When the Equal Employment Opportunity Act was passed by Congress in 1972, I was a Senior Development Engineer in Black & Decker Product Development, a department comprised of about sixty designers, fifty-nine of which were white males. We had one black male designer. If I count engineering support people (secretaries, model shop, records, whiteprint), we had one black designer in a department of about 125 whites. I believe that equates to less than one percent.

We had black workers in our cafeteria and maintenance departments, even our mailman and CEO’s chauffeur, but only one black in Engineering.

Was this a problem? No one gave it much thought. It was business as usual, wasn’t it?

Our VP of Product Development called a meeting for folks who were either hiring managers presently or might soon be. I was invited. 

He informed us of the new law, and said that it would do B&D a world of good if we complied with it. To his credit, he appealed to our consciences as much as the legal imperative. He said he was not recommending the hiring of any minority person (black, female, Asian, Hispanic) who was not qualified. I don’t remember his exact words, but the gist of it was “You engineers are smart enough to solve this problem.”

I noticed progress almost immediately, but it was slow. Roughly three years later I attained a position high enough to have final say for new hires in my small group of four people. I should mention that at B&D the interview process in Engineering suggested only two interviews for non-degreed applicants, but typically five for Development Engineer or higher. The title of Development Engineer was the starting position for new college grads. 

It was up to each hiring manager to select his interviewing team, which always included himself. After completion of the hour-long interviews, and getting feedback from all, the hiring manager made the final decision to extend an offer or not.

By the time I retired in late 1999, I believe I held the record for most minority hires by any hiring manager in B&D Product Development history: two black male drafters, two white female drafters, one black male Indian engineer, and one white male Korean engineer. I had also hired four white male engineers. Other managers had hired minorities, but I held an inner pride that I was making more of a difference. Is that too egotistical?

My criteria when considering all interviews was this: Was the interviewee qualified for the job? Was it close to a tie between applicants? If so, the tie went to the minority person. I figured that natural bias should direct a couple of extra points to the minority person (I hadn’t heard the term “affirmative action” at that time). If you think you are among the few unbiased people on earth, I’m extremely skeptical of that assertion.

Why is some measure of affirmative action necessary? While it may be true that Dr. King’s arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, couldn’t that bending use a little assistance?

In her dissent to the latest ruling of our conservatively-biased SCOTUS, Justice Jackson wrote:

“It is no small irony that the judgment the majority hands down today will forestall the end of race-based disparities in this country, making the colorblind world the majority wistfully touts much more difficult to accomplish.”

The conservative justices on the present SCOTUS, following their own ideologies, may be conforming to the strict letter of the law. But I found in my early life that traffic court judges, for example, often exercise compassion and common sense in their decisions. Isn’t that what good judgement is about?

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University

 

 

The long and winding road to electing a president in 2024 has a most interesting unpredictable curve. The curve is No Labels, a national movement who has branded themselves as concerned citizens working to bring America’s leaders together to develop common-sense two-party solutions to America’s biggest problems. While No Labels does not identify itself as a third political party, they may nominate a No Labels candidate for president in 2024.

Their candidate could be Larry Hogan who recently confirmed he may agree to that.

Hogan’s links to the No Labels movement are strong. He has been and is their national co-chair.

No doubt Hogan is encouraged by polling results done by Gallup indicating 41 percent of voters identify as Independents versus 28 percent each for the Democrat and Republican parties.

Despite his interest, Hogan may be overcome by circumstances beyond his control.

One circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is a decision by the No Labels movement to stay out of the 2024 presidential election. Carter McHugh, writing for POLITICO predicts that No Labels is unlikely to run any candidate if Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee.

Another circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is the unintended consequence of a No Labels Presidential campaign if Trump is the Republican nominee.

Recent polling by Data for Progress suggests in a three-way presidential race that includes Hogan, he would pull more votes from the Democratic nominee than the Republican nominee. It is hard to fathom that Hogan would be involved in any effort that could result in his arch-nemesis Trump being only the second person in American history to serve non-consecutive terms as president.

The third and most daunting circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is No Labels concluding the 2024 presidential election results for third party candidates will repeat history. Despite the Gallup polling results mentioned above, in past elections where voters expressed their discontent with the two major parties, many of those voters “came home” to voting for the candidates nominated by the two major parties. The reality is the widely and often predicted death of the two-party dominance of Presidential elections in America has been greatly exaggerated.

The observations of Nikolai Machiavelli, are as relevant today as they were when he wrote them more than five hundred years ago:

“It must be remembered there is nothing more difficult to carry out, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. The innovator has enemies in all those who have done well under the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who may do well under the new order, in part from fear of their adversaries, who have the law in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience with it.”

On the question … will Larry Hogan run for president in 2024 … the answer is no.

On the question … does Larry Hogan have other options going forward … the answer is maybe.

To position himself to maximize those other options. I suggest the following key messages:

“I remain deeply committed to making a difference on the public policy deliberations and decisions in Washington DC. Elected twice as a Republican to serve as governor in a deep blue state, I governed as a pragmatic moderate, enjoyed high job approval ratings during all eight years in office, and was a champion of fiscally responsible budgets, and no tax increases.”

With these messages it is not inconceivable that Hogan could be chosen as a running mate to a Republican presidential candidate other than Donald Trump. It is also not inconceivable that Hogan could be appointed to a cabinet position or comparable position if a Republican other than Trump is elected next year.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

Ever think your creative juices are all used up?  Maybe you’re over-the-hill and your best years are long past? Think again. I have been ruminating about older women who are crazy talented and chock full of grit and determination. I wish the world valued their gifts more than they currently do. Many of these women are role models for younger women who are moving on to that stage where they are seen as “past their prime” (as former CNN commentator Don Lemon might say). How misguided is that thinking? It is important to appreciate these women with special gifts who gained even deeper insights as they aged. 

If you haven’t watched the Paramount series 1923, I highly recommend it. It’s a prequel to Yellowstone and follows the series 1883. The series 1923 features Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren and Timothy Dalton, to name a few cast members. It’s well acted and has a compelling plot. In my mind, the star of the series is Helen Mirren. At age 77, Mirren is at the top of her game. She is a phenomenal actress and has won American Academy Awards, British Academy Awards and the Laurence Olivier Award. She’s best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth and for her role in Prime Suspect. Mirren was appointed a Dame for her services to drama in 2003. She is the absolute best actress!  And I might add, her talent only seems to grow as she ages.

Maggie Smith is my second nominee for stellar performances by older actresses. Love, love, love her. Who wasn’t charmed and delighted by her character Violet Crawley in Downton Abbey? At age 88, she too doesn’t appear to be slowing down. She has won two Academy awards, a Tony Award and four Primetime Emmy Awards. She’s best known for her roles in The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, the Harry