WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PANDEMIC?

 

There is little disagreement that policy errors were made during the pandemic. The problem is that Democrats, Republicans, and even scientists who specialize in public health cannot agree on what the miscalculations were or how to prevent them in the future. This result should not be unexpected.  The Pew Research Center has concluded, “The most significant pandemic of our lifetime arrived as the United States was experiencing three major societal trends: a growing divide between partisans of the left and right, decreasing trust in many institutions, and a massive splintering of the information environment.”

Democrats point to the lax preparation and prevention efforts employed by the first Trump administration. They believe there were many warning signals before COVID-19 swept across the nation. There is also criticism of the slow roll out of available vaccines in the final months of the 2020 Trump presidency.

Republicans argue that the Biden administration and governors in blue states called for “draconian” lock-down, masking, and distancing mandates that caused harm to our economic and social fabric.  They contend that elected Democrat officials gave too little priority to individual choice and did not support businesses or parents who wanted their children back in the classroom.

The only fact on which all parties agree is that “Operation Warp Speed,” a national program employed by Trump officials to quickly develop a vaccine was an unmitigated success. With vaccine production using mRNA as a delivery mechanism, scientists moved quickly to clinical and human trials. This allowed the vaccines to become the fastest ever developed and approved.

As of January 30, 2021, five of the six vaccine candidates had entered phase 3 clinical trials. Two candidates from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech received an emergency use authorization from the FDA. This decision was indispensable to lessening the effects of the pandemic. A week later, on February 5, 2021, the U.S. had over 26 million cumulative reported cases of COVID-19 and about 449,020 reported deaths.

 

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to the public health emergency. Adequate time has now passed to permit social scientists and historians (with no political axe to grind) to review the voluminous documentation and statistical evidence generated by federal/state agencies and scientific entities.

The initiation of governmental policies to mitigate the harm is now more or less settled. On 23 January 2020, the Chinese government banned travel to and from Wuhan and enforced a national policy of quarantines in affected regions. The WHO examined this approach and bought into the Chinese model, which swiftly became conventional wisdom around the world. As a result of this thinking, America launched masking, distancing, and lockdowns on a broad scale.

This commentary will discuss a recent book that focuses on the governmental responses to COVID-19 and other strains of the virus. The publication gives a fair and honest assessment in which no political party, elected official, or federal agency escapes unscathed. It is a straight-forward report that we all need to consider in order to learn from the pandemic moving forward.

The book, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, is the work of two public policy professors at Princeton University, Stephen Macedo and Francis Lee.  Among other favorable reviews, this study has been called “compelling” by Fareed Zakaria and “social science at its finest” by George Will.

Macedo and Lee describe how, influenced by China’s lockdown, federal agencies departed from their already existing pandemic plans that minimized the use of social distancing and masking. In making difficult choices, “follow the science without question” replaced open scientific debate and valuable input from non-scientists.

The authors found that benefits and damages were unfairly distributed. Priority was placed on avoiding hospitalization and death with little consideration of economic loss or the long-term harm caused by missing school and locking-down communities. Even when the virus started acted differently than predicted, scientific conformity replaced open debate and reasoned thought.

Macedo and Lee point to Sweden, which never mandated masks or staying at home and kept schools open. Statistics now show that Sweden had one of the lowest death rates in Europe. Initially In America, states that locked down for longer, fared no better than those that did not. However, once vaccines were readily available, red states did not do as well because vaccine skepticism increased the number of infections.

The authors conclude that: 1) the federal policies adopted largely benefited the wealthier “laptop class” and left so-called essential workers unprotected, 2) extended school closures hit the least-privileged families the hardest, and 3) science became politicized, and dissent was driven to the margins. 

On this third point, it now seems an unwarranted partisan position for Atlantic magazine to accuse the state of Georgia of performing “an experiment in human sacrifice” when the governor eased its lockdown requirements. Elected officials can often fairly weigh considerations that experts may not consider or fully appreciate.

If we are to learn anything from the pandemic, we must realize that governments need “a more honest politics of crisis policymaking, a greater willingness to acknowledge doubt and recognition of people with varying views.”

