UNPACKING THE ELECTION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY

At the beginning of each episode of the long-running TV show, Law & Order, we are told: “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the District Attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”

Unless a voter closely follows local criminal prosecutions or attends campaign events in Washington County, there is little opportunity to discover information about the two candidates in the upcoming election for District Attorney. From my perspective, here are their stories.

In Pennsylvania, a District Attorney has jurisdiction over all felony, misdemeanor, and summary offenses. The office works with other county agencies, including Juvenile and Adult Probation, Drug and Alcohol, and many state agencies to provide criminal justice services. There is an important administrative component to the position in organizing the work of a number of Assistant District Attorneys, office staff, and detectives.

The local candidates are incumbent Republican DA Jason M. Walsh, Esq., and his Democratic opponent; Christina DeMarco-Breeden, Esq. I asked both candidates to respond to written questions to help explain why each is running and why voters should consider supporting them. In my view, following the commissioner’s contest, it is the most important election that voters will decide this November.

Jason Walsh joined the DA’s office in 2016 as a Deputy District Attorney. He gained the trust of then-District Attorney Eugene Vittone and was promoted to First Assistant. When the very popular Mr. Vittone unexpectedly passed away in August 2021, Mr. Welsh was elevated to District Attorney for the remainder of the term.

Mr. Walsh points out that over the last two years, he has continued the work of his predecessor and “set benchmarks in the prosecution of violent/gun-related crimes and drug deliveries resulting in death.” He continues personally to prosecute homicide cases while performing all of his administrative responsibilities.  He is proud of the detective unit he has assembled and the fact he has been “endorsed by all of Washington County’s law enforcement organizations.” If elected into his position, Mr. Walsh does not foresee any major changes to the office and will “continue to make Washington County a safe place to live, work, and raise children.”

Christina DeMarco-Breeden's goal as an attorney was to “become a prosecutor.” She has served in this function in a part-time capacity since 2015. She believes that “the thousands of cases she has been assigned, from traffic offenses to homicide, have prepared her to assume the next step as Washington County’s first female District Attorney.”

Ms. DeMarco-Breeden is campaigning to bring administrative changes to the office. She would “re-establish the County Special Victims Unit, with trained prosecutors who specialized in domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse.” She would place more emphasis on “specialty criminal courts in the areas of drug addiction, mental health, and cases involving veterans. This would provide needed support services to reduce re-offending.” Like her opponent, if elected, she is committed to carrying a caseload in addition to performing administrative responsibilities.

A significant difference of opinion concerns the filing of death penalty cases. Mr. Walsh’s opponent points out that as of May 2023, “Washington County had 12 death penalty cases while the much larger Allegheny County had half this number. The entire Commonwealth had only 52.” Ms. DeMarco-Breeden is not opposed to the death penalty. However, she believes it “should be reserved for the most heinous first-degree murder cases involving premeditation and a specific intent to kill.” She believes that Mr. Walsh has politicized homicide cases in seeking the death penalty in many situations. Mr. Walsh’s response on this issue is that his “difficult and solemn decision” to pursue the death penalty was “based on the horrific facts and circumstances of each case.”

The filing of death penalty cases has become a hot issue of national importance in criminal justice circles. Such cases are prohibitively expensive and time-consuming for any District Attorney’s office. Research has shown that the death penalty does not reduce violent crime and may result in innocent and mentally ill people being executed. Moreover, the death penalty is brought more often against minority defendants. Because of the importance and sensitivity of this issue, I hope that the candidates will have the opportunity to explain their positions to the voters in an upcoming debate.

Ms. DeMarco-Breeden’s candidacy is being challenged for the scattered locations of her work as a prosecutor. She resides in Washington County and is an active member of the local Bar Association. However, her past employment as an assistant DA has been part-time in the Greene and Fayette County DA’s offices. She is now employed part-time in the Somerset County office. She has never worked in Washington County’s District Attorney Office.

DeMarco-Breeden believes her experience in neighboring counties gives her a broader perspective on the duties of District Attorney.  She points out that she has served in many cases as a court-appointed attorney for abused and neglected children in Washington County.  

There is a clear difference in the respective philosophies of the candidates. Mr. Walsh has more of a conservative law-and-order orientation. Ms. DeMarco-Breeden comes across as a criminal law reformist. 

