THE WAR AND ENDGAME IN UKRAINE

 

“War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”   Carl von Clausewitz

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The attack was an unexpected escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. The two combatants have each suffered more than 100,000 casualties resulting in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides.  Russian missiles have caused mass civilian loss of life. Ukrainian soldiers report frequent Russian atrocities.

Ukraine’s economy shrank by roughly 30 percent in 2022, and more than 30 percent of its population has been displaced.  Its infrastructure has been decimated with 40 percent of its electricity-generating capacity wiped out.

This commentary will discuss two topics that have occupied my thoughts since the conflict began. How was this brutal conflict possible after the horrors of two European world wars and now with nuclear weapons everywhere on the European continent?  Second, what is the endgame if it is in our nation’s interest to fund the war effort militarily and support the Ukrainians diplomatically? 

At the end of 2021, western intelligence services were certain of two things. First, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, had met his major objectives by occupying Crimea, and there was little to be gained by Putin starting a broader conflict. Second, if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would quickly win the war. Instead, the conflict in Ukraine has plunged Europe into the largest, longest land war since WWII. The violence has affected much of the world both economically and politically.

An excellent authority in understanding why nations engage in war is Margaret MacMillan’s comprehensive study: War: How Conflict Shaped Us, Random House (October 6, 2020.) She investigates the subject’s terror and fascination, as well as its scope and persistence. Ms. MacMillan reminds us “The instinct to fight may be innate in human nature, but war—organized violence—comes with organized society. War has shaped humanity’s history, its social and political institutions, its values, and ideas. Our very language, our public spaces, our private memories, and some of our greatest cultural treasures reflect the glory and the misery of war. War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” Certainly, Russia has earned the title of vile aggressor and Ukraine of noble defender.

To comprehend the war in Ukraine, one must attempt to penetrate the mind of Vladimir Putin. While no one is sure what motivates him, Putin's speeches over the last decade cast him as the strong leader who could reclaim Russia’s lost greatness. He believes the breakup of the Soviet Union’s empire was a mistake.  Putin often describes himself as sharing the ambitions of 18th-century Russian tsar, Peter the Great. He seeks to portray Russia as the defender of all who challenge the West and its democratic system of government.

Under this view, Putin started the war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West, to demonstrate his strength. After 17 months of fighting, the conflict has taken on a very different meaning for Putin, his survival. Many believe that if he loses the war, his regime will end.

What business does the United States have in spending billions and depleting its military stockpiles for a regional conflict in Eastern Europe? When the war began, there was an outpouring of emotional support for the Ukrainian people defending their homeland. As the war drags on, doubts begin to appear, and support could be waning. Recently, far-right Republicans sought to use a Congressional Defense Bill to defund the Ukrainian War conflict.   

In truth, most members of Congress and a majority of the American people continue to support the war effort. The Ukraine conflict is not Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. No American blood is being shed for an unwinnable cause. The war has been a strategic windfall for NATO and the United States. Russia has been badly damaged and isolated. With the addition of Finland and Sweden, NATO now borders the entire Baltic Sea. Germany is finally pulling its weight militarily and is no longer dependent on Russian oil.

For those who believe that American foreign policy should support a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, knowledgeable experts disagree. A senior analyst on Russia, Mason Clark, wrote for Time Magazine: “Any Russian invasion of Ukraine, now or in the future, will inevitably harm Europe, endanger NATO, and entail the risk of a conventional or nuclear escalation. The U.S. must not kick the problem down the road by accepting a temporary ceasefire that would stop the current fighting while raising the risks of a renewed Russian invasion. The U.S. should instead enable Ukraine to comprehensively defeat the current Russian invasion.”

A pause in the war would simply permit the Russian military to reload its arsenal and give it time to go on a total war footing to conscript and train a larger army. Only a just settlement with security guarantees makes sense for the Western alliance.

More than anyone, the Ukrainians themselves who are absorbing the killing of its citizens and the destruction of its infrastructure, understand the endgame. For them, the conclusion of the war involves reclaiming their territory and convincing Russia not to try a later invasion. They are fighting and dying to avoid leaving this war to their children. Ukraine deserves our continued support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT HAS TRANSFORMED AMERICA

The Conservative Supreme Court has been on my radar for some time. A recent commentary on the subject by Dave Ball, published in this paper on July 9, 2023, helped to solidify my thoughts. This rebuttal of Mr. Ball will also serve as an overview of the consequential effects of Chief Justice John Roberts’s Conservative Supreme Court on American society.

