UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD TAKES TIME & PATIENCE

 

In this age of misinformation and sound bites, one lesson should be entrenched by now. It takes hard work to be a well-informed citizen, capable of interacting with other well-informed citizens, who wish to discuss the important issues of the day. Communications from elected leaders and political parties must be fact-checked. Disclosures from individuals with impeccable professional standing and high journalistic standards are not sacrosanct. Their analysis and conclusions do not give us the green light to accept factual statements as true. It is up to each of us, who wish to make sense of the world, to avoid the emotional bliss associated with confirmation bias when someone tells us our beliefs were correct.  

Many of the issues screaming from the headlines have profound effects on our financial and emotional well-being. We hope there are simple answers to these problems so that we can comfortably agree with those we admire and respect. Unfortunately, many of the important issues we confront are complex and not explained by superficial descriptions of right and wrong.

Sometimes, the information sources we rely on are reliable. At other times, the sources have taken liberties with the facts to support a predetermined result and to keep us in blissful ignorance. If the reader of this commentary cares more about results and supporting a particular agenda than  understanding issues, please turn to the sports page or comics and enjoy.

To make my point I have chosen two topics that are on the minds of many Americans: inflation and the Ukrainian conflict. I have no political agenda or position to support.  My sole purpose is to ask readers to consider diving deeper into the vast amount of information available to them before drawing conclusions.

Inflation. The onset of the highest inflation rate in 40 years is too complex to place blame on any single factor. The combined development of pandemic-induced, supply-chain issues and strong consumer demand was unanticipated by economists of all political persuasions. Moreover, pandemic induced worker shortages has led to higher wages.

The Federal Reserve is powerless against the lack of supply of everything from computer chips to housing. Over time, chip production will increase as the pandemic winds down, and the housing market will cool off as interest rates return to a more normal level. American oil/gas producers have been reluctant to increase production, even with higher prices. Many drilling companies promised their investors that profits and dividends would take precedence over plowing earnings back into more infrastructure.

Increasing interest rates in order to get a lid on prices will lower inflation. However, if the Fed moves to hike interest rates and tighten credit too aggressively, it risks tanking the economy into a recession with negative effects on the stock market.

Ukraine. The media has painted the Ukrainian conflict as a classic battle of good vs. evil and largely ignored the geopolitical background leading up to the war. Since the Soviet Union dissolved, America has set out to enlarge the NATO military alliance to include nearly every nation in Central and Eastern Europe that had been a vassal of the Kremlin for the previous half-century. To many Russian scholars, Putin’s initial attack came as little surprise. In a sense, it was a Russian backlash waiting to happen. Going back to 1995, George Kennan, the dean of Russia experts and the architect of America’s cold war containment policy castigated NATO enlargement as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

The war has compelled Washington to make new concessions to autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran to compel them to pump more oil. Doing so will provide a financial windfall to both countries. Moreover, both countries will have more resources to fund their deadly proxy war in Yemen where the death toll has reached 400,000 non-combatants (10,000 children).

Ukraine is a major world exporter of wheat and other grains to the world. The war has shut down exports of existing grain production and may make it difficult to plant the spring crop. The United Nations has warned that the Russian invasion could trigger global famine, as Moscow’s Black Sea blockade delays important grain exports. The conflict has stoked fears of a deepening hunger crisis in countries already facing famine conditions.

Ukraine’s combined wheat exports are crucial to a number of countries, including Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh and Iran, who get 60% of their grain imports from the region. Without food security, many third world countries will be subject to military conflict.  On another front, important to the West, Russia and Ukraine both supply raw materials critical to chip production, which is undergoing a worldwide supply shortage (see inflation above).

On the positive side, Western Europe could increase its commitment to renewable energy to lessen dependence on Russian oil and gas. This would be a boon for the climate, not unlike the pandemic crisis when energy usage shrank by half.

When it comes to complicated economic and geopolitical issues, very little can be explained in a brief commentary. For individuals seeking to broaden their understanding the RealClear array of news, opinion and innovative research (see realclearpolicy.com and related sites) covers all angles and is a reasonable place to start. The more we understand, the less likely we are to claim the only “right” answer in our social interactions.