The “best story” for the office should follow the blueprint established by former DA, Eugene Vittone.  His approach was to support a well-trained and equipped police force while showing compassion whenever warranted in the courtroom.

 

 

 

 

 

THE HUMAN CONDITION HAS NO NORMAL

 

With the advantage of all-knowing artificial intelligence at our fingertips, and with life so full of uncertainty, it is common to ask the internet gods, “Am I normal?” We want to Google whether our behavior, our bodies, and our deepest emotions are acceptable for our age, circumstances, and station in life.

Thankfully, studies in cognitive science have concluded that the world is not neatly divided into the healthy and unhealthy. Both physical and psychological characteristics exist along a noticeable continuum. We are all weird in some respect, and that is normal. A person with anxiety may be better prepared for unforeseen circumstances and may demonstrate improved memory. A risk-taker is subject to physical mishaps but is more likely to take his/her profession in new and exciting directions. Some individuals with ADHD and autism have used these conditions to great advantage.

The difficult task is identifying the difference between being uniquely human and becoming unhealthy. Physical illness deals with the structural or functional integrity of the body. It is easier for a trained professional to diagnose and treat physical as opposed to mental illness.

Mental health is complicated by the many forms it takes. There is an entire industry that focuses on self-improvement. Examples include improving communication skills, sleep routines, and drinking habits. A second category centers on more serious signs of deteriorating mental health such as anger management, chronic insomnia, and heavy drinking. Lastly, there is clinical mental illness that requires comprehensive treatment with therapy, medication, and in its worst manifestations, hospitalization.

Mental health has come into focus in recent years, augmented by the stress of the pandemic. The subject is no longer avoided in polite conversation. Screening for symptoms of mental disease has skyrocketed in both schools and physician offices. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, The Booming Industry of American Anxiety, highlights how far we have come. The author points out that in a recent National Center for Health survey, 27% of respondents reported symptoms of an anxiety disorder compared with just 8% in 2019.

One paragraph from the WSJ write-up illustrates the phenomena. “A search for ‘anxiety relief’ on Google pulls up links for supplements in the form of pills, patches, gummies, and mouth sprays. There are vibrating devices that hang around your neck and weighted stuffed animals, bead-filled stress balls, and coloring books that claim to bring calm. Ads for online talk therapy apps pop up on social media sites.”

This explosion in mental health remedies is very different from where we were at the beginning of the twentieth century. Open discussions on self-improvement and anxiety then were rare. More serious cases of mental illness were associated with punishment for moral shortcomings and lack of willpower. Patients received little empathy. Inhumane confinement was still common. The first outpatient mental health clinic in the United States was not opened until 1908.

Women’s mental health was often associated with one diagnosis, hysteria. It was a catchall medical judgment for anxiety, fainting, nervousness, insomnia, and inappropriate behavior.  It was often treated with the opiate derivative, laudanum, which came with its own set of problems. The American Psychiatric Association did not drop the term, hysteria, until the 1950s.

Bringing mental health out of the shadows and into the mainstream has been accelerated by events in both professional sports and politics. Until recently, actors in these categories considered discussions on their mental health off-limits. Both professions required a persona of emotional toughness to remain relevant. To do otherwise left them open to attack from the media, the public, and their peers.

Recent instances of high-profile athletes prioritizing their mental health have triggered an essential shift in the narrative of mental health in sports. In May 2021, tennis star, Naomi Osaka withdrew from the French Open, citing concerns for her mental health. At first, there were detractors, but in short order, other major sports figures with similar stories rushed to her defense. When gymnast Simone Biles sat out several events at the Tokyo Olympics, she sparked a global discussion on sports and mental health. In 2023, almost all professional sports openly encourage mental health treatment and support networks.

The “blood sport” of national politics has also undergone a sea change concerning mental health. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton was briefly the Democratic vice presidential nominee under George McGovern.  He suffered from bouts of depression in the 1960s, which were kept secret from the public. When they were revealed, Eagleton was forced to quit the race. The stigma of mental illness was impossible to overcome.

Contrast the Eagleton fiasco with the recent saga of John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s junior Senator. Senator Fetterman suffered a stroke during his campaign and experienced severe depression following his election to the Senate, which required a lengthy hospitalization.

