GOVERNMENT LED BY THE UNINTERESTED AND THE UNINFORMED

The impeachment hearings that took place over two weeks presented a complex scenario for the American public to follow. The post-cold war relationship between Russia, Ukraine and the United States, that sets the background for the hearings, is even more complicated and was little discussed by the congressional committee or the media.  Without this historical context, the average listener would have no reason to understand the importance of Ukraine to American foreign policy. (for background see: Foreign Affairs, 11/22/19, The Shoals of Ukraine, Where American Illusions and Great-Power Politics Collide, Serhii Plokhy and M. E. Sarotte) 

The hearings, designed to gather facts for articles of impeachment, were evidence of something more ominous than a one-time quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine. The important revelation for me was understanding the chaos that results when the federal government is led by a White House that is uninterested in following accepted procedures and uninformed on its own foreign policy. My fear is that what has been exposed is only one small example of the governance crises yet to come as a direct result of Trump’s hubris and ignorance.

Of the witnesses that testified, all but one, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, were long standing, highly qualified career diplomats and policy experts.  The experts understood the background on Ukraine and the disinterested and uninformed policies that brought us to a constitutional crisis.  Mr. Sondland, on the other hand, was a political appointee who paid one million dollars to the Trump inauguration to gain his position.  Like the President, Mr. Sondland’s background was in the hotel business.  He had no training or experience in diplomacy. 

The loosest canon in this fiasco is Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer.  Mr. Giuliani was not a diplomat and in recent years made millions giving speeches and selling himself as a security consultant to authoritarian governments.

None of the well trained policy experts and diplomats had any contact with the President. They all had valuable information to share concerning Ukraine’s immediate need for military assistance.  Their reasoned advice to superiors on the Ukraine political situation and timely warnings to department lawyers were subject to formal protocol and went unheeded.

Only the players with no historical knowledge or diplomatic experience, Giuliani and Sondland, had direct access to the President.  Both either encouraged or were on board with what Trump wanted to accomplish.

It is impossible to know whether the ill-advised scheme leading to impeachment would have occurred if White House advisers interested and informed about Ukraine were in place.  Reports of the White House in 2017-2018 indicated that the Chief of Staff, White House Counsel, National Security Adviser and key Cabinet heads, all had some positive influence over the President.  These officials were able to discourage outrageous or illegal behavior on the part of the President on numerous occasions.

Unfortunately, all of the “adults in the room” are long gone and the President has only his own political instincts, his limited knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, his inexplicable pro Russian, anti European view of foreign policy and the commentators on Fox News to guide him. My conjecture is that as uninterested and uninformed political appointees continue to advise the President, the worst is yet to come and that Ukraine and impeachment will be the least of our concerns.

First, consider that the President’s son-in- law, Jerad Kushner, has been given an exclusive profile over foreign policy in the Middle East.  Mr. Kuschner is yet another Trump insider with knowledge of the hotel business and with no diplomacy experience. Both the FBI and CIA recommended that Kuschner not receive top level security clearances, a decision overruled by the President. 

No one seems to know what Jared is up to but his progress on the President’s “ultimate deal” between Israel and Palestine has gone nowhere. In September, the only seasoned diplomat reporting to Jared, Jason Greenblatt, left the White House and was replaced by Avi Berkowitz, a young recent graduate who previously was Mr. Kuschner’s errand boy.  (Politico, 9/6/19: Can Jared’s millennial “mini me” bring peace to the Middle East?)

Second, is the State Department, where key professionals either resigned or were terminated by the previous Secretary of State and ignored by the present placeholder, Mike Pompeo.  Mr. Pompeo is reportedly going to run for the Senate and spends as much time in Kansas as Washington.  His goal is to agree with and not upset the President.

Third, there is no coherent policy toward either North Korea or Iran, other than Trump’s wish for bilateral meetings.  Both countries have rejected this outreach and continue to solidify their nuclear capabilities.

Fourth, no one knows what other promises, commitments or self serving deals may have been made by the President to other heads of state.

Fifth, the chaos in governance that was evident during the impeachment hearings did not go unnoticed by Russia, China and other foreign governments. Whether Trump would encourage a foreign military engagement to take off the impeachment heat is unknown. What is known is that uninformed foreign policy decisions made for personal or political reasons are not in the country’s best interests.