 

 

 

A DISPATCH FROM THE RECENT COMMISSIONER’S MEETING

 

I recently attended my first public meeting of the Washington County Commissioners. If reporters could risk their lives imbedded in Ukraine, the least I could do was take the time to show my support for our commissioners and election office employees. All have been under constant verbal attack (and recent threats of physical violence) as they attempt to move on from the 2020 election and prepare for this May’s local primary vote. The public meeting was an eye-opening exemplar of democracy in action, and in some cases, democracy run off the tracks.

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (also known as the Open Meetings Law) requires the commissioners to deliberate and take official actions on county business in an open and public meeting.  It requires that meetings have prior notice and that the public can attend, participate and comment before the county takes the official actions.  Specifically, Washington County residents and taxpayers have the right to comment on issues “that are or may be before the board.”

The commissioners are permitted to establish rules to oversee public comment to avoid a chaotic French Revolution style “free-for-all” from disgruntled residents. In Washington County a sign-up sheet with appropriate identification is required and a three-minute limit on each speaker’s presentation has been established. In the interest of time and to avoid full-blown debate without proper deliberation, the commissioners do not respond to residents during the comment period. They do follow up with appropriate action when a valid issue is disclosed during public comment.

 

In normal times, the above process well served Washington County and other governing bodies throughout the Commonwealth.  Unfortunately, these are not normal times.  Since the “stop-the-steal” crusade erupted following Trump’s 2020 defeat, a small but vocal cadre of residents have made it their mission to challenge and decertify the election results in Washington County.

These individuals appeared to be well coordinated when making public comments.  Some attacked the county voting machines as untrustworthy.

Others attacked the manner in which votes were tabulated and demanded an expensive forensic audit. Still others focused on the discredited theories of “election expert” Douglas Frank, who personally addressed our county officials several weeks ago. Most remarks appeared to be a rehash of comments from previous meetings. Over the past year, Commissioners Diana Irey Vaughn and Larry Maggi have discovered there is no way to satisfy these unproven demands short of taking steps to illegally decertify the 2020 county election.  

 

A second occurrence took place during the public comment period that was  further removed from the intended purpose of permitting rational input from concerned citizens. Two Row Office officials, known for their hostility against the commissioners, signed up to speak as private citizens. Each used their allotted three minutes to level personal attacks that had little to do with the business before the board. Their comments were embarrassing, derogatory, disrespectful and defamatory. The only possible explanation for such an outrageous display would be to use these outbursts as fodder for their social media or as a political tool to remove those commissioners with whom they disagree. 

What transpired contradicts the purpose of open meeting public comments. These Row Office officials should be banned from participating at future commissioner meetings as private citizens. This would not be discriminatory because these members of county government are in a position to make their views known through press releases, news conferences and political advertising. Their objective in speaking is not to discuss an issue on the meeting agenda. It is to attack the leadership of the county in the hope of replacing them in the next election cycle.

The last speaker in support of the “stop the steal” movement had the only new information of the day to report to the commissioners.  At the end of her comments she smiled and informed them she had a message from “election expert” Douglas Frank who has begun his own vicious attack against the commissioners. The commissioners were warned to be very concerned that Mr. Frank had acquired “all of their digital information including sign-ins and passwords.” This was a thinly veiled threat, which, in my humble legal opinion, may be criminal.

I came away from the meeting conflicted over whether the better response would be to ignore the misinformed repetitious barrage or to rebut it head-on with public statements supporting Washington County’s election process and discrediting the maverick Row Office speakers. In favor of the first approach, if few county citizens are paying attention to this nonsense, it may be prudent not to give it further attention. The second approach has the advantage of publically speaking the truth to such patently false positions and outrageous conduct. Whatever the resolution of this charade, under no circumstances should either the voter fraud adherents or the outlaw public officials who seek to discredit the commissioners receive any further concessions. Enough is enough.

When the public comment period was completed, almost all of the observers cleared the boardroom and took their talking points out to the foyer. With few spectators looking on, the meeting room returned to the formal civility it deserves. The commissioners could finally get down to the important county agenda items they were elected to address and to resolve.

 

 

 

THE UNDERDOGS THAT KEEP FREEDOM ALIVE

 

“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride to safety.” Volodymyr  Zelensky

Last weekend, we took a break from Netflix and watched the 1960 John Wayne version of The Alamo. It just happened to be the anniversary of this important historical event (February- March 1836).