This August, Fetterman sat down with Time magazine and gave a blow-by-blow account of his illness and recovery. He has received enthusiastic support from the public and from his fellow Senators. Fetterman believes the transparency is good for him and that his voice “will help pull others out of the darkness.”

Our journey through life is complicated by conditions both physical and mental. These unexpected developments often send us down a challenging and more rewarding path. In the words of Maya Angelou, “If you are always trying to be normal, you will never know how amazing you can be.”

 

THE ROLE OF BIDENOMICS IN THE 2024 CAMPAIGN

The White House is campaigning for the reelection of Joe Biden on the back of his economic policies, appropriately labeled “Bidenomics.” This commentary will examine what the President has achieved after three years in office. The analysis will consider why Biden is not receiving credit for his successes and what could go wrong in the 2024 campaign.

The Biden administration correctly argues that when it took office in January 2021, former President Trump left them with an economic and public health disaster. That January was the cruelest month for COVID-19 when more than 95,000 Americans died from the disease. The universal vaccination rollout was untested and bumpy with logistical problems. In the economy, unemployment was elevated to 6.3%. International supply chains were broken well beyond what any economist thought possible, and inflation would soon skyrocket. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses were at risk of permanently shutting down.

For the next 12 months, the Biden presidency was about getting vaccine shots into people's arms and providing economic aid to those most affected by the pandemic. In Biden’s first month in office, he announced the “American Rescue Plan.” Following its Congressional approval, the program provided $1.9 trillion in aid, one of the most extensive economic rescue efforts in U.S. history.

By late 2021, the Biden administration was able to pivot away from crisis mode and into developing its comprehensive blueprint to bring the country out of the pandemic and into a strong economic rebound. The centerpiece was the bipartisan “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.” This generational investment of $2 trillion in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness is designed to rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails. It expands access to clean drinking water, ensures every American has access to high-speed internet, and tackles the climate crisis. The infrastructure initiative was followed by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This legislation sought to curb inflation and lower prescription drug prices. It invests in domestic energy production, emphasizing clean energy.  

With these legislative programs as background, the White House put together its goal to campaign on the benefits of Bidenomics in 2024. By July of 2023, the President could affirm that the economy had added more than 13 million jobs since the pandemic low point. Amazingly, 800,000 of the jobs were in manufacturing. Ten million applications for new small businesses were filed in 2022 and 2023. America experienced the strongest growth since the pandemic of any leading economy in the world. By this August, inflation has been cut in half and come down for 11 straight months. The country has experienced a 50 percent increase in Affordable Care Act medical insurance enrollment since Biden took office.

With all this positive news, how is it possible that Bidenomics does not have President Biden surging in the polls?

First, in our pessimistic media, negative speech gets more attention than positive statistics. Fox News and related pro-Trump media sources have nothing constructive to announce on the progress of Bidenomics to their listeners. Moreover, traditional news sources report on high inflation and skip stories based on a statistical analysis of the President’s successes.

Second, the same Republican members of Congress who voted against Biden’s economic policies and who attack Bidenomics as “big government overreach”, are now taking credit for the new job-creating projects in their districts. Unfortunately, many other projects funded by Biden’s efforts will not show results until long after the 2024 election.

Third, consumers continue to feel the effects of the record-high inflation resulting from the pandemic. While the overall inflation rate has dramatically decreased, sticky inflation on certain consumer items and gasoline has kept these prices above pre-pandemic levels.

Fourth, the Federal Reserve’s efforts to bring inflation under control are designed to raise the unemployment rate and lower wages, which are not positive developments for the middle class.

Fifth, the Fed’s major weapon to fight inflation has been to raise interest rates. This has made the cost of consumer borrowing more expensive. Seven percent mortgage rates have discouraged first-time homebuyers.

Lastly, there is a general sense of economic uncertainty, and fears of a recession remain remarkably high. All of this leads to only 41 percent of Americans approving of President Biden’s job on the economy, despite all the success over his three years in office.

There is a danger that the President and other Democrats running for office will place too much emphasis on Bidenomics in the 2024 campaign. For this strategy to work the economy must be improving twelve months from now. Inflation and interest rates must both be down. The President’s economic message must finally resonate with the American people. This is asking a great deal, much of it beyond Biden’s control.

A better strategy would be to broaden the Democratic campaign message to include the President’s foreign policy agenda. The Biden administration has shown decisive leadership in Ukraine and in uniting Japan/South Korea. America’s European allies and other countries have praised Biden’s efforts in promoting international democratic norms after serious erosion during the Trump era.