I would propose that Republican Senators exercise the art of the deal with the President.  In return for supporting him in the upcoming impeachment trial, insist on the following:  1) that a bipartisan foreign policy expert sit in on all conversations with foreign leaders and review transcripts of prior conversations, with authority to report problems to Congress; 2) that the White House move quickly to fill all staff positions in the foreign policy apparatus with qualified candidates; and that 3) the President remove his son- in- law from responsibility for the Middle East and replace him with a seasoned expert. 

Such moves would exercise responsible oversight and could save America from another constitutional crisis, or much worse.

WASHINGTON COUNTY (MORE THAN EVER) NEEDS A DIVERSITY COMMISSION

Sometimes when I pick up the newspaper, the topic for an opinion article slaps me in the face. No, not the impeachment hearings that are receiving more than enough coverage from every conceivable angle.  The November 1, 2019 Observer Reporter featured two front-page articles on what happens in a community that is not proactive on the issue of diversity and ethnic inclusion.

In the same issue was a glossy full color magazine published by the local Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Agency. Twenty-eight Community leaders are featured.  One is a black woman, four are white women and the rest are white men.  One of the articles is entitled “Growth Driven by Working Together.”  There is no discussion on addressing economic or social diversity within Washington County.

The first front page article discussed a recent outbreak of students from Canon McMillian School District circulating racially insensitive videos on Facebook.  The school superintendent was quoted as saying: “we need to address it [racism] head-on and meet the challenge.”  The response to this incident was scheduling a school assembly with a professor who specializes in diversity and inclusion.

The second prominent front page article was a summary of this professor’s high school assembly at Canon-McMillan, designed to address the racism. The reporting summarizes an effective presentation designed to leave students with a message on kindness and acceptance.  More initiatives are on the horizon to extend the school district’s “No Place for Hate” program.

The response of Canon McMillan to the hateful incident was certainly welcome and encouraging.  But those of us who care about diversity were not heartened by the bimonthly Inside Washington County Chamber of Commerce Magazine.  The issue was titled: “Washington County…An American Success Story”. The Chamber trumpeted low taxes and the opportunity for outsized profits as the foundation that makes Washington County successful.  Other business leaders discussed the ability to adapt to changing conditions brought on by the oil and gas industry. The Tourism Promotion Agency was proud of the many domestic and international visitors that travel to Washington County each year.

While all of these points were valid, something was sorely missing in addressing what makes Washington County successful.  There was no discussion of the diversity that exists in Washington County and the part that minorities play in our success. There was no plan by our mostly white leadership to encourage others of different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds to invest, live and work here.  Moreover, there was no commitment to business diversity that should include the nurturing of entrepreneurs in economically challenged neighborhoods as well as large corporations in Southpointe.

Without a proactive diversity plan in place: racism in our schools; minority hiring in our police forces, courts and county offices; and incentives for minority businesses and professionals in all fields to make Washington County their home will not be addressed on a comprehensive basis.  County leaders will continue to react to racist incidents as they occur rather than to fashion a plan to avoid them.  New business initiatives will follow the same tired homogeneous model rather than incubate diverse paths to success.

What is to be done? Look no further than Lehigh County, our neighbor to the east, with a population of 366,000 compared to the 207,000 who reside in Washington County.  Like Washington County, Lehigh County is undergoing an economic resurgence due to its location near New York City and Philadelphia.  Unlike Washington, Lehigh has recently announced its commitment to diversity.

An impressive array of regional organizations (including the local chamber of commerce) have come together on a project called “Color Outside the Lines” to develop a strategic plan designed to remove the systemic and structural barriers to racial equity and inclusion.  In an October 2019 press release, it was announced: “In an us-versus-them world the process needs everyone to be us. This is an opportunity to learn how much we are all better off when we are all better off. Lets show the rest of the nation what it means to be from Lehigh County.”  The strategic plan will be developed through a series of workshops, community meetings, conferences and trainings.

