Reaching hand shake agreements with these leaders provides the President with instant gratification and seemingly positive nightly news sound bites, even if long term meaningful results are nonexistent.  

I predict that a significant international event in 2019 will be the crisis in American-Latin American relations. Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are fast approaching failed states with urban gang warfare, repression, and political violence. Immigrants seeking a better life are flowing to the border and asking for asylum.  The Democratic House of Representatives will introduce legislation to improve conditions in these countries to stem the migration. President Trump will continue to lobby for the opposite and call for ending financial aid to Central America. He will continue to insist on fulfilling his campaign promise to build a wall.

In addition, the newly elected leftist government in Mexico and the more conservative government in Brazil will both take power in 2019. I predict that both events will call for major adjustments in American foreign policy.

I predict that international affairs will be a hot topic among Democrats seeking the nomination of their party for the 2020 Presidential election.  They will debate the Trump policy of “winning”, which is something you do to stomp down other nation states versus the traditional foreign policy objective of “leading” which is accomplished with the cooperation of others.

On the domestic economic front, I predict that the first 8-12 weeks of 2019 will be marred by uncertainty and volatility as Democrats take over the House and gain their sea legs. I predict that the middle of the year will be relatively calm with moderate increases in the stock market averages as earnings surprises to the upside are revealed and the trade war with China is resolved.  Lastly I predict a return to volatility in the latter part of the year as investors begin to worry about a long overdue economic slowdown and possible recession.

The big economic story for 2019 will be how little positive effect the Trump tax cuts have had on the economy.  Studies will reveal that most of the savings realized by corporations were utilized to buy back stock and not to make capital investments. It will become clear that wealthy Americans chose to save their windfall tax decreases rather than to invest, and to wait out the expected downturn in the economy.  Increases in productivity and full employment will not offset the losses in revenue from the tax cut (because a majority of the new employment provided for untaxed low wages) and the deficit will increase dramatically.

On the social front, I predict that in America and around the world global warming will replace 1) the “MeToo” movement and 2) the rise of populist political movements as the prevailing issue of debate. Discussion will shift from how to prevent global warming (that ship has sailed) to the most effective policies to limit the adverse effects of global warming.  Many Republicans will finally join the call to address climate change in 2019, as the economics of coal and combustion engines change for the worse and everyone knowns someone who is directly affected by the adverse consequences.

By the end of 2019 many of the questions now on our minds will be answered. Sure things will not materialize and unexpected results will have us all shaking our heads.  Then we can start all over again in predicting events in 2020.

PREDICTING POLITICAL EVENTS IN 2019

One of the most hopeless exercises one may undertake is predicting the future. Not only do our built-in biases adversely effect our views, the future truth is often stranger than fiction and impossible to nail down with any accuracy. But still many make the attempt to see if someone will get it right. 

My 2019 prognostications will begin, in Washington County, where I predict that all three of our Commissioners will be reelected with little appreciable opposition. Democratic Commissioner Shober has now served for two terms and has gained the name recognition and reputation as a hard working public servant that should guarantee him a safer margin of victory than in the past. The reelections of Commissioners Maggi and Diana Irey Vaughan are not a prediction, but rather a sure thing.  I have previously pointed out in this column that unlike our federal and state governments, our three Commissioners actually govern and have exercised the level of prudent cooperation that produces results.

There will be an election for District Attorney in 2019 and I predict that the present DA, Republican Eugene A. Vittone Esq., will be reelected.  Although Democratic voter registrations still outnumber Republican registrations, there is a growing Republican preference among the electorate as evidenced by the local 2016 local mid-term results.  Moreover, Vittone has pleased many citizens with his compassionate stand on drug abuse at a time when almost everyone knows someone effected by the opioid crisis.

The two most interesting municipal elections in 2019 will be to replace retiring County Treasurer, Francis King, and to fill a new Judgeship recently approved by the Governor in our local Court of Common Pleas.  I predict that both elections will feature multiple candidates and hotly contested May primaries.

In the City of Washington and in the Washington County municipalities there will be important elections for which I am not knowledgeable enough to offer any predictions.  I will predict that the hottest issue in Allegheny County local government will make its way into Washington County in 2019.  I am referring to the discussions to merge fire departments, to merge police forces and to merge municipal governments in order to save money and avoid financial collapse. The City of Washington and many small municipalities and first responders will not survive without joining this conversation to think outside the box.

I predict that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will follow the lead of New Jersey, Virginia and California in becoming more Democratic in 2019. In the mid-term elections, Republicans lost three congressional seats and lost both the Gubernatorial and Senate races by double digits.  The key is new voters, larger urban populations and Pennsylvania’s eastern suburbs where traditional Republicans are not comfortable with the new party brand as embodied by the President.

But, while Democrats now have the stronger statewide apparatus, they have not made significant inroads in electing State House and Senate representatives in the many rural Pennsylvania counties.  This will result in a continued legislative stalemate between the Governor and the State Legislature in 2019. 

Predicting results in national politics is the brass ring of 2019.  To be effective here, one must put emotion to the side to think through the most likely outcomes.  One must also recognize that in the wild wild west of Trump world, anything can happen.

First, I predict that President Trump will not be impeached.  The Republicans who control the Senate have too much invested in Trump’s base and their own political futures to walk out on the President now.  I also predict that Trump’s criminal exposure and that of his family and business interests will be more in focus after the Special Counsel completes his assignment.

Second, I predict that the Special Counsel will not indict the President while he is in office, but will indict members of his family.  I cannot see a Republican Justice Department changing their written policy and giving Mueller permission to indict Trump while he remains in office. I predict this result could be reversed if Trump attempts to pardon his own family or other co-conspirators while in office.

Third, I predict that Democrats who control the House of Representatives will not be spending as much political capital on removing the President as the cable networks are spending on advocating such a move.  The better bet is for the House to spend the next two years on developing policy that is beneficial to the electorate. 

When the Senate and President vote the Democratic initiatives down, there will be a voting record and platform for Democrats to regain control of the executive and legislative branches in 2020. Conversely, there is the possibility that the House, freed from the controlling freedom caucus, will actually pass legislation on spending, a farm bill, immigration reform and infrastructure that will reach common ground with the Republicans and become law.  (hedging my predictions here)

Third, I predict, for the same reason stated above, that House investigations into the Trump Presidency will be selective and involve only the most egregious transgressions.  It makes no sense to spend two years investigating Trump and to accomplish nothing else.  At this point the odds that such investigations will change the minds of Trump supporters is nil. But developing sound policy can bring traditional Republicans, purple Democrats and independents into the Democratic fold.

Fourth, not unlike the over-under bet in an NFL game, I predict that more Democrats will enter the Presidential race in 2019 than the 17 Republicans in 2015.

Fifth, I predict that all legal challenges to the ACA (Obamacare) will be defeated in 2019 and that the medical insurance plans offered in many states will begin to turn a profit for the first time.

Sometimes there is merit in throwing rationality to the wind, particularly when dealing with President Donald Trump. Accordingly, I predict that late in 2019, Donald Trump will announce he is not running for reelection.  Trump will turn the Presidency over to Vice President Pence, with assurances that he and all members of his family receive full federal pardons. Trump will claim he is a businessman not a politician, and like the virtuous Cincinnatus, that he has accomplished all of his announced goals. He will return to private live to save his business and to fight whatever state investigations and criminal charges are not cleared by the pardons.

In part II of this commentary, I will give my international, economic and social predictions for 2019.