The remaining option is to go fully negative against Trumpism and the Republicans who follow the former president’s creed. This approach is not in Biden’s DNA, and he would prefer to stand back and not engage with Trump or gloat about his legal problems.  However, negative campaigning may be the last best option for influencing undecided voters in 2024.

 

 

 

 

 

THE CASE FOR CONVERSATION

Something important was missing from my life. The absence felt like a lack of green salads or regular exercise. When I was introduced to a new book by Paula Marantz Cohen, professor of English at Drexel University, the deprivation became clear. Her thoughtful study: Talking Cure: An Essay on the Civilizing Power of Conversation makes the case for a frequent dose of stimulating conversation to stay healthy. She concludes that discussions in which the participants respectfully disagree are the most meaningful and emotionally satisfying.

I had forgotten that for eight years, one of the highlights of my week was meeting up with several lawyers for lunch each Thursday. We would discuss what was going on in Washington County and beyond. The venerable attorney Charles Keller, Esq. always seemed to adopt the conservative view of any topic. My close friend, Scot Curran, Esq. was a vocal liberal. Reed Day, Esq. would join in to support whichever position was losing the argument. I came to value the lively conversations that would dissect each issue. Unfortunately, our lunch gathering disbanded after several untimely deaths.

As I read Ms. Cohen’s essay on the importance of conversation, I found myself agreeing with her at every turn. Online culture has become the bane of meaningful conversation. We send short messages to our close friends that confirm our repetitive patterns of agreement. It is all “group think” with no room for dissent. We attack “the other” with no discussion of why we disagree. There are few attempts to offer meaningful support for our positions. The isolation that came with the pandemic was another nail in the coffin of conversation. The art of conversing was placed on life support.

Not so long ago, when the means of communication were limited, there was a pattern of regular engagement with others. In the typical American community of our ancestors, the major form of entertainment was conversing at social gatherings to discuss politics and local issues. As Park Burroughs, retired executive editor of the Observer-Reporter, pointed out in his Murder & Mayhem series, these local interactions did not always end peacefully. Thankfully, violence was the exception, and numerous views were expressed in lively conversations.

There are still methods to keep meaningful conversations alive in today’s social media environment. Ms. Cohen’s book discusses the art of the dinner party and how it can lead to an evening of good conversation. This observation took me back to the 1980s and my first marriage. For eleven years, we were members of a dinner club with four other couples that met every other month. The host couple would invite a guest couple for the members to meet. One of our members kept a scrapbook of who attended each gathering and what we discussed.

The conversation was always stimulating, punctuated by polite disagreements. I learned that an attorney processed information differently from an English teacher and that an accountant would bring up points an engineer would explore in other directions. 

In my present marriage, we traditionally hosted a holiday dinner in December with five other couples who varied from year to year. Over time, this gathering became a family affair that offered fewer opportunities for challenging conversations. The pandemic put a stop to this event, which we now hope to reintroduce.

Ms. Cohen makes the following observation about conversations and why we never know what we might be missing. “One can never tell how people will get along. I know a number of people whom I should logically not like conversing with whom I nonetheless find invigorating and several who seem perfect on paper whom I avoid like the plague.” She praises the French essayist Michel de Montaigne's observation, “The most fruitful and natural exercise of the mind, in my opinion, is conversation. I find the use of it sweeter than any other action in life.”

For Cohen, the mental health advantages of good conversation are clear, “We converse to forget our existential aloneness, to get out of our own heads and replenish our sense of connectedness to others.” Conversation is a social activity. The participants must be willing to show respect for each other to make it work.

In education, the Harkness teaching method offers a unique conversational approach to learning, adopted by many private boarding schools. Instead of lectures, students are seated in a large, oval configuration to discuss ideas in an open-minded environment. Free thought and originality of the individual through conversation replace traditional lesson plans.

With the Harkness method, disagreements on a point under discussion build confidence and encourage positive attitudes to learning. The teacher becomes a partner in the learning process, guiding students to independently discover meaning within the subject area. The Harkness method is the direct opposite of isolated viral learning forced upon students during the pandemic.

In thinking about this subject, I have decided that my op-ed contributions to this newspaper have become, in part, an exercise to replace conversation with writing. After all, the purpose of an op-ed is to discuss and provide arguments on issues of relevance to the readers of the newspaper.