In the next crisis, Macedo and Lee warn, “we must not forget the deepest values of liberal democracy: tolerance and open-mindedness, respect for scientific evidence and its limits, a willingness to entertain uncertainty, and a commitment by the government to tell us the whole truth.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HONOR CHARLIE KIRK WITH SCHOLASTIC DEBATING PROGRAMS

 

The assassination of political activist and media personality, Charlie Kirk, has opened up a new chapter of political violence in America. Kirk was a commentator and influencer, not an elected official. He was apparently targeted because of his conservative political views. Some observers believe this event could trigger an escalating response of tit-for-tat violence from extremist elements and mentally unstable individuals.

No one should brush off this event or try to rationalize the outcome based on right-wing or MAGA talking points. I will echo the words of progressive commentator Ezra Klein in his New York Times opinion column shortly after the killing: “The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear or violence…Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him…A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy.”

The question becomes whether something positive can result from Kirk’s killing that would address the almost insurmountable divide between political partisans. In my view, a timely positive step would be to have a nationwide discussion on the importance of scholastic training in policy debate techniques to improve communication skills in American society.

Modern American education ignores the long tradition of teaching oratory and rhetoric. It treats the subject of policy debating as a minor club activity, not important enough for the classroom. Accordingly, young students’ political views are shaped by partisan parents and social media. They develop narrow silos of thought and are not exposed to positions that support the wide range of political philosophy that defines our democratic republic. Moreover, today’s youth and in many cases their parents have not developed listening skills or the ability to move beyond stereotypes when discussing a sensitive topic.

Oratory and rhetoric began in ancient Greece with the Sophists and was codified by Aristotle. These learning tools later became a cornerstone of classical education in both the Greek and Roman worlds. They involve learning how to effectively persuade and communicate when participating in public and social life. 

In English education the history of oratory and rhetoric spans centuries. Classical educators believed that this tradition trained future leaders. Works like Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres (1783) became standard texts in universities across Europe and America.

In time, these subjects fell out of favor due to the curriculum split between English language and English literature. In addition, instruction in the sciences replaced these classical teaching tools. Modern educators often labeled these communication skills negatively and unnecessary in teaching a basic education to students with lower aptitudes.

Early in life, I was exposed to an example of formal policy debate that has served me well.  In my small New Jersy elementary school, our eighth-grade teacher felt that it was important to have an intermural policy debating team. One of my fondest memories was making it to the finals against a close friend. In 1964, he was a Republican Goldwater conservative. I followed my family’s long-standing tradition as a Democrat and embraced the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson following the assassination of President Kennedy.

Our debate topic was “American Use of Foreign Aid.” The Democrats supported it. Conservative Republicans thought it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

A week before the debate, our thoughtful teacher, Mr. Gallagher, gave us the debate instructions. Each of us would be asked to advocate for the policies we disagreed with. He knew that being compelled to defend positions opposite our ideological beliefs would provide a richer learning experience.

To learn the status of teaching debate and communication skills in today’s environment, I went to the American Debate League for some answers. This nonprofit organization was founded in 2014 to provide young people of all backgrounds with basic debating skills. Their mission, through training and competition, is to improve self-esteem, academic achievement, and graduation success.

At the beginners level, students are asked to perform the most common type of public speaking. Each participant studies a subject and presents their ideas at the end of the semester. The students are taught how to implement persuasive speech that will convince the audience to consider a proposed point of view, motivate them for a behavior change or to take action.

This exercise is about knowing and understanding the audience before developing a speech to persuade them.  This means that each participant must listen to their peers before shaping the content. While hundreds of students participate annually in League activities, it is only a drop in a very large bucket.

In December of 2023, Brookings Research issued a report, “How Competitive Debate Can Improve Public Education.” The report concluded that “policy debate is a rare activity with the potential to meaningfully improve reading achievement among public secondary school students, to promote critical thinking skills that are in short supply, and to do so in a way that promotes equity of educational outcomes. Further, the skills gained through debate are transferable and help prepare young people for college, career, and meaningful engagement with the world.”

The Trump administration can constructively honor the life and work of Charlie Kirk, who was an accomplished debater.  It should immediately provide funding for scholastic programs on policy debate in every age-appropriate school. America can replace domestic threats of “going to war” with classes to save democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

“AMERICA FIRST” SPELLS THE END OF AUTHENTIC HISTORY

 

“America First" is a nativist political slogan and foreign policy doctrine that advocates prioritizing right wing economic, political, and ideological interests of the United States above those of other nations. The slogan dates back to the isolationist polices of Charles Lindburgh and his America First Committee. In the lead-up to World War II, Lindburgh’s organization supported Nazi Germany and wanted America to remain neutral.