The over three hour production tells the well-known story of a small band of Tennessee volunteers joining forces with local Texans to take on a large Mexican Army before being killed in action. The fact that two larger-than- life American heroes, Davy Crockett and James Bowie, fought and died in the conflict have added to the allure. However, we most remember the Alamo for the actions of the brave few to keep the ideal of Texas independence alive in the face of overwhelming odds.

History is replete with similar examples of the underdog taking on a superior adversary to preserve a way of life free from oppression. The Old Testament gives us David vs. Goliath where David accepts the Philistine challenge of single combat. Taking only his staff, sling and five smooth stones from a brook, David defeats the giant, Goliath. In modern usage, the phrase "David and Goliath" has taken on a universal meaning, denoting an underdog situation, a contest where a smaller, weaker opponent faces a much bigger, stronger adversary.

Jewish history also gives us the battle of Masada in 73 CE. According to the historian Josephus, the siege of this desert rock plateau by Roman troops ended the First Jewish Roman War with the mass suicide of 960 Jewish rebels who refused to surrender. Today, in Israel, many Jewish soldiers who complete their basic training are sworn-in on top of Masada.

In the classical Greek world, the Battle of Thermopylae between Spartan Greeks and invading Persians occurred in 480 BCE. Seven thousand Greeks were able to hold off two hundred thousand Persians at the narrow mountain path until betrayed by one of their own. The Spartan King, Leonidas, refused to retreat and with three hundred of his men died in battle. Today, Thermopylae is celebrated as an example of heroic persistence against seemingly impossible odds.

Many nations and cultures have similar legendary myths and verified historical events to help bolster national cohesion when threatened by superior outside forces. Our own American Revolution pitted thirteen small, unruly colonies against the world’s greatest eighteenth century empire. Few expected the one- sided conflict to end in a colonial victory.

Before the horrified eyes of the world, in real time on 24/7 live media, the nation of Ukraine now has its own unifying event. The unprovoked Russian attack on its homeland will serve as a fundamental building block of Ukrainian nationalism for years to come.

The position of Russian President Vladimir Putin that “there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty,” is only the latest insult in a long history of Russian bullying. In fact, Ukraine did not get created in any real sense by the old Soviet Union as claimed by Putin. It was already there, and it already had an extremely long and complex history.

For decades, the Soviet Union treated Ukrainians as second-class citizens, or worse. First, one of the greatest political atrocities in Europe of the 20th century took place in Ukraine when Stalin imposed a famine that caused the death of about 3.9 million people. Second, after Germany overran Ukraine in WWII, Soviet officials treated Ukrainians as Nazi collaborators, and many were persecuted. Third, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred on Ukrainian soil, and the Soviet leadership did not disclose the spread of radioactive material to the Ukrainian people.

Without question, Russians and Ukrainians share many similar values and historical events. Citizens along the common border speak both languages and often hold dual passports. However, since the popular independence referendum in 1991, Ukraine has become a democratic state and sought closer ties with Western Europe, including membership in the EU. Putin now seeks to reverse this trend by placing a pro-Russian regime in power through naked aggression.

As I pen this commentary, Ukraine is holding its own against one of the largest and best-trained militaries in the world. If Russia persists, it is doubtful Ukraine can win a military victory.  However, in the end, the Ukrainian people will gain a sense of national identity, a commitment to independence and the support and gratitude of the world beyond measure.  Such is the power of an underdog who is willing to fight and to die to preserve its freedom.

The brave Ukrainian underdogs have performed a valuable wakeup call for all of us. When a million mothers and children are forced to leave their homes, and school teachers are fighting in the streets to disable tanks, the least we can do towards our fellow Americans is understand that others do not always think as we do. The disagreement does not mean they are bad people. The world is a complex, dangerous place, and we need each other. We need to develop a set of civic values that apply to every American.  We need to encourage and aid the underdogs among us, who seek their own freedom and the right to disagree.  We must be prepared to sacrifice a portion our own material lifestyle and financial well-being to make it happen. Otherwise, we are enabling the Putins of this world to take control.

 

 

 

 

 
 

CHASING PHANTOM VOTER FRAUD IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

As I’ve been traveling the country visiting with election officials, I have become painfully aware that most of our officials have no idea what they are doing. Follow the Data with Dr. Frank

The “stop the steal” movement, which began after Joe Biden was elected president in November 2020, has been kept alive by former president Donald Trump and his minions. Partisan conspiracy theorists and their so-called experts continue to badger local election officials in battleground states as they attempt to overturn election results.