Each week, I hope that a reader will decide to agree or disagree with my position in a letter to the editor. Sadly, most readers who have thoughtful views to share do not respond. A social media post to a friend requires much less effort.

 

 

 

THE POLITICIZATION OF FREE SPEECH

Many Americans who invoke free speech, often in favor or against a political position, have little idea of what free speech entails. This commentary will examine how free speech has evolved through a series of groundbreaking court opinions. It will also consider how free speech is misapplied in today's political and cultural wars.

The framers of our Constitution viewed free speech as a basic right, guaranteed in the First Amendment.  Recently, this long-standing cornerstone of our democracy has shifted from something to be protected to a weaponized club with which to bash political opponents.

The Free Speech clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech” but does not define what that freedom entails. Interpretation has largely been left to the courts. Over the years, vocal groups within the country have utilized free speech to abolish slavery, gain women’s suffrage and civil rights, expose government lies, and protect the media. The American Civil Liberties Union, a vigilant watchdog of free speech, has stated, “Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, and diversity of thought.”

What follows is a summary of free speech rulings under our evolving law as outlined by the organization Speechfirst.org.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson allowed the Sedition Act and Alien Friends Act to expire because they violated the First Amendment. In 1919, the Supreme Court announced the famous “clear and present danger” test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.  

In 1942, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld an arrest, ruling that “fighting” words, those that inherently cause harm or are likely to create an immediate disturbance, are not protected under the First Amendment.  In 1943, the court established that students could not be punished for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or to salute the American flag. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in 1951, proposed a “balancing test” to weigh the gravity of “evil” against the justification of infringing upon free speech in order to avoid danger.

The Supreme Court, in 1951, defended the principle of academic freedom by holding it is necessary for academics to teach, research, and study without government or administrative interference. In 1958, the Supreme Court acknowledged that First Amendment protections were extended to the LGBT community. Historically, governments had harassed this community by labeling its conduct “obscene” and its gatherings as “riots.”

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that Lenny Bruce’s comedy routine was social commentary and not obscenity. His legal victory helped inspire future comedians to challenge social mores and boundaries. Also, in 1964, the Supreme Court established an “actual malice” principle in libel law – requiring a higher standard to prove libel, protect criticism and further strengthen free speech rights.

In 1969, the court threw out the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member and established that speech merely advocating violence is protected unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.” In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that college campuses (wearing black armbands) are not exempt from the First Amendment and that those protections apply at the same level as in the community at large. In 1990, the Supreme Court found the Texas flag desecration law (and those of 47 other states) to be unconstitutional, ruling that flag burning constitutes “symbolic speech” and is protected by the First Amendment.

The definition of free speech has regularly been updated along with the country’s changing views. Today, First Amendment protections ensure that all viewpoints can be freely communicated without fear of retribution.  It is therefore troubling and irresponsible for political actors to inaccurately invoke free speech or to improperly regulate speech without considering the harm to our democracy.

First, consider the political pundits and Republican members of Congress who claim that the former president cannot be indicted on conspiracy charges against the American people because he was “exercising his right to free speech.” The First Amendment guarantees that Trump and his supporters may manufacture and repeat untrue election fraud claims wherever and whenever they please. However, taking action to form a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the transfer of presidential power is not protected speech.

Next, consider banning books from libraries and public schools. In 2022, there were 1,269 efforts to censor books and other library resources. A group called Moms for Liberty has been active in banning books with LGBT content and those that present a balanced historical perspective on slavery. When federal judges ordered books returned, some communities closed their libraries. Recently, a judge blocked Arkansas from enforcing a law against librarians that would restrict reading material for minors.

Third, in the Senate, there is the conservative Lindsey Graham and progressive Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to form something called the Digital Consumer Protection Commission. Presumably, it would regulate matters like data privacy, distribution of false information, and competition. Many free speech advocates believe such a commission would destroy the open internet with partisan bureaucrats in charge of policing technology.

Free speech is one of the more complex aspects of a very messy democratic system.  Political censorship must not silence topics offensive to some Americans but important to others. Our guiding light should be the famous words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote, “The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

 

 

 

 

BUCKLE UP FOR A WILD RIDE

The August doldrums will soon disappear and politics in Washington County will reclaim center stage. Starting with the county fair, the focus will be on the critical two months leading up to the local November election for county offices. This will be followed by a 2024 presidential election campaign that promises to place Pennsylvania in the middle of a political maelstrom unlike any other in the history of American politics.