First, Mr. Ball argues that our highest court “follows the law” and that those “liberals” that disagree with its opinions are “acting like children” because the public policy that flows from the decisions is “not what they wish for.”  His conclusion ignores the fact that many well-respected constitutional scholars argue that the Supreme Court majority often did not follow established precedents or legal theories in deciding recent cases.

Second, our founders created the Supreme Court because Constitutional law is open to numerous interpretations. To characterize Supreme Court controversies, as does Mr. Ball, as a debate between a higher standard of “the law” on the one hand and petty “policy” favorable to an actor’s political views on the other is an argument with little meaning.

Every monumental Supreme Court decision has winners and losers on different sides of the political spectrum. The winners, whether from the left or right, always claim good law and improved policy.  Conversely, the losers claim bad law and worse policy. As an example, the positions of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates remain widely held, sincere, and politically important regardless of the status of the constitutional law on abortion.

Third, I will rebut Mr. Ball’s support for two recent Supreme Court decisions and his attack on court watchers who disagree. In the opinion striking down affirmative action programs in college admissions, (Fair Admissions v. Harvard College) the dissent argues that the decision improperly rolls back decades of precedent and progress on diversity. Constitutional scholars also criticize the conservative majority for adopting “a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle.”

Those conservatives praising the new decision on affirmative action should remember that not long ago, one of their own, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor disagreed. She wrote, “Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”

Mr. Ball also attacks President Biden for his “vote-buying plan” to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans to benefit as many as 43 million Americans. In fact, this executive action was taken to fulfill a campaign pledge made by Biden to those with student loans during the 2020 election campaign. The President reasoned that if corporations and businesses across the nation could receive over $760 billion in forgiveness loans during the pandemic, students deserved similar forgiveness of their tuition debt.

The conservative Supreme Court ruled that Biden overstepped his authority and vacated the executive order on student loans (Biden v. Nebraska.) There were cogent arguments on both sides of the issue, and no one was shocked by this decision. However, for Mr. Ball to accuse Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan of showing no legal skill in writing her dissent is ridiculous.

Even worse was Ball’s accusation that any attempt by the President to continue to seek a solution to the student debt crisis would be a “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Ironically, such a solution was announced last week when Biden’s administration implemented a series of fixes to the student loan repayment system that is expected to help more than 800,000 people with student debt.

In order to understand how the era of Chief Justice John Roberts has transformed America, one must step back for a broader view. Eighteen years ago, the Roberts era began. His goals were to overturn Roe v. Wade, reinterpret the Second Amendment to make private gun ownership a constitutional right, eliminate race-based affirmative action, elevate the place of religion in the public square, and curb federal agencies’ regulatory power. Every objective was achieved by the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term on June 30.

What can be done to counter this trend and return the Supreme Court to a more moderate center? Various ideas have been proposed starting with expanding the court. The Supreme Court has had as few as five seats and as many as ten. However, if Democrats seek to increase the number of liberal Justices by voting to increase appointments, Republicans could retaliate with the same tactic. 

Congress could create an 18-year term limit for new appointments.  Each President would eventually appoint two Justices during a four-year administration.  Congress could mandate an independent bipartisan commission to nominate fair-minded candidates for the Supreme Court.  Any reform would require action from a deeply divided Congress.

The conservative members of the court are young and will be deciding controversial appeals for decades. Powerful conservative movements will continue to seek cases with favorable fact patterns to present to the activist majority. The goal is to further ingrain white, Christian orthodoxy into constitutional law. For progressives and many moderate court watchers, this conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening. 

Concerned citizens do not need Dave Ball or others to rub salt in their wounds by accusing them of acting immaturely when they disagree with the decisions of the conservative court. The mission is now to develop legal “workarounds”, as Biden took last week on student debt, to sidestep the latest rulings. Our democratic constitutional republic expects nothing less.

 

 

TWO MUSICAL SUPERSTARS LIGHT UP PITTSBURGH

This work of fiction is based on Taylor Swift and the Pittsburgh Symphony

Megan was not happy. In fact, she was very angry at her parents and most of the world.  It was Sunday morning on a beautiful June day. On the previous Friday and Saturday evenings, Taylor Swift had come to town. The Mayor proudly renamed Pittsburgh “Swiftsburg.”