Before Washington County undergoes a comprehensive strategic diversity plan, it needs a forum dedicated to the needs of local minorities.  Accordingly, I will renew my call for a diversity commission, appointed by the county commissioners, but independent of direct county oversight.  The commission needs the legitimacy of a formal appointment to gain traction in the community. However, it must also be independent of any political pressures so that its members are free to point out diversity and inclusion deficiencies within municipal and county government. 

Clearly, the time for such a commission, or other appointed working group, is long overdue.  We can start by recognizing that when every community flourishes, Washington County is truly an American success story.

HOW TO TALK ABOUT POLITICS

In my lifetime our country and indeed much of the western world has not been as polarized over partisan politics.  Even the tumultuous 1960s and 70s, when Vietnam, civil rights and the Nixon impeachment divided the country, did not appear as divisive as today’s social media fueled political atmosphere.  With the prospect of a presidential impeachment inquiry and a national election on the horizon, getting along with those with differing political views is bound to get worse. To counter this tendency I will describe some of my experiences and offer ideas on how to talk about politics.  

  

I am not suggesting that those who care about our political system should stop participating in the debate. As concerned citizens, it is our civic responsibility to speak out against policies that threaten the political, social, economic and ethical positions we believe in.  But political discourse can be accomplished in a fashion that seeks to build consensus rather than to tear down, that is open to other opinions and considerate of other points of view. 

Making fun of or degrading political leaders and their followers from the opposing party has become a fool’s errand for both Democrats and Republicans.  It can only result in emotional responses and increased hostility.  I have decided to leave this task to the late night comedians, political cartoonists, and the cable news talking heads.

My goal when I make a point, post on social media or comment in public will be to focus on the positive.  Quotes by or about Elijah Cummings, Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King Jr. and political philosophers often get at the position I want to emphasize in a positive manner.  In my experience, providing a thought that highlights the optimistic “what could be” rather than the negative of “what is wrong” has greater impact in getting others to consider an opinion.

When I speak with Republicans about politics, I now try to differentiate between “Party Republicans” and “Trump Republicans.” Rather than criticize Republican views on conservative and/or religious principles, I first seek to determine whether my opponent would give up Trump for another conservative political leader if all policy results were the same (abortion, Supreme Court appointments, tax cuts, regulations, etc.). I have found that separating Trump with his destructive tweets and dangerous precedents for running the presidency from policy positions opens up avenues for constructive discussion on important issues. Moreover, I believe that many Party Republicans are not Trump Republicans and that this fact will ultimately determine the President’s political fate.

I will continue to respond to posts and articles that are factually wrong or misplaced.  Recently a conservative family member re-posted an NPR piece on young people in Sweden implanting a financial chip into their arm. He turned the article into an anti-socialism rant when the reporting was simply pointing out Sweden’s move to a cashless society. I pointed out his mistake and we had a constructive on-line discussion.

One of my favorite columnists is Tim Hartford, aka the undercover economist, who writes for the Financial Times. In a recent column (10/12/19), he laments the effects of Brexit on British society.  He makes the excellent point that: “It’s tempting to obsess about the tone of politics, but that is a trap.  If we spend our time wringing our hands over the form of the political conversation, it leaves little space to think about the content.”

Mr. Hartford offers three ideas on how to talk about politics that I find refreshing.  First, when faced with someone whose politics you dislike, engage on what can be done to solve an issue that both agree requires resolution.  

Refrain from sinking into a food fight on which politician is the most despicable.

Second, stop scorning others who you believe to be under-informed.  Most of us know less about complex issues than we think we do. Just because one reads the Economist or Foreign Affairs does not mean that the individual understands the history and solutions for immigration at the southern border or the interests of the multitude of factions involved in northern Syria.  Unless one is a constitutional scholar, it is difficult to grasp the nuances of the emoluments clause, the limits of presidential power or impeachment.  All are complicated.  Most people who are willing to engage on such topics have something to point out worth considering.

Third, people on the other side of the debate, like all of us, want the best for their family and the country. Living in a society where one-half the citizens are considered either ignorant or wicked or both may provide fertile ground for certain politicians but is barren ground for the rest of us.  

We can do better.  If nothing else, hug the uncle who exasperates you.