While much of the nation dozes through 2023, Washington County faces a crossroads in county government. Republican Diana Irey Vaughan has decided to step down from her Commissioner’s chair after 28 years of service. The dynamics of decision-making at the Commissioner’s meetings will inevitably change.

If the Democratic team of Larry Maggi and Cecil Township Supervisor Cindy Fisher pull off a November victory, there will likely be a return to an administration familiar to voters, from recent decades of Democratic rule. A Maggi-Fisher majority would be characterized by no tax increases, moderate spending on essential needs, and little drama in the Commissioners’ office. Civil servants in county government, who have been preparing resumes in anticipation of their termination, would breathe a sigh of relief.

A Republican victory in the Commissioners’ race comes with greater uncertainty. Neither Nick Sherman nor Electra Janis has disclosed plans for restructuring the county government. However, over the past four years, Sherman was often displeased with the reasonable path taken by his fellow Republican Commissioner, Ms. Irey Vaughan. He was sympathetic to the positions of radical pro-Trump election deniers. Accordingly, no one is sure what action a Republican administration would take to placate these extremists.

In sizing up the November Commissioner’s race, there are several unknowns involving how residents will vote. First, could the trend from four years ago, when Republicans were elected to county offices, be reversed? Under this theory, the theft of funds by a Democrat in the Clerk of Courts Office cost Democratic candidates many votes. Second, does the Republican advantage in voter registration preclude any opportunity for a Democratic victory? Third, will the infighting throughout the Washington County Republican Party cost them the Commissioners race? Fourth, if the Maggi-Fisher team wins the top of the ticket, will the Row Office officials also be replaced with Democrats?  

Following this November’s results, we will have little opportunity to escape politics before the nation focuses on Pennsylvania and the presidential election of 2024. In addition, because of the razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate, Republicans have identified incumbent Democrat Bob Casey as one of their top targets in 2024, bringing national attention to the contest.

While urban dwellers trend toward voting Democratic and rural residents are overwhelmingly Republican, the “swing” suburbs now determine national elections. Thus, the Presidential candidates must focus on the suburban voters in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Because the area surrounding Pittsburgh is considered suburban, our communities will garner unprecedented political advertising and campaign visits.  

Although we are over a year from the presidential election, President Biden recently appeared in Philadelphia and his wife in Pittsburgh to take credit for low unemployment and the infrastructure bill. Former President Trump recently spoke at an early campaign rally in Erie.

The battle to determine our next President is shaping up to be a rerun of 2020. The latest polling gives former President Trump a rating of over 50% among Republicans compared to 16% for his closest challenger, Ron DeSantis. President Biden has no serious Democratic opposition. No viable third-party candidate has yet appeared.

The last presidential campaign was a nasty affair. The post-election criminal conspiracy by Trump and his allies to overturn the Biden victory was unprecedented in American history. The 2024 campaign will be much worse. We are faced with a confrontation of victimhood and untruth vs. the rule of law.

When Trump receives the nomination of his party next July, he will be out on bail in two federal and two state indictments. His “Save America” PAC spent over $40 million on criminal legal fees so far in 2023. The New York felony trial involving Stormy Daniels's hush money should be completed and on appeal. The federal trial in Florida on the classified documents charges is likely to be completed and the verdict on appeal. The other two indictments involving election conspiracies should also be scheduled for trial by July.

Trump will play off these criminal trials to raise money and to energize his “always Trump” supporters. His campaign strategy to regain the presidency will be to tear down the American legal system along with federal law enforcement and to undermine support for Ukraine. If elected, Trump has made it clear he plans to seek revenge against those who brought charges against him. If Trump loses, there will be another claim of election fraud, and he will send his furious hoard of election deniers back into the fray.

On the Democratic side of the equation, President Biden will be facing his own challenges. Congressional Republicans will use any specious claim of impropriety to bring impeachment proceedings against him. This will further muddy the election waters. Any uncertainty with the economy will loom large.

A continuous stream of national political commercials will start to run locally this November and accelerate during 2024. A vote from our area will be among the most sought-after in the country on Election Day.