One would think that Washington County, which has become a solidly Republican voting district, would escape the attention of these efforts to perpetuate the “big-lie.” Why seek to uncover voter fraud to place Trump back in the White House in a voting district he won by double digits?  Defying all reason, Washington County is now at the center of the voter fraud storm.

This chain of events began last July when Monongahala resident Ashley Duff and her supporters presented an “election integrity report” to the county’s Election Review Committee at a raucous public meeting. The report was based, in part, on the voter fraud theories of “election expert”, Douglas Frank. The plan required a redundant review of votes cast and would have triggered expensive state law required replacement of the voting machines following the audit. To the relief of the commissioners and county taxpayers the committee voted down the proposal.

Unfortunately, members of the local “stop the steal” movement never take no for an answer despite procedures that have established fraud-free elections in Washington County. Since July, they have continued to be a hostile vocal presence at public commissioner meetings and insisted that further action be taken.

To appease this vocal segment of their party, the Republican Commissioners decided to schedule a private meeting on February 17 with the purported election guru, Douglas Frank. Following a 90-minute presentation the Washington County officials in attendance found Frank’s alleged facts to be too generic with no evidence that there was voter fraud in the recent local election. According to the Observer Reporter Frank was instructed “to return with specific data involving Washington County and the evidence backing it up.” Ashley Duff, who had sponsored Frank to appear, thanked county officials for holding the meeting.

Things went downhill fast after the Thursday meeting. Douglas Frank was inexplicably motivated to post outrageous remarks attacking county officials on his social media page titled, “Follow the Data with Dr. Frank.” His first post arrogantly demanded “formal legal investigations for illegal machines and illegal certification of their county election.” The second post had the audacity to call for “resignations as we expose county official’s illegal activities and unethical behavior as servants of the people. When we are done with them, their public reputations will be dashed to smithereens.”

In my 45 years of practicing law, I have never experienced an impartial expert witness cross the line to become the chief advocate for a highly politically charged position. His personal attacks on dedicated public servants who took the time to hear him out and who sought more information concerning his whacky theories is shocking. They destroy any credibility to his presentation and propositions.

Douglas Frank is the former chair of the math and science department at a Cincinnati High School.  He developed a voter fraud reputation through his YouTube channel that featured ongoing pro Trump analyses of the 2020 election. This was followed by interviews with wealthy Trump supporter, MyPillow, CEO Mike Lindell. Frank was hired by Lindell and Republican state officials to challenge election results in battleground states. In interviews, he has made it clear that his new gig is more profitable than teaching High School math. Lindell has already spent over 25 million dollars on his efforts to push election fraud claims, and Frank is one of his handful of “expert” beneficiaries.

Those who have attended Frank’s sales pitch equate it to an academic math lesson complete with charts and graphs. No matter where he is speaking, the conclusions are always the same. Frank claims that election fraud is wide spread and follows an identical formula to rig each local election. The voter registration database is inflated, false ballots are placed into the system, and corrupt efforts are made to clean up the fraud after the election is complete.

Frank’s theories have been debunked by multiple sources. An investigative team at the Washington Post found Frank’s claims to be nonsensical. His use of a mathematical algorithm called a “6^th-degree polynomial” is impressive sounding chicanery that does not prove fraud. A breakdown of the math shows nothing more than that voter turnout is consistent by age group. A report from the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee led by two Republicans, argued that Frank's claims were not "sound," saying they did not account for moving patterns or for same-day registration that would create natural disparities between Census data and voter registrations. Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University professor who has carefully followed Frank’s involvement in overturning the election looked at data from 42 states and concluded, “There is no basis for any of this.”

In Washington County, as in most jurisdictions, there are extensive election security protocols that would prevent the fantastical hacking and phantom vote stuffing that Frank has described. Trusting election results is at the core of our democracy. Informed citizens and elected officials need to stop giving credence to conspiracy theorists who push a predetermined result with ill-conceived data to back it up. Douglas Frank and his ilk are a danger to our republic and need to be rebuked.