Megan idolized Taylor Swift. She streamed all of Swift’s songs onto her phone and knew many of her lyrics by heart. However, Megan believed she had missed the biggest event of her young life because her parents refused to let her participate in “Swiftmania.”

A few of Megan’s friends were lucky enough to score precious tickets for one of the two Taylor Swift mega-concerts at the Steeler’s stadium. Other friends had convinced their parents to shell out thousands of dollars to purchase tickets on the secondary market. Less fortunate friends took the subway to the stadium, hung out with other “Swifties”, purchased “merch”, and listened to Taylor perform from the parking lot. Since Megan was not yet 16, her parents did not allow her to go to the stadium unchaperoned. Her reaction was to spend the weekend cloistered in her locked bedroom, refusing meals and any adult interaction.

By Sunday morning, Megan was hungry and needed a shower. She decided the silent treatment could continue outside her bedroom. As she headed for the kitchen, Megan’s brother reminded her that it was Father’s Day. She recalled that her grandmother had purchased two additional tickets for Megan and her father to attend the final Pittsburgh Symphony concert of the year. “Great,” thought Megan. “My concert experience to relive with my friends takes place in a dusty old building surrounded by dusty old people with walkers.” Nonetheless, Megan decided to accompany her grandmother to the performance because “Nana” always chose a fantastic location for Sunday Brunch.

When the three symphony goers arrived at Heinz Hall, Megan helped her grandmother into the building and continued to ignore her father. Megan thought that the tall-distinguished Black usher who welcomed them was beyond cool. She noticed a number of well-dressed young women her age being escorted into the building by their fathers in honor of the special day.

Heinz Hall was all aglow, reminding Megan of a European palace. Her grandmother’s season tickets were front and center in the fourth row. As they took their seats, many adults acknowledged Megan and told her how elegant and grown-up she looked. It was impossible for Megan not to smile and thank her grandmother’s symphony friends for their kind words.

As the orchestra filtered in and took their seats, Megan was surprised by the youthful appearance and diversity of the players. Her grandmother had proudly explained the many awards and honors bestowed on the Pittsburgh Symphony. Megan was getting excited to hear how so many musicians could play together as one

The orchestra opened with “Roman Festivals” by the composer Respighi. Megan was surrounded by the most magnificent sound she had ever heard. Maestro Manfred Honeck led each instrument into its individual moment of grandeur before the unifying harmony of the orchestra flooded the Hall.

Nothing could have prepared Megan for what happened during the following soloist presentation. A tall thin twenty-year-old Spanish violinist, Maria Duenas, took the stage in a bright red dress, exuding all the confidence of a musician twice her age. If the visual image was not enough her violin sprang into action, beginning her interpretation of the flamboyant Selections for Violin and Orchestra, Opus 21, by Edouard Lalo.

An awe-struck New York Times reviewer once described Ms. Duenas at work as “slashing at the violin so furiously she could have drawn blood from the strings.” No one in attendance on Sunday would disagree. Her performance was exemplary, and her emotional output was over the moon. Megan was so overwhelmed that she forgot she was angry with her father and grabbed his hand. She knew that she had heard a true musical “rock star” that could hold her own with Taylor Swift.

When Ms. Duenas was done, the normally composed Heinz Hall audience gave her three rousing standing ovations. The patrons were honored with a short, soft encore to demonstrate her versatility. Next came intermission and the audience headed for the restrooms and the beautiful outdoor Heinz Hall waterfall.

Under a tree in the enclosed outdoor park, Grandmother beckoned to Megan and her father.  She held an envelope and a book and explained their purpose to Megan. “For your sweet-16th birthday, I was going to purchase two tickets for you and your father to the Taylor Swift concert. Instead, I bought these.” Inside the envelope were two tickets to Spain and Italy with hotel reservations and expense money. “After today’s performance, I thought father and daughter should visit the countries that inspired the music.”

Next, Megan’s grandmother explained the book. “Your first stop is Barcelona. This novel, The Shadow of the Wind, by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, will unfold the city before your imagination.”

Megan hugged her grandmother and her father. The second half of the concert with stirring Roman music was not as well remembered as the first. She could not wait to get home and text her friends to tell them about her newfound musical love and her upcoming adventure.  Megan began reading the Spanish novel that very evening.