A TRIP TO THE MIDDLE OF ITALY

The Italian economy and social structure is similar to a many layered cake.  At the top in the north is the thick butter cream icing.  Much of the industrial and financial wealth is concentrated here and life is good.  At the bottom of the Italian boot is a thick crusty base where poverty and unemployment are high. The governmental infrastructure flourishing in the north is difficult to find in Southern Italy.  Not surprisingly, many of the Italian families who immigrated to Western Pennsylvania in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries can trace their heritage back to Calabria in the southern portion of Italy.

 In early October, my wife and I traveled with a group of local attorneys and other interested parties to the center of the Italian layer cake.  We spent three full days in Sorrento on the western coast below Naples; three days in beautiful Florence and three days in Rome. Each area was distinctive and held its special charms.

Sorrento is the gateway to the Italian Mediterranean playground. Beaches, yachts and sunburned tourists are the order of the day. Our hotel in Sorrento looked out onto the Bay of Naples with Mount Vesuvius and Pompeii, off in the distance.  Both the Amalfi coastline and the Island of Capri are within easy reach. The breathtaking ride to Amalfi along the switchback costal road reminded me of the Big Sur portion of Highway One in California. Local ceramics, seafood restaurants and expensive hotels built into the bluffs over the Mediterranean are what make this area so desirable.

A short hydrofoil boat ride transports tourists to Capri. The Island has always been known for its limoncello liqueur and lemon perfumes. More recently Capri has become the destination of the rich and famous from around the world. Every upscale designer and boutique is represented along the narrow winding streets. A ski lift takes tourists to the top of the Island to view the panorama of olive groves and sea below.

The next leg of our journey took us north to Florence via high-speed train from Naples. The view from our window changed to rolling hills filled with vineyards, ancient towers and Tuscan villages. We spent the afternoon on a walking tour of old Florence, which included Michelangelo’s David, the Duomo and the Baptistery with its famous bronze doors.

For shoppers, among the attractions in Florence are leather goods, truffles and finely crafted gold and silver jewelry.  For lovers of Renaissance history and art, Florence is ground zero. The Medici family made their money in banking, not considered an acceptable vocation by the local nobility. Cosimo de Medici, “father of the fatherland”, and his prodigy responded by using their vast wealth to rebuild Florence into a showcase, utilizing the talents of Italy’s greatest creative minds.  The buildings, houses of worship, sculptures, and paintings make Florence, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful city in the world.

The next day, under the bright Tuscan sun, we spent the morning in the towering walled, hill town of San Gimigano.  The trek up the steep hill to the town square was rewarded with incredible vistas of Tuscany, cottage linen shops and what is regarded as the best gelato in Italy.

The afternoon was a true adventure at the Tenuta Torciano Winery in the Tuscan countryside. This 15^th generation family business has over a thousand acres under cultivation. The grapes are planted under different soil conditions that produce several world class varieties of wine.  We were heartily welcomed by the owner and invited to participate in a truffle hunt; vespa scooter rides through the vineyards; and a cooking class. The evening festivities featured a six-course dinner with wine tasting.  Many in our group ordered wine, olive oils and a 30 year old balsamic, all sent home in time for the holidays. 

On our last day in Florence the group was free to explore the museums and shopping. My wife and I had been to Florence several years ago and missed the Palatine Gallery and Gardens at the Pitti Palace, the residence of the Medici family. We trekked across the Ponte Vecchio covered bridge that crosses the Arno river, shopping and eating along the way.  The Pitti Palace was not as crowded as other attractions and was well worth our effort.  At sunset we returned to our hotel with spectacular photo ops along the way. As we packed for Rome, an opera singer serenaded us from the courtyard below.

Another high-speed train delivered our group south to Rome for our final destination. There was no evidence that the tourist season was winding down, with large crowds at every attraction. Not even an early morning arrival at the Vatican could escape the throngs lined up for the Vatican museums, Sistine Capel and St. Peter’s Basilica. The Trevi Fountain was surrounded by thousands of spectators, as were the Spanish steps.

Our last day was a free one and our destination was the Capitoline Museums on the Roman Hill with the same name.  Again, we were in luck as all the tourists appeared to be braving the hot sun and were wandering outside through the Forum and Palatine Hill. A special exhibit highlighting the life and paintings of Luca Signorelli held our interest along with some of the more important archeological discoveries found in Rome and the surrounding area.  Other members of our group ventured to the Borghese Gallery and Museum or to the Coliseum.  