 

 

THE PARADOXES OF FREE SPEECH

 

The clash of the “information age” and tribal politics has produced many interesting social dynamics. One of the most significant has been the effect of free speech in both democratic and authoritarian societies.  A timely, new historical treatise titled Free Speech: A History From Socrates To Social Media, (Basic Books, February 8, 2022) by Jacob Mchangama traces the history of free expression over the past 25 centuries. The study ends by focusing on the critical question, under what circumstances can unbridled speech be tolerated in our modern world. The answer to this question raises several paradoxes that are not easy to resolve.

The roots of free speech are ancient. The earliest examples of open debate and tolerance of social dissent were discussed by Pericles in 431 BC Athens.  Over the course of time, free speech would never have been considered a fundamental right but for the works of heretical trailblazers like Milton, Spinoza, the English Levellers, the French feminist, Olympe de Gouges and Frederick Douglas (among many others). The good news according to historian Jacob Mchangama is that today, “The principle of free speech has been transformed into an international human rights norm aided by advances in communications technology, unimaginable to the early modern mind.”

However, in today’s troubled political times Mchangama also believes we are witnessing “the dawn of a free-speech recession.”  I will consider this retrenchment of free speech through a series of paradoxes that capture the essence of where global thinking stands today.

Free Speech Is Only For Those Who Agree.  As an intellectual principle, most Americans support the concept of free speech. However, out in the political trenches this support collapses along ruthless identity and tribalistic lines. Constitutional free speech in America was intended to protect minorities against intolerance. Some of today’s progressive thinkers seek to undermine this ideal by working to purge from public discourse those views that are deemed racist, sexist or anti-LGBTQ.  Conversely, some conservatives have attacked the media, proposed illiberal laws that prohibit discussion of theories about race, gender and even history and have supported libel laws to punish unwanted free speech. Rather than a democratic staging area for rational engagement and debate, free speech has become weaponized.

Political Actors Use Free Speech To Gain Power and Then Seek To Suppress It.  Political actors seeking power are often the most egalitarian when it comes to free speech. They want to include as many like-minded voices as possible to amplify their positions against the elite in power. Paradoxically, as soon as those out of power assume leadership all bets are off. The egalitarian calls for a vocal opposition and free press are replaced by policies that suppress free speech. Among many examples, authoritarian regimes are adept at managing the internet so that only the “party line” is communicated to the public.

The Use of Militant Democracy to Suppress Free Speech. The phrase  “militant democracy” became the term for a modern position on free speech that developed in the United Kingdom and throughout the EU. The paradox of the policy is that democratic governments seek to deny basic free speech to those citizens who reject certain democratic values.  In recent years, militant democracy has been employed: to prohibit the manipulation of election information; ban right wing anti-immigrant and antidiscrimination organizations; arrest citizens for hateful posts on the internet; institute a ban on wearing veils; and to expand the laws against hate speech. The problem is that authoritarian regimes have quickly latched onto these bans and prohibitions in democratic Europe to justify their own draconian policies against free speech.

The Promise and Negative Effects of New Information Technologies. New inventions that spread information in unexpected ways have always started with the promise of advancing free speech before causing unintended disruptions. This was true of the printing press, which encouraged the illiterate to learn to read, which led to the reformation, which led to a century of violent repression and sectarian warfare. The proliferation of untrue but convincing political pamphlets helped stoke the French Revolution, which quickly turned from unfettered free speech to a repressive affair.

The World Wide Web was first heralded as positive free speech for the masses. This egalitarian goal has morphed into a discussion of how to promote safety and prevent harm by limiting internet based speech. We are in the early days of the digital age with further disruptions to free speech (beyond limitations on Facebook, Google and Twitter) yet to come. The paradox is that it is difficult to shield the masses from hateful content and disinformation without sacrificing the liberal values of free speech.

I will end with some encouraging words from Jacob Mchangama, who summarized portions of his important new book in an article in the March/April 2022 addition of Foreign Affairs Magazine, The War on Free Speech, Censorship’s Global Rise, as follows.

“The free-speech recession must be resisted by people around the world who have benefited from the revolutionary acts and sacrifices of the millions who came before them and fought for the cherished right to speak one’s mind. It is up to those who already enjoy that right to defend the tolerance of heretical ideas, limit the reach of disinformation, agree to disagree without resorting to harassment or hate, and treat free speech as a principle to be upheld universally rather than a prop to be selectively invoked for narrow, tribalistic point-scoring.”