 

 

A CELEBRATION OF LIFE UNDER THE CLOUD OF ADDICTION

Last weekend we traveled to New Jersey for a memorial service.  The “celebration of life” was for my forty-year-old nephew, who passed away several weeks earlier. My sister and her husband chose a serene outdoor setting to accommodate over one hundred friends and family who came to pay their respects.

I was honored to give remarks, along with other family members and close friends. There were more smiles than tears because of the mood set by my sister. She wanted to celebrate her son’s life and his many achievements, not the darker side of his story or the cause of his death. The only hint that the cloud of addiction was involved were the many young people in recovery who attended the service, along with my sister’s Nar-Anon group that has offered support to her and my brother-in-law for many years.

Upon reflection, I knew that I should be pleased that my nephew’s life had been honored in such an uplifting manner. After all, he had achieved a great deal, helped many other addicted people find recovery, and brought happiness to hundreds he met along his path. In addition, such ceremonies are primarily designed to console those grieving, not to bring attention to the cause of death.

However, I also knew I could not disregard the manner in which my nephew died. I continue my own recovery from the shackles of alcoholism, and my cousin, who also spoke at the service, from opioid abuse. It took each of us many years to find sobriety.  If one untimely memorial service can be avoided by this commentary, it will be worth it.

To put matters into perspective, 46 million Americans now suffer from addiction.  In 2022, nearly 110,000 people died from drug overdoses in the United States. More than 75,000 of these deaths involved the synthetic opioid fentanyl. This yearly figure is equal to the total number of American combat casualties in the WWII campaign against Japan. Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for those under 50.

At the national level, Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a recent statement, “We’ve expanded treatment to millions of Americans, we’re improving access to Naloxone to reverse overdoses, and we’re attacking the illicit fentanyl supply chain at every choke point.” Despite these efforts, the deaths keep piling up.

What is to be done? Addiction has long been a scourge in America, but fentanyl has made it much worse. Fifty times stronger than heroin, fentanyl is commonly mixed with other drugs or made into pills to resemble other substances. Unsuspecting users are unaware that the drug they are ingesting is laced with fentanyl, which makes up a large portion of the overdoses leading to death.

America’s long war on drugs and its “just say no” campaigns have failed to have any impact on drug use. Today, 20 percent of those in their twenties report having used ecstasy or similar substances, all of which could now contain fentanyl. Gupta, our National Drug Czar, believes the opioid crisis affects our public health, national security, and economic prosperity like no other issue.

In the short term, there are only two known defenses. First, rapid fentanyl test strips are inexpensive and provide a potential user with results before ingesting any drug that could contain fentanyl. Second, the medication, naloxone, can prevent death if administered quickly following an overdose.

These two harm-reduction strategies, which promote safer and managed use of drugs as opposed to abstinence, can successfully combat fentanyl deaths. It is now time for elected officials to take aggressive action to protect families by investing in solutions that actually save lives.

Both test strips and naloxone should be provided free of charge, in adequate quantities where young people gather or where drug use is probable, including schools. These items should also be made available in pharmacies without a prescription. In order to stem the tide of deaths, it may also become necessary to make fentanyl use legal so that it can be regulated for safety and quality.

On a broader scale, states and local governments must develop programs to reduce drug use in general. This would include the prevention of inappropriate opioid prescribing, monitoring opioid dispensing, and more treatment centers for those who become addicted.

In the longer term, the United States must move beyond recovery treatment centers designed only to change individual behaviors.  Research must be done to examine the underlying social determinants of drug use. Our country’s incidence of drug addiction is higher than the rest of the world for a reason. It has little to do with smuggling drugs at a porous Mexican border. Possible causes include both parents working longer hours, inadequate childcare, the adolescent drug culture, and inadequate educational opportunities.

We need a national effort with all hands on deck to develop a broad understanding of the complex developmental and social issues associated with the increase in addiction. This plan must be as committed as our efforts to defeat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and COVID-19. The more than $1 billion that states, including Pennsylvania, have received from pharmaceutical companies from the national opioid settlement offers hope in this regard.

The development of evidence-based programs designed to keep families safe must lead the way. Otherwise, unnecessary celebrations of life like my nephews will continue unabated.

 

 

BE WARY OF POLITICAL LABELS

Labels are useful for providing order in a complicated world. Unfortunately, labels can also erroneously affect our perceptions, judgments, and behavior. Such is the case with political labels that have become a shorthand for determining who is our ideological friend or foe.