The slogan has again gained wide acceptance in the Trump administration. It is invoked to frame MAGA positions on immigration, trade, international relations, and more recently, American history.

The MAGA concept of “America First” is being utilized to bring about the end of accurate and honest portrayals of American history. Historical narratives that do not support the MAGA “America (and Trump) can do no wrong” agenda including the slaughter/displacement of Native Americans, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, Japanese internment, “Black Lives Matter,” and “LGBTQ+ History” are being deliberately erased from the public record.  

Federal venues under the control of the Trump administration have been sanitized of exhibits and documentation that reject the nativist ideology of “America First.” Erroneous history has taken its place.

Recently on Truth Social, Trump announced: “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL. Everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been. I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made. This country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.”

In addition, the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has provided the Trump presidency with a detailed road map for his authoritarian actions, has attacked the Smithsonian Museums for being a “disgrace to American History.”

Political thinkers have long identified the conditions that allow established democracies to transform into dictatorships. Unvarnished modern history (the type Trump is attempting to eradicate) has taught us to expect censorship of past events when an authoritarian regime gains power and begins to remold society. The message is clear – the past does not repeat, but it does instruct.

In the years preceding the French Revolution, the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was a fierce critic of unjust rule and was fundamentally against the absolute rule by a single person. For Rousseau, a social contract, popular sovereignty, and equality were foundational to democracy. In his Discourse on Inequality (1775) Rousseau gave us some prescient advice. He argued that the progression of inequality, fueled by greed, ultimately leads to despotism, a state where a single ruler unjustly controls everyone.  

Rousseau explains that “the many” are disadvantaged against “the few” because they lack a single voice with which to protest. The many falls into a trap because they come to feel they have no choice, that it is already too late to resist. Rousseau understood that when the status quo gets you fed and gives you protection, you have to be very brave to resist or to walk away.  As Rousseau predicted, few Americans are protesting Trump’s efforts to rewrite history.

Regarding the doctrine and foreign policy, in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt confronted Lindburgh’s America First Committee and its isolationist, fascist, and anti-immigration policies with a better vision for the world. FDR supported the founding principles of the United States with a commitment to fight for freedom. He battled fierce conservative and wealthy resistance as he sought to provide military support for Great Britain.

On October 22, 1941, Roosevelt gave a speech in opposition to America First, “We have wished to avoid shooting, but the shooting has started. And history has recorded who fired the first shot. All of us Americans are faced with the choice between the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of world which Hitler and his hordes would impose on us.” On December 7, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war.

The former Yale University historian Timothy Snyder in The Road to Unfreedom has written extensively about Vladimir Putin’s manipulation of Russian history to support his “Russian First” doctrine. Synder reports that Putin's regime systematically distorts and suppresses the past to legitimize its rule. To enforce his version of history, Putin's regime destroys Ukrainian archives. Russia has also passed "memory laws" that criminalize honest discussion of the Soviet past, including Stalin's crimes.

Putin invokes the Stalin period to inaccurately paint Russia as a perpetual defender against Nazism. This narrative is then used to frame modern-day Ukraine as a neo-Nazi threat, despite its Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump was correct that something is out of control. However, it is not our institutions of higher learning or our museums that cultivate America’s fullest understanding of itself. It is the threat of domestic authoritarianism on the one hand and a return to failed nativist foreign policies on the other.

Trump’s America First is doing more than reshaping the narrative of American history. Demanding a “patriotic civics education” that emphasizes fictional American exceptionalism would be bad enough. However, the Trump administration is also seeking to whitewash the President’s own sordid history as the twice impeached instigator of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, who became a convicted felon while out of office.

America First will prevent young students from developing a truthful understanding of the past and its complexities. Before MAGA is done, the damage will only intensify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR MANY OF US, MEDIOCRITY BEATS PERFECTIONISM

 

I have decided in my post-retirement years that I will be more than satisfied with living a life of meaningful mediocrity. Moreover, l will kick to the curb any thoughts of achieving perfection in any of my pursuits.