 

 

 

 

 

NATIONAL ATTENTION FOR PA ELECTIONS

For those willing to get involved in political campaigns, there has never been a better opportunity to make a difference at the national level. The main event is the most closely watched Senate race in the country. Whichever party replaces Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey could well determine control of the Senate for the remainder of the Biden presidency.

The scramble by Republican candidates to replace Toomey has provided juicy, soap-opera drama in recent months. Early on, former President Trump endorsed Sean Parnell in the Senate primary. In late November 2021, Parnell suspended his campaign after a judge ruled against him in a custody battle. Credible testimony had included allegations that he physically and verbally abused his wife and children.

Smelling blood in the water, two wealthy sharks swam into Pennsylvania and announced their intent to run in the Senate Republican primary. First, television celebrity and former heart surgeon, Mehmet Oz, entered the fray with few political credentials and fewer ties to Pennsylvania. Dr. Oz apparently believes that, like Donald Trump, his smiling face and huckster demeanor will win the day.

Not to be outdone, former hedge fund manager David McCormick appeared on scene with an exploratory committee and vast amounts of media ad buys. He then made it official by entering the race to take on Oz. Like his opponent, McCormick has no political experience, few recent ties to Pennsylvania but deep pockets. He is portraying himself in commercials as a folksy farmer who can defeat the Democratic socialists and "woke" mob.

While these two Republican candidates continue to slice each other with vicious attack ads, the primary contest on the Democratic side is more sedate. The two "top-tier" primary candidates are Congressman Conor Lamb and Lt. Gov. John Fetterman. Both respect each other as elected officials. Their policy positions are similar, and the only question in the primary is who is more electable. Lamb's advantage is that he won a congressional seat in a pro-Trump district while Fetterman has won a statewide contest. The general election will be the most expensive Senate campaign in Pennsylvania history.

This year offers the rare occasion when a Pennsylvania Senate and governor's race appear on the same ballot. The stakes are high. If a Republican wins it will give the party control of both legislative chambers and the executive office. The sole Democratic candidate to replace Gov. Tom Wolf is Attorney General Josh Shapiro. In a surprise move Shapiro has already endorsed a Black state lawmaker from Allegheny County, Austin Davis, for lieutenant governor. This gives him geographic and racial diversity on his ticket.

In the Republican primary for governor, it is difficult to pick a frontrunner where there are at least five viable candidates. Recently, Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman may have separated himself from the pack by bringing Trump loyalist Kellyanne Conway on to his campaign staff.

In the background a host of other significant political issues are swirling around and building to a crescendo. Regarding district election boundaries, there has been a yearlong period of public hearings and political posturing. The result will determine the "once-a-decade" final composition of Pennsylvania's legislative and congressional district election maps. Non-partisan rationality and compromise have failed. The Republican Legislature and Democratic governor cannot reach an agreement compelling the appellate courts to again decide the final district maps. Due to candidate filing deadlines, if the courts do not act quickly, the May primary could be delayed.

Former President Trump's unprecedented challenge to his 2020 election loss (the big lie) has spilled over into a furious debate of whether Pennsylvania election laws should be changed to favor Trump positions in future elections. The same Republican elected officials who passed legislation to make it easier to vote before Trump became president have now reversed course and proposed procedures that would narrow voter participation.

If a Republican is elected governor, these ballot box limitations will easily pass. If a Democrat is elected, Republicans plan to introduce constitutional amendments to change election laws. These changes would include requiring "government-issued identification" to vote and require the state auditor general to review elections and voter rolls for accuracy, even when there are no improprieties.

Last week, Commonwealth Court, along party lines, upheld a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania's highly successful vote by mail procedures. Mail-in ballots helped President Joe Biden win the state by some 80,000 votes. The questionable ruling held that Article VII section 14 of our state constitution requires citizens to vote in person unless they have a specific excuse. Wolf immediately filed an appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a Democratic majority, will now decide whether there is access to mail-in ballots in future elections.

In order to stay current on all of these fast-moving developments, there is no better source than the nonpartisan Spotlight PA, a collaborative newsroom dedicated to producing investigative journalism. It regularly appears in newspapers throughout the state and features updates on political topics of interest in the commonwealth.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.

A DISTURBING REPUBLICAN VISION FOR AMERICA

  

The claim that the small Eastern European country of Hungary has become a Republican political utopia, to be replicated in America, seems ridiculous. How could a nation with a population of less than 10 million and a short history of European style parliamentary government have anything to offer the conservative right in the United States?