Negative labeling of candidates in political campaigns has become a distressing technique to gain votes. To counter this development, a national “No Labels” movement, co-chaired by former Senator Joe Lieberman and Former Governor Larry Hogan, is supporting moderate candidates and bipartisanship without labels. The organization encourages voters to take time to research candidates and to ignore labels that cause anger and divisiveness.

In the Washington County Commissioner’s race, there is a disturbing trend. The local Republican Party labels one candidate, Democrat Cindy Fisher, with patently false descriptions of her career as an elected official. Since Ms. Fisher announced her candidacy, the following message has been pushed out to voters, “We cannot allow Socialist Cindy Fisher to bring Marxism to Washington County.”

These outrageous descriptions are designed to frighten undecided and independent voters in the November general election. The third and deciding commissioner’s seat will be a hard-fought campaign between Democrat Fisher and Republican candidate, Electra Janis. Republicans are seeking to plant an untrue negative label on Ms. Fisher that could affect the election.

I have examined Ms. Fisher’s record as an elected official and Chairperson of the five-member Cecil Township Board of Supervisors. She has served on the Board in Cecil for nine years.  Prior to this elective office, she was an executive member of her local school’s Parent Council.

There is no evidence that Ms. Fisher considers herself a socialist or supports any policy positions of Democratic Socialism. To call her a Marxist Communist is laughable. However, the Washington County Republican Party’s social media keeps pounding away with frequent rants against Ms. Fisher. To set the record straight, what I have learned with a little investigation follows.

Unlike much of Washington County, Cecil Township has undergone consistent population growth of thirty-five percent over the last thirty years. Cecil’s proximity to Pittsburgh, the airport, and its low taxes make it attractive to families. The industrial park and residential community of Southpointe Town Center is within its borders. This contrasts with a number of small coal mining communities including Muse, Lawrence, and Southview. The median household income exceeds that of Washington and other neighboring counties.

All the evidence of Ms. Fisher’s years as an elected official discloses a dedicated public servant who is fiscally conservative and a moderate Democrat. Cecil Township has not raised taxes during her time on the Board of Supervisors.  She helped secure more than $1 million dollars in grants for improvements to Cecil’s five parks, bridges, the Montour walking trail, and improvements to its public works facilities.  Ms. Fisher’s efforts helped to establish the first School Resource Officer Program in Canon McMillan School District.    

The local Republican Party is also attacking Ms. Fisher as opposed to oil and gas fracking.  To the contrary, under her watch, Cecil Township has provided permits for 24 wells on six pad sites. Ms. Fisher has faithfully supported the continued extraction of oil/gas as an economic boon to her Township.

This Republican misrepresentation of her fracking position arises from Fisher’s protection of private property rights in residential areas of the township. She has joined forces with Peters Township resident, David Ball, past President of the Washington Republican Party, and others to ensure that drilling infrastructure is not placed within residential areas. To do so would adversely affect the residential standard of living and decrease property values that are important to the continued growth of Cecil Township.

If Cindy Fisher were a socialist, her official acts would include raising taxes to fund government projects rather than obtaining grants for recreational facilities. Fisher recognizes that the role of municipal and county government is to provide taxpayer services at a minimal cost, not to undertake social engineering.

One wonders what labels the other commissioner candidates would receive if they were subjected to similar efforts to discredit them. Republican Commissioner Nick Sherman would be labeled a “big-spending liberal” with a high degree of accuracy. After all, he spearheaded the county purchase of the Crossroads Building at an inflated cost of ten million dollars. In today’s recessionary market for office space, the building is worth millions less. Moreover, renting office space rather than an outright purchase to keep the building on the tax rolls made eminently more sense, as proposed by Democratic Commissioner Larry Maggi.

Newcomer Republican Candidate, Electra Janis, has no record to attack because she has never held an elective office. However, because of her lack of experience, the negative labels of “not ready for prime time” and “political neophyte,” handpicked by her political handlers could fit the bill.

Incumbent commissioner, Larry Maggi, is rarely the subject of Republican negative labeling. First, he is destined to keep his position as a Democratic Commissioner. Second, his credentials of military service, law enforcement background, fiscal conservatism, proven experience, and welcoming personality are all positive characteristics that Republicans pray for every day.

As we approach this year’s general election, the negative labels will become meaner and more prevalent. My advice is to throw negative political ads with untrue labels into the waste bin.  Do your own research on candidate Cindy Fisher, and you will be impressed by her character and accomplishments.