While all of Italy is a tourist mecca, the center layers of this amazing country offer a great deal to see and do. My summary of the trip has skipped the long luxurious suppers, which are a story in themselves.  One day we will return to tour the north and take in Venice, Lake Como and Milan. In addition, we will plan a future trip to Calabria in the south to find my wife’s ancestral roots.

THE END OF DEMOCRACY

Politico Magazine (September 8, 2019) recently set off a firestorm of discussion when it highlighted an academic paper presented by the renowned political scientist, Shawn Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg concluded that: “democracy is devouring itself- and it won’t last.”  His premise is that social media has diluted the ability of society’s elites to guide self-rule along a responsible path.  In their place, he argues, the masses now control the political process and they are ill equipped to run a well-functioning democracy as envisioned by the founders.

 Politico Magazine summarizes the argument as follows:  “Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who do not look like them.  It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and to process the good from the bad, the truth from the false.  It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.”

Rosenberg sees the end of democracy as imbedded in the human tendency to seek out simple solutions to complicated problems when given the chance.  Thus, when a cascade of unfiltered sources of information push out an easy to digest combination of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism as the path to a better life, it is difficult for many Americans to ignore. The reptilian brain is offered up a sugar high that encourages the replacement of thoughtful democratic pluralism with a populist plan to have no tolerance for members of other tribes.

Rosenberg does not place the blame for the end of democracy on Donald Trump. I would agree that these tendencies existed long before the internet exploded, during the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. The information fueled populism smoldered during the Obama presidency and reignited in 2015, when Trump was running for office.  Ironically, the more open, free and “democratic” the flow of unfettered information, the less responsible the electorate has become.

To save democracy in our constitutional republic, is it time to turn to the philosopher kings envisioned by Plato for their non-partisan wisdom? Is it time to replace the unwashed masses with a few good men who can lead us through the wilderness?  I think not. 

In the pre internet decades, when money, politics and power from both political parties exercised greater control over the electorate, inequality rose to unprecedented levels.  Wealth begat more wealth at the expense of middle class prosperity.   Voters were presented with too few choices.  Selective agendas were formulated in the political back rooms and corporate board rooms. Clearly, top down democracy is as unacceptable as unchecked populist democracy.

So what is to be done?  There is no putting the information genie back in the bottle.  Responsible democratic pluralism must adapt to the new reality of opinions and misinformation masquerading as facts. Our long heritage of freedom of expression (not to mention the Constitution) would not permit the formation of “information police” to determine what is factual versus what is harmful to a democracy.

I will offer two thoughts that could represent small steps in returning to a healthy democratic pluralism.  First, Congress should adopt a bi-partisan national initiative to use debate technology in the public schools to teach critical observation from different perspectives.  Not the ego driven debate techniques found in political campaigns, but the fact driven methods taught in formal debating.

I still fondly remember my 8^th grade debating experience incorporated into the social studies curriculum. The topic was foreign aid and many of the issues remain the same in today’s political environment. The participants spent many hours researching their positions and the final debate was presented to the elementary school community.

I can think of no better platform than formal debating to prepare students for the opportunities and dangers of the information age. Such an addition would mandate increased emphasis on social studies and government, both sorely lacking. Students would develop skills in research, the weighing of alternative positions, organization, persuasion, communication and civic awareness.

My second suggestion would require individual and community effort to implement.  It has become obvious to me that face-to-face communication is a valuable tool in counteracting the excesses and falsehoods of the information age.  Actively listening, building trust, fostering relationships and letting others give feedback is a constructive way to address sensitive political, social, and economic issues.

Communities need to take the lead in sponsoring discussion forums in their libraries, places of worship and education campuses.  With the appropriate moderator, a diverse group of citizens can come to understand opposing points of view without the rancor or emotional outbursts so common on social media.  The goal is respectful tolerance for alternative positions, not to change anyone’s mind.

In my own experience, a book club is an excellent forum to consider alternative points of view. There are many other social gatherings that can achieve a cross pollination of ideas.  The only requirement is that the membership be diverse to avoid “preaching to the choir.” In this regard, meetings of partisan political organizations are of little benefit.