Yet, Donald Trump and his minions have often embraced Hungary’s elected Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, as a model to emulate. Recently, Tucker Carlson, the Fox News commentator, moved his show to Hungary for a week. He visited with Mr. Orban and gushed about his achievements. This year, the Conservative Political Action Conference, an influential annual gathering of conservatives in America, will be held in Budapest.

 Last summer, the conservative NYT columnist, Ross Douthat wrote, “Orban’s interventions in Hungarian cultural life, the attacks on liberal academic centers and the spending on conservative ideological projects are seen as examples of how political power might curb progressive influences.”  If the Republican Party finds in Orban an exemplary political figure, it makes sense to review his policies and political philosophy. Who is Viktor Orban, and what changes has he made in Hungary that have grabbed the attention of the American right? 

Hungary is a landlocked country in Central Europe.  It is bordered by Slovakia to the north, Ukraine to the northeast, Romania to the east and southeast, Serbia to the south, Croatia and Slovenia to the southwest and Austria to the west.  Viktor Orban first came on the political scene as a member of the center right, similar to Angela Merkel of Germany. By the time of his second stint as Prime Minister in 2010, he had morphed into something quite different. He boasted of becoming a proponent of an “illiberal” form of government. At the heart of his ideology was the principle that liberal multiculturalism must be defeated. For Orban, illiberalism means that Hungary is for the Hungarians. What follows is a summary of the policies adopted by Hungary since Orban has been Prime Minister.

Border Security The American right is enamored with the barbed-wire fences at the Hungarian border that appear clean and orderly with none of the chaos so common at the American Southern border. What is left unsaid is the Hungarian policy of denying food to families held in immigration detention centers. Viktor Orban’s anti-immigration propoganda has convinced many citizens that he is all that stands between them and a hostile Muslim invasion.

Elections While vote counts are not outwardly rigged in Hungary, elections are often one-sided affairs. Almost all of the campaign donations and advertising support Orban’s political party, Fidesz.  Bogus opposition parties are organized as a means of dividing the legitimate opposition vote. Observers have characterized the Hungarian Parliament as “a window decoration for a one party state.”

Hungarian Constitution Within months of taking power, Orban and his majority in the Parliament began rewriting the Constitution.  The country’s constitutional court was expanded in size, and Orban filled the new seats with loyalists. Another provision forced all judges over the age of 62 to retire so that these posts could be filled with friendly jurists.  As a result, The Prime Minister’s illiberal policies are guaranteed court approval.

New Legislation National laws were passed permitting Orban to fire civil servants en masse and replace them with partisan supporters.  Orban installed hand-picked department heads to run election supervision and the national media apparatus. These offices had been non-political under previous laws.

Independent Journalism and Media Orban’s government used the new constitutional provisions and legislation (through exorbitant taxing schemes) to silence independant media organizations. They were forced to sell to the state or to oligarchs aligned with the new illiberal system of government.  By 2017, 90 percent of all media was owned or indirectly controlled by Orban’s political party, including regional newspapers.

Reshaping of the Hungarian Electorate Because Orban’s opponents were denied state sponsored employment (and discriminated against in receiving government benefits) almost a million citizens, or one tenth of the population, left Hungary for Western Europe. Many lost their right to vote against Orban in Hungarian elections.

To boost the number of his supporters, Orban offered citizenship and voting rights to more than one million non-domestic Hungarians living in nations surrounding Hungary. These voters support Orban at a jaw-dropping 95 percent. Within Hungary, the Prime Minister has offered his supporters popular tax breaks, loans and access to medical clinics.

The Business Community Profitable Hungarian Corporations and successful small businesses report a troubling trend of mafia-style tactics to force them to sell out to Orban’s friends. If an offer from the state or an oligarch to purchase a successful company is refused, the organization is choked into submission by high taxes and smothering regulations.  Enriching Orban’s allies and neutralizing perceived threats guarantees a high degree of undemocratic social control.

Education The Orban government has reshaped the public school curriculum to remove opportunities for critical thinking that might encourage students to question the government’s policies. Liberal university centers have been denied funding and shut down.

I was going to end this commentary with the observation that Republicans should be careful what they wish for in praising Hungary’s political system. On second thought and most troubling of all, these policies may be exactly what many right wing Republicans are seeking as they follow Donald Trump down the rabbit hole into the next election cycle.