 

  

HOW FOMO IMPACTS OUR BEHAVIOR

The fear of missing out (FOMO) is an emotional response to the belief that other people are living better, more satisfying lives or that important opportunities are being missed. The noun was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013 and is now widely accepted.  

FOMO is not simply a byproduct of modern culture. According to the explanation of Adam and Eve in Genesis, the serpent explained to Eve, “…when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This biblical fear of missing out sent humankind out of the Garden of Eden into a very different environment.

Many thinkers throughout history have recognized FOMO as an influence on human behavior. The French philosopher Montesquieu addressed the problem when he opined, “If one only wished to be happy, this could be easily accomplished; but we wish to be happier than other people and this is always difficult, for we believe others to be happier than they are.” Skip forward to Erica Jong who weighed in with, “Jealousy is all the fun you think they had.” Lastly, the financial guru, Naved Abdali reasoned that, “Fear of missing out is more powerful than fear of losing what you already have.”

FOMO was first recognized as a powerful, modern, psychological force in the field of advertising. Researchers in marketing discovered that strategies to intensify FOMO dramatically increased sales. Examples include AT&T’s “Don’t be Left Behind” campaign to convince mobile phone users to join their network and Duracell’s “Stay in Charge” advertising that persuaded users to use their batteries or suffer unnecessary consequences. FOMO advertising has always been used to increase sales of “sin” products like tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. New automobile, movie, book, and music releases tap into FOMO, as do the clothing companies, particularly athletic wear and sneakers.

With the advent of social media, FOMO has taken on a larger role in our lives. Studies have determined that those who utilize Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter become addicted to constantly checking their devices to avoid missing out. A 2021 poll concluded that 51% of social media users logged in more frequently than they did two years previously, often first thing in the morning and before falling asleep.

Seven out of ten millennials experience social media-driven FOMO, the most of any age group. Moreover, millennials are more likely to intentionally create FOMO among their peers by posting suggestive, over-the-top information about their activities. Child psychologists are concerned that social media FOMO is adversely affecting the mental health of impressionable teenagers.

In 2023, FOMO has gone ballistic in many aspects of our lives. Social scientists believe that the pandemic was a significant cause. First, the months of being cloistered at home dramatically increased the number of those who became addicted to social media platforms. Second, after the pandemic wound down, there was a rush to experience all that had been left undone during the health crisis. FOMO was exaggerated by 24/7 social media posts that reminded us what we had missed. Below I will highlight several examples that have occurred this year.

Taylor Swift. No illustration of FOMO in 2023 could compete with singer Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, her first following the pandemic. Over 2.4 million tickets were sold on the first day, shattering the previous record. Many eager fans were denied tickets and were overcome with FOMO.

The Eras Tour elevated the money-making potential of the sold-out concerts by revitalizing local hotels, businesses, and restaurants. The concert venues attracted large crowds of non-ticket holders just to purchase Taylor Swift merchandise and listen to the music from a distance. Each local concert has dominated the national social media causing additional FOMO. US sales estimates put Swift's earnings at an average of $ 13.6 million a show. In the secondary market, the parents of young girls were paying over $2 thousand a ticket to make sure their daughters would not experience FOMO.  

Travel. Following the pandemic travel has been all about making up for lost time to visit family and to plan bucket list experiences made desirable in social media. Trips to celebrate milestones that occurred during the shutdown are also popular. In recent polling, very few travelers indicated that inflation, gas prices, or the higher cost of plane tickets would interfere with their plans to catch up on missed opportunities. Not even large crowds at popular destinations or inconvenient flight disruptions have deterred those who fear missing out.

The Stock Market. FOMO has been a major factor in explaining the meteoric rise in the 2023 stock market. Many were predicting a down year in January due to inflation and recession fears. Out of nowhere, artificial intelligence began dominating the news leading to a handful of stocks doubling in value. The buying spree soon spread to other areas. The rapid rise escalated buyer momentum fed by investor fear of missing out.

The stock market averages are now well above where many financial advisors feel comfortable. Nonetheless, new money continues to flow into the market. Because interest rates, inflation, and recession remain major concerns, things could end badly if the market suddenly retreats.

Psychologists point to one simple cure for FOMO, whether it involves social media, leisure time, or investing. Have a plan and stick to it. You will then be happier and less influenced by decisions others are making in their lives.