 The information age is not going away.  The internet and social media will remain a potent force in shaping our political future.  It is important that we take steps to insure that all reasonable views are open for discussion and that voters learn skills to identify, challenge and reject misinformation.

Will encouraging debating skills and community meetings alone abate the erosion of democracy? Probably not, but we need to start somewhere.

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

“Sometimes, I feel I gotta get away
Bells chime, I know I gotta get away
And I know if I don't, I'll go out of my mind
Better leave her behind with the kids, they're alright
The kids are alright”  THE WHO

We recently attended a wedding in Pittsburgh, organized by and populated with millennials. Nothing about the ceremony or reception was traditional.  The few baby boomers in attendance could not help scratching their heads at the audacity of young people changing the rules of getting married.  By the end of the evening, I grudgingly had to admit, the future of America is secure.  The kids are alright.

To describe the wedding, is to enter an alternative reality of a communal gathering to honor an exchange of vows. Rather than a house of worship, the location was an old warehouse where nymph like twenty somethings practice the art form made famous by Cirque du Soleil. During the pre-dinner reception, guests were in awe of acrobatic performances above their heads.

The bride and groom met while swing dancing and both have a special affinity for tacos.  The former provided the post dinner entertainment and the latter the theme for the wedding appetizers and buffet.  There was no wedding cake.  A well-stocked cookie table and bar provided the sweets and lubrication for the occasion. 

The parents of the groom are close friends, so we were observers to the lead up of the wedding. The newly married couple have secure employment and utilized a parental loan to purchase a home in the heart of Pittsburgh. Senior wedding guidance was brushed aside and many of the well-appointed but frugal arrangements made by or paid for by the couple.  Nothing would deter them from their vision.

The young guests in attendance were emotional clones in their insular worlds, but diverse in their ethnic backgrounds and sexual preferences.  If the coupling in attendance holds firm, mixed marriages of every description will be the new norm.  Misogynist, homophobic, and anti-immigration views will have no place in mid-21^st century millennial America.

The few married couples with children seemed to hold an elevated position among the throng and one could detect the ticking of biological clocks among the single women.  But the women were emancipated and assertive.  The men were deferential and supportive. Adopting the bride’s maiden name was a popular idea.  Gender equality seemed the order of the day.

This was a professional and geeky crowd trained to practice medicine, law and cutting their teeth at Goggle.  Not many tattoos, at least in places that were observable.  In other words, our future leaders.

A few observations have lead me to conclude that America is in good hands. First, these young adults were aloof but confident in their life choices and career paths.  The groom loves working with his hands and nixed his earlier plans to earn a PhD in history to become a plumber.  Unlike my generation, they are not about attacking the choices made by their parents. They are simply ignoring what came before and busy taking action to create new social norms and business infrastructure.

Second, these young people care about the environment.  They make choices big and small with sustainability and carbon usage in mind.   I sense the environment will grow into a political and economic juggernaut as they age and seize the reigns of power.  Within my lifetime, Americans will be asked to sacrifice material wealth in order to address climate change and other fallout from industrialization.

Third, millennial America is well positioned to transition America into the information age. Their problem solving skills in medicine, law, accounting, finance and above all technology are digitally enhanced. No traditional method of doing business will be safe from their vision. The solutions to chronic problems they will develop are science fiction today.

In politics, the 2020 national election will see millennials as the largest demographic group in deciding our future.  They are not committed to partisan party politics but are intent on electing a President who values what they value.  There is a growing awareness that their parent’s generation has asked them to sacrifice a great deal in terms of high debt loads and lower economic outlooks, all to support the boomer’s crash into retirement.  Many millennials want to change this reality.

Lastly, I do not see this generation selling out their views for individual wealth.  One gets the sense that democratic socialism would match their worldview well.  A willingness to pay higher taxes in return for cradle to grave social benefits; job satisfaction and more free time. Less material wealth replaced by a healthier and happier life for them and their children.

I feel confident in leaving mother earth and American democracy behind with the kids.  The kids are alright. 