A CRITIQUE OF LOCAL REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN ISSUES

Local Washington County Republicans are raising several misleading campaign issues in support of their two candidates for County Commissioner. Several issues are featured in the campaign literature of incumbent commissioner Nick Sherman and his running mate, Electra Janis. Other talking points are displayed on the social media of the Washington County Republican Party.

Each issue in support of the candidates is overblown or factually inaccurate. Below, I will present the Republican positions and set the record straight with some background and verifiable facts.

The State of the Washington County Economy. Both Republican candidates are eager to announce that their goal is to “grow family-sustaining jobs by supporting job creators at every level.” There is no explanation of specific programs to accomplish this objective. Nor is there a detailed narrative that tells how the new Republican commissioner team, if elected, would do anything differently.  This may be because previous county administrations have left the state of the Washington County economy in exemplary condition.

At a recent Chamber of Commerce event attended by the present Board of Commissioners, including Mr. Sherman, it was reported that in 2022 the county attracted 69 new economic development and infrastructure projects. The present strategy has successfully brought economic diversity to the county. This includes energy fracking projects, health care, manufacturing, agriculture, and other industries. Public-private partnerships, always favored by Republicans, have long been encouraged by both political parties in Washington County. This includes the privatization of the county nursing home.

The gambling revenue “local share account program” was uniquely structured in Washington County by former Democratic Commissioner Bracken Burns to make funding decisions locally. This year the program responded to proposals by directing $8 million toward new infrastructure and development projects across the county.

Lastly, the county unemployment rate stands at a low of 3.2%.

If the Republican campaign is promising to continue this stellar record developed by past Democrat and Republican Commissioners, it should say so.  If there is a plan to improve this performance, it should be disclosed.

Voting in Washington County. One would assume that after the more radical MAGA commissioner candidates were defeated in the May primary, all Republican talk of stolen elections and the need for local election reform would disappear. Sadly, the “secure elections” topic remains on the Republican candidates’ platform.

No county commissioner has the authority to alter the manner in which local elections are conducted, including voter ID. The only explanation for keeping secure elections as a campaign issue in Washington County is to attract election-denying MAGA voters in the general election.

The present Board of Commissioners spent weeks in 2022 deflecting pressure to decertify the county’s presidential election results.  There were incessant demands to perform illegal audits of voting machines. The commissioners were forced to listen to the bizarre rants of debunked “election expert” Douglas Frank. Not one case of election fraud was found in Washington County. Only five fraud cases were documented across Pennsylvania, all attributed to President Trump supporters.

The Washington County Elections Office should receive an apology from the local Republican Party for the verbal abuse to its employees, by several members running for office in the primary. Instead, the Election Office is left wondering whether a new Republican administration will fill the office with election deniers in return for MAGA voter support in November.

Comparison with Allegheny County.  The Washington County Republican Party continuously posts articles about events in neighboring Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The warning, “This is how bad socialist Allegheny County and Pittsburgh have become, Don't let Washington County fall!” follows each post. Sometimes this routine is altered to post warnings about events in Philadelphia or in the office of Governor Shapiro. The message is always the same. Washington County must elect the two Republican candidates and maintain a majority to avoid becoming a “bastion of socialism.”

It is true that Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia have voted progressive Democrats into office in recent elections. This has been the trend in urban communities across the country. It is also true that this development has added to the divisiveness in American politics. However, there is no evidence that progressive urban agendas have spilled over into conservative suburban or rural populations in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.

Allegheny County is surrounded by counties, including Washington that will continue to hold a clear majority of registered Republicans. The elected  Democrats in these counties most often favor moderate policy positions and are overwhelmingly fiscal conservatives. Such is the case with the two local Democratic candidates for commissioner, Mr. Maggi and Ms. Fisher. If the Washington County Republican party wants to “get real” on issues that are important to voters, it must stop the fear-mongering and present matters of substance.

Lower Taxes and Less Government Spending. Commissioner Nick Sherman makes these two claims in his campaign literature with no explanation on how to accomplish either.

Regarding lower taxes, the median property tax in Washington County is well below the average of other counties in Pennsylvania.

Regarding government spending, Commissioner Sherman was the primary cheerleader for the $10 million county purchase of the Crossroads Building. This enormous local government expenditure is widely considered a gross overpayment for a property that was worth far less.