While I have the time and better resources to seek a more perfect existence, where nothing is out of place and projects are improved until flawless, I now choose the opposite. My attitude will be “it’s ok” if my office is untidy, weeds are taking over the front yard, painting the porch comes out uneven, or my commentaries are not of a quality to win journalism awards. I will try to fill my days with messy, unpolished contentment not perfectionist anxiety and self-doubt.

The noun mediocrity means “the quality of being average or ordinary.” Perfectionism is a personality characteristic, which is defined as “striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards for performance, accompanied by tendencies for overly critical evaluations.”

 A review of the offerings in the self-help section of any bookstore will find dozens of titles discussing mediocrity, perfectionism and similar character traits. The business books tend to stress the importance of focused ambition and high achievement. The psychology books lean the other way, emphasizing the value of being content with an average, mundane existence.

For years, many health care professionals thought that striving for flawlessness and critical self-evaluation, the hallmarks of perfectionism, could yield positive results. Recently, this thinking has changed. A current edition of New Yorker magazine features journalist Leslie Jamison reviewing the contemporary thinking on the subject.  In The Pain of Perfectionism Jamison relies heavily on the career and published works of Gordon Flett, a psychology professor from York University who specializes in understanding perfectionism and its pitfalls.

The article begins with a personal anecdote related by Flett to Jamison that explains how sneaky perfectionism can be. The professor was convinced that one of his two daughters exhibited the hallmarks of a perfectionist, and he developed a questionnaire to identify the trait in children. The child tested normal. Years later when there was no question that his daughter was a perfectionist, she explained to her father that she had internalized the message that perfectionism was to be avoided.  She then decided to relate the “perfect” answers that any ordinary child would give.

Early in his career, Flett found it difficult to find support for the proposition that perfectionism was a source of suffering. However, as his research progressed, his testing and treatment of patients revealed it was anything but positive. Flett now believes that “Perfectionism can be personally terrorizing for people, a debilitating state. It’s driven not by aspiration but by fear, and by the conviction that perfectionism is the only way of being secure and safe in the world.”

Flett has an extensive collection of autobiographies of famous people who have battled perfectionism. High achievers in sports, music, and the arts are well represented. They include golfer Ben Hogan and tennis star Andre Agassi. (He wanted to hit a winner on every shot.) In music, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Lang Lang, and Brian Wilson are prime examples. In each case, the memoirs reflect how the condition has adversely affected their lives. Flett points out that recent films like “Black Swan” and “Phantom Thread” have “interrogated the downside of perfectionism while bestowing on it a fatal glamour.”

What has the research found that distinguishes perfectionism from a mere attempt to do your best? First, reaching a goal is never enough, whether it is a top grade, a target weight, or a professional milestone. Second, achievement doesn’t cure the feeling of being unacceptable. Third, perfectionism perpetuates an endless circle of striving, where getting better gives no satisfaction.

Flett and his collaborator, Paul Hewitt have been credited with developing a framework and vocabulary for discussing and understanding perfectionism.  It provides therapists with a means to explain anorexic patients and their “relentless self-destructive drive.”

After adjusting for other variables like depression, perfectionism is now considered a powerful predictor of suicide. Unfortunately, Flett and Hewitt have found that, “Perfectionists may construe an unsuccessful suicide attempt as the ultimate failure.”

While perfectionism continues to receive bad reviews from the psychology community, mediocrity is gaining support. Rejection can destroy the life of a perfectionist. Mediocre people often use rejection as a learning experience and make choices they can both afford and enjoy. Commentators now label this trend “meaningful mediocrity.” Beyond the world of celebrities, sports stars, internet influencers, and wall street financiers, most of us can live satisfying lives of meaningful mediocrity.

Since the pandemic, it is common to find books, articles, blogs, and podcasts of individuals who want to discuss their dramatic change in attitude after living a life dedicated to high achievement. They have all reevaluated their relationship with ambition and other perfectionist tendencies. The recurrent conclusion is that mediocrity is a far better fate than misery.

Jamie Ducharme, the health correspondent at Time magazine, writes “Embracing mediocrity goes against everything Americans are taught to believe. For a long time, I bought into this mindset.  It was only once it tanked my mental health that I realized what this mindset had cost me.”

In my own case, striving to accomplish big things perfectly, while working 70 hours a week, contributed to my becoming an alcoholic. Today, I am content with being “good enough.”