IT IS NOT “TIME FOR A CHANGE” IN THE COMMISSIONER’S NOVEMBER ELECTION

Many prospective voters are focused on the national elections in 2020 and giving little attention to this November’s contests.  For voters in Washington County, this would be a mistake.  This year’s race for County Commissioner will determine whether Washington County remains on the path of responsible decision-making or enters into an uncertain future with a high probability of a change for the worse. Unlike the well-worn political slogan, it is simply not “time for a change” in Washington County.

No one who follows local politics believes that Commissioners Larry Maggi, a Democrat, or Diana Irey Vaughan, a Republican, are in danger of losing their seats.  The future of Washington County governance will depend on whether incumbent Democrat, Harlan Shober, or Republican challenger, Nick Sherman, wins the third seat for Commissioner.  

Voter registration has become more Republican in recent years.  In the event that Democrats do not turn out to vote, Washington County could enter 2020 with a Republican majority on the Board.  This was almost the result in 2015 when Mr. Shober won his Commissioner seat by the narrow margin of 35 votes over his Republican challenger.

Let me be clear, I am not a die-hard local Democratic supporter.  I disagree with the present Board of Commissioners on several issues.  I felt that the court mandated money spent on tax reassessment was important and warranted.  I was not in favor of privatizing the Washington County Health Center.  I would like to see more County resources dedicated to mass transportation and social issues.  I believe that the County has a responsibility to provide more economic assistance to the City of Washington and other struggling municipalities.

Despite my concerns, it is impossible to ignore the facts.  The present Board of Commissioners works well together and governs with a minimum of political rancor.  Washington County has faced many challenges over the past decade.  By all appearances, the incumbent Commissioners have been adept at incorporating new economic wealth from fracking operations and proximity to a major urban center into a desirable place to live and work. 

The unemployment rate in Washington County is at record lows.  Many new businesses have located their operations here. Each year, more tourists visit the plethora of festivals and activities within our borders.  For these and other positive developments, all three incumbent Commissioners have earned the right to be re-elected.

Full disclosure, I know Harlan Shober and find him to be an accessible, hardworking Commissioner. It was impressive to me that his fellow Commissioners across Pennsylvania voted him President of their statewide association in 2018. Before serving as Commissioner for 8 years, Mr. Shober earned his political stripes as the former Chairman of Chartiers Township Board of Supervisors.  I do not know Republican challenger, Nick Sherman. I must give him points for honesty when he states on his campaign website: “We are doing well in Washington County.”

To illustrate what can go terribly wrong, consider the 1996 Commissioner’s race in Allegheny County. Two Republicans, Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer, won the election, creating a Republican majority for the first time in six decades.

The new Republican administration quickly went to work firing Department heads with many years of experience and replacing them with political appointees and conservative ideologues.  One of the first actions of the new Commissioners was a 20-percent property tax cut, implemented before spending cuts were in place.  Allegheny County’s reserves of $80 million quickly disappeared.  When the budgets of essential county services were finally slashed, a host of lawsuits were filed.  Attempts to privatize County services resulted in union protests and more lawsuits.

The following two years were a mashup of chaos, bumbling, bickering, financial problems and lowered bond ratings. Allegheny County voters responded by voting to get rid of the three headed Commissioner system in 1999 and adopted a County Executive with a 15 member council.

Washington County can point to its own misplaced “time for a change” moment that occurred in January of 2000. Under the pretense to balance the budget, newly elected Democratic Commissioner, John Bevec, joined forces with Republican Diana Irey to terminate several well qualified department heads. Among the dismissals were the head of County Administrator, Bill McGowen, and the Director of Parks and Recreation, Andy Baechle.  Mr. Baechle was recognized as an expert in his field and had secured 3 million in grants during his tenure.  Allegheny County quickly hired him at twice the salary.

Many in Washington County interpreted the dismissals of professional department heads as more political than economic. The one Commissioner who had worked to develop a strong lineup to run the County, Bracken Burns, was outraged by the maneuvering of his fellow Commissioners. In interviews with local newspapers, he called the actions a “political purge” and “the dumbing down of Washington County.” Predictably, until the next election, County government was marred by infighting and little was accomplished.

In this November’s election, there is no reason to roll the dice with an uncertain future and risk repeating the post-election meltdowns described above. The voters of Washington County know what they have with the three incumbent Commissioners.  They are a team that has earned the right to remain in office so they can continue to work together and provide thoughtful leadership and a stable government.