Local voters should insist that the Republican commissioner candidates provide specific answers to real issues. We deserve a campaign based on facts, not alarmism and misrepresentations.

 

 

 

 

  

A RETURN TO THE IVORY TOWER

“When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful. A miracle, oh, it was beautiful, magical”

                                                                        Supertramp

My alma mater, Swarthmore is a small liberal arts college along the main line outside of Philadelphia. I graduated in 1973. This past weekend was our milestone 50th class reunion. My spouse and I were returning home from the Delmarva Peninsula and decided to drop in on the celebration. We joined an invigorated group of seventy-somethings catching up after half a century.

Founded in 1864 by Philadelphia Quakers, Swarthmore College was one of the first coeducational colleges in the country. While the religious affiliation was discontinued years ago, the Quaker spirit continues to permeate the college community.

An ivory tower is defined as “a state of privileged seclusion that provides a separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world.” Present-day Swarthmore College is the embodiment of this definition. The seclusion is unmistakable once you leave the congested Baltimore Pike and turn onto the tree-lined village of Swarthmore PA. Crum Creek, its meadowland, and woods surround the college. The campus is a nationally recognized arboretum with a large staff to attend to the diverse natural setting.

 Modern-day Swarthmore College is organized with a singular goal in mind, to provide an environment for academic excellence with no outside interference. Every possible student need is addressed from dormitory room maid service to allowances for all diet/food preferences to free academic books for underprivileged students. Over the course of four years, there is no need to leave the campus. For those that want to escape for a day into the Center City of Philadelphia, train passes are provided.

The College now has 1650 students and a low student-faculty ratio of 8-1. It is an elite academic institution that recruits a diverse student body from around the world.

Each year the admissions staff cobbles together an academically sound, diverse freshman class, regardless of financial need. To accomplish this goal, Swarthmore has one of the largest small college endowments of over $one billion. The college meets 100% of the determined need of all admitted students. Ninety percent of the students attend professional schools after graduation. Swarthmore’s alumni have attained prominence in a broad range of fields, including five Noble prizes.

 Those attending the reunion reminded me that our class had broken the mold of the monastic Swarthmore academic life. When we arrived on campus in September of 1969, some of us were veterans of the turbulent 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, others of the divisive Vietnam War. A number of freshmen (myself included) had attended the Woodstock music festival the month before classes began. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were fresh in our minds. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam conflict were in full swing. Our thoughts were oriented outward toward a nation in turmoil.

The campus itself was in disarray following the January 1969 takeover of the Swarthmore Admissions Office. Black students were protesting a lack of black faculty and few black history or culture courses.  In the days following the takeover, nine hundred students and faculty gathered to express their support. On the eighth day of the takeover, College President Courtney Smith suffered a massive heart attack and died. No permanent replacement was found during our time as students.

For our first year, the Swarthmore ivory tower did not exist because of the campus and outside disruptions. All classes were pass-fail for the only time in school history. The Kent State shootings occurred in March of 1970. Classes were canceled when the Nixon administration invaded Cambodia in April 1970, which permitted students to participate in the Washington DC anti-war marches.

Domestic issues settled down, and the ivory tower returned for our final three years at Swarthmore. After graduation, many of us did not remain politically active and turned to mundane lifestyles, professional careers, and families. I was curious to see what our four years at Swarthmore had wrought fifty years after the fact. In addition, I was interested in how the college community had changed. I left the reunion with some interesting impressions.

First, members of our class utilized their liberal arts education in unique ways. Dance and drama students applied these talents to become better lawyers. English majors started successful nonprofits. Science majors became entrepreneurs in the dot-com era. A political science major joined the Jimmie Carter White House before he was 25.

Second, many in our class of 1973 are now in retirement mode trying to wind down from rigorous professional careers. The liberal arts education Swarthmore provided has become an excellent segue into new pastimes in the arts, history, philosophy, and literature.

Third, the college seems more self-centered than I remember and overly smug about “doing the best right thing.” Just because Princeton University has installed an expensive geothermal energy system does not mean that Swarthmore needed to follow suit by digging up much of its campus to install a carbon-neutral heating structure.  Less invasive technologies will soon be available.

Finally, the college’s President Valerie Smith honored our class with a luncheon address. She is Swarthmore’s second female and first African American President. She is also a distinguished scholar of African American literature. Without question, the last half century has produced important social progress since a former President, also named Smith, suffered that fatal heart attack while negotiating with Black students.