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTY GOVERNMENT MATTERS MOST

  

The transformation of Washington County into a jurisdiction where only Republicans win county elections is now complete. Since January of 2020, when Republican Nick Sherman replaced Democrat Harlon Shober in the Commissioner’s office, only the minority Democratic Commissioner, Larry Maggi, has been assured of winning an election with a “D” before his name. Several lifelong Democrats have actually switched party affiliation in an attempt to run for or remain in office.

This trend is not unique to Washington County. WESA Voting Matters, an initiative to provide nonpartisan, independent elections journalism for southwestern Pennsylvania, has published studies showing that the Democrats’ registration advantage over Republicans has rapidly declined following the presidential campaigns that elected Barack Obama. In March 2021, there were 630,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. In October 2024, this difference was cut in half to around 300,000.

The story in Western Pennsylvania has featured white working-class voters becoming Republicans in droves. As in Washington County, Beaver, Fayette, and Westmoreland Republican registrations have pulled ahead of Democrats. 

Republican leaders would argue that they have been successful because of Trump’s message that his party represents “the people” with his policies to close the borders and bring back domestic manufacturing. However, in county elections, unlike national and state campaigns, there are no position papers, party platforms, candidate debates, or media reporting to disclose the intentions of the candidates. Often, voters are only bombarded with the same overused campaign slogans like “low taxes” and “transparency.”  

It is too convenient to vote for a local candidate based only on party affiliation.

Many voters have registered as Republicans based on national issues. We have witnessed that national/state elections have almost identical results as our county election, even though the candidate qualifications and local issues are widely disparate. Voters need to do their due diligence before voting “straight party” in county elections.

This commentary will not present a plan for Washington Democrats to win back county government. In the coming election cycles, such a strategy would not succeed. However, regardless of a voter’s registration, it is important that competent officials be elected to address the fundamental tasks of local government.

In my view in recent election cycles, local Republican voters have made ill- informed decisions in primary elections on who should represent them. With local party dominance comes voter responsibility. It is irresponsible to simply vote for anyone supported by the local Republican party. For example, when voting for the controller or the sheriff, the voter inquiry should center on financial experience or on law enforcement background, not on Republican party connections.

How is local governance different from what occurs on the state or national level? It is decision making closest to home. It affects the everyday immediate surroundings and well-being of the community. In many ways, it is the engine that keeps the community running.

What do well-informed residents need to know? First, voters should review county publications, attend public meetings, and be familiar with job descriptions to gain an understanding of the key areas of local governance. Local finance, public safety, parks and recreation, zoning and land use are topics that affect us all. Understanding each function and who is responsible is critical.

Second, voters need to review the qualifications of local candidates. Normally, this critical decision-making would occur during the Republican primary. This year’s November general election for county controller is an exception. To provide some background, on October 2, 2024, Heather Sheatler, a Republican, was appointed by the Republican Commissioners and sworn in as Washington County’s acting controller. Sheatler had worked in the county controller’s office for 22 years and most recently served as deputy controller. Prior to the recent primary, Sheatler invoked the ire of the Republican Commissioners by doing her job and challenging their movement of federal grant funds into an unauthorized checking account.

The Republican Commissioners supported an alternative candidate, Pat Philips, who won the primary. Sheatler came in second place in the Republican primary but a write-in campaign gave her the Democratic nomination. There will be no better opportunity for Republicans to set aside party designation on the November ballot and to study the credentials of two registered Republicans. Voters are being asked to cast ballots for the most qualified “Republican” controller candidate to be the guardian of local public funds.

What are the responsibilities of local officials regarding citizen input, transparency and the status of public projects? County officials are the closest elected representatives to the voters. Whenever possible, citizens should be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on decision making. Voters should be well informed so they can hold their elected officials accountable.

 

In a commentary several weeks ago, I pointed out that Washington County was awarded an unprecedented, once-in-a-lifetime, $98 million in federal pandemic funds. Our Republican Commissioners did not seek input from the public on how the money should be utilized. There were no updates or briefings on projects and expenditures. There has been no final accounting.

Every voter and taxpayer, regardless of party affiliation, should be offended by this lack of transparency and unwillingness to seek out the public’s suggestions.

High quality, local officials and citizen engagement combine to make county government run effectively. I urge local Republicans to elect officials based on merit, values, concrete articulated policies, and their willingness to interact with the public. In our everyday lives, county government is what matters most.

 

 

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION CONTINUES TO EVOLVE

 

On a recent summer evening, my wife was busy page-turning our copy of the weekly New Yorker magazine. Like many of us, the cartoons were the main attraction with occasional stops at articles that grabbed her attention.

She was reading a piece reprinted and reviewed to commemorate the 1925 Scopes trial, first written one hundred years ago by the magazine’s reporter who was in attendance. This well-publicized Tennessee criminal trial focused on the illegality of teaching evolution in public schools.

As we discussed the article, it suddenly occurred to me how divisive the subject of evolution has been in the American cultural wars. I also learned that new scientific studies highlight how our understanding of evolution continues to “evolve” as new discoveries are made.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were both English naturalists who independently developed the theory of evolution. Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 turned all of biology and theology upside down. Previously, geologists and paleontologists made a compelling case that life had been on Earth for millions of years, that life had changed over time, and that many species had become extinct. It was the genius of both Darwin and Wallace to show how all this evidence favored the evolution of a species from a common ancestor. They offered a plausible mechanism by which life might evolve. This process Darwin called natural selection.

Darwin and Wallace each deduced that if a species had some trait that helped it to withstand the elements or to reproduce more successfully, it might leave more and stronger offspring behind. These traits seemed to become more common in subsequent generations.

According to the Berkley University, History of Evolutionary Thought, The Origin of Species was one of the most influential scientific books of all time. The authors go on to explain, “Yet it took years for its full argument to take hold. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance. In the late 1800s many scientists who called themselves Darwinists actually preferred different explanations for the way life changed over time. Not until the discovery of genes and mutations in the twentieth century was natural selection not just attractive as an explanation, but unavoidable.”

Theologians initially believed that Darwin’s theories were a serious challenge to traditional religious understanding of the creation of the world. According to the Pew Research Report, in 1925, when the Scopes trial captured the attention of the nation, there was no public polling on how many Americans believed in evolution. However, Pew points out that, “by the early 1920s evolution had become one of the most important wedge issues in the cultural divide because the debate had taken on a pedagogical dimension. Students throughout the nation, now studied Darwin’s ideas in public school biology classes.”

In 1925, the Tennessee Butler Act prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. The A.C.L.U. published a newspaper ad offering to defend anyone who would test the constitutionality of this new state law. A substitute high-school teacher, John Scopes, agreed to become the defendant in order to stage a criminal case. Clarence Darrow represented the defendant and William Jennings Bryant, the state of Tennessee. Scopes was convicted and ordered to pay $100 dollars. (Bryant died five days after the verdict.) All appeals failed. The Tennessee Butler Act prohibiting the teaching of evolution was not repealed until May 17, 1967.

Today, according to Pew Research, roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) believe humans have evolved over time. However, around four in ten white evangelical Protestants continue to maintain that humans have always existed in their present form.

Wikipedia informs us, “As of 2024, all fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia include the teaching of evolution in their public-school science standards, while none teach intelligent design. Creationism can be discussed in non-science classes, such as philosophy or comparative religion.”

Now that the theory of evolution has been widely accepted, in what respects does it continue to evolve? The Evolution of Imperfection by Laurence Hurst, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Bath, provides some fascinating answers. Hurst offers solid science that evolution does not always work for the good of the species. Evolution is not designed to correct all of our faults and imperfections.

Some examples include our inability to synthesize vitamin C because our ancient ancestors had an overabundance of fruit. High blood pressure during pregnancy helps the fetus absorb nutrients but is dangerous to the pregnant mother.

The relatively small population of humans enhances the influence of chance in evolutionary changes. This leads to both the accumulation of unnecessary DNA and unhelpful mutations. Evolution is not a process of good or bad. It is a process of trial and error that does not always produce the best result in modern man.

For those that are seeking a deep dive into the science, Hurst does an excellent job of reviewing modern genomics, the study of an organism’s DNA. He explains how mutations happen, why they persist, and why humans hold a large reservoir of troublesome genetic errors.

Evolution is a process that is always rolling the dice as our species advances.  Humankind did not start out biologically perfect and is far from it now.

 

 

 

EXAMINING TRUMP’S “GOLDEN AGE” OF AMERICA

 

Donald Trump began his inaugural address in January with the promise that, “The golden age of America begins right now.”  At his address to the nation in March, he confidently proclaimed, “The golden age of America has only just begun.” According to POLITICO, Trump has used the term at least once a week since taking office, and “golden age” frequently appears in White House press releases. The Trump profit machine has ensured that “Golden Age of America” merchandise is for sale online. 

Democrats view Trump's golden age claims as misrepresenting his presidency. They argue that his policies have had detrimental effects on many Americans and have been destructive to the nation's political and economic system. They believe that Trump’s actions are instead returning to America’s “Gilded Age” of the 1880s when there was only a thin façade of prosperity enjoyed by wealthy industrialists. Moreover, Democrats believe America is losing its hegemony in international affairs.

There must be more to Trump’s claim of a golden age than his over-the-top love relationship with anything gold.  This color is displayed everywhere in Trump Tower, his resort at Mar-A-Lago, and now in the refurbished White House Oval Office. In the simplest of explanations, Trump knows that public skepticism of his grandiose claims can be overcome through constant repetition of the same phrase. In addition, it is difficult to believe in the Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan unless you believe America is entering a golden age.

Historians often refer to a golden age to describe the high point of a past empire or civilization. For example, 5^th century BCE Athens was known for its democratic government, philosophers, and flourishing arts community. The reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) marked the beginning of the Roman Golden Age. It lasted for almost 200 years. The Renaissance was a period of rebirth in Europe following the Middle Ages. India, China, and Japan each had an historical golden age, marked by political stability and cultural progress.

Open borders have traditionally been an important characteristic of a golden age.  When Pericles praised the Athenian Golden Age in 431 BC, he urged his city-state to “throw open our city to the world and never by alien acts exclude foreigners.” Augustus encouraged the Romanization of conquered people by enlisting them in military service where they could become citizens. The most successful Islamic empires established rights and protections for non-Muslims, who were welcomed within their borders.

Similarly, open trade has helped societies enter and maintain their golden ages. The Romans realized that they could effectively grow their economy if they specialized in producing certain goods and traded them for items that other countries were better able to produce. They built extensive road systems, commercial ports, and other infrastructure to facilitate the foreign movement of goods. The Mongolian Empire controlled most of Asia, and parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe.  To protect its golden age, it implemented a strong currency that was accepted throughout its empire, providing consistency in monetary dealings. They established a free trade zone and tax breaks for essential craftsmen.

During its Industrial Golden Age, Britain traded iron, coal, and clothing, and in return received cotton, spices and other food products. After 1846, Britain embraced free trade principles and reduced tariffs on many goods. 

In 1371, the Ming dynasty in China took the opposite approach. It restricted foreign trade and interaction. These isolationist policies led to economic stagnation, and the empire fell behind in technology, ending its golden age.

What is the plan, if Trump refuses to follow previous examples of golden ages anchored by tolerant immigration and free trade? There appears to be a mixed bag of approaches. Some strategies look backward to an earlier America perceived to be “great.” Other ideas look forward based on the new technologies of the information age.

Embedded in MAGA is a golden age dream of returning the country to a time when industrial barons were in control. White, male workers were employed to work long hours and manufactured domestic products. There were no economic regulations to prevent economic collapse or safety nets for the poor. This MAGA model believes America did best when it was administered by the wealthy, isolated in foreign affairs, anti-immigration and pro-tariff in international trade.

The Trump Golden Age also looks to the future by riding the wave of artificial intelligence, robots, automation, and space travel. In the financial markets unproven and under regulated products like cryptocurrency are marketed to unsophisticated investors.

For those that have concerns that the MAGA Golden Age will turn out as advertised, I highly recommend the best-selling author, Jared Diamond, and his seminal works Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (2005), and Upheaval: How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change (2019).  Diamond defines collapse based on historical examples as, “a drastic decrease in political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.”  He found that historical instances of societal collapse included environmental changes, hostile neighbors and hostile trade partners.

My view is that Diamond’s advice to Trump on avoiding collapse and encouraging a golden age would involve two points. Unfortunately, both are in short supply. First, be willing to listen and to adapt to change. Second, do not ignore obvious problems that have caused other societies to fail like inequality, the national debt, climate change, and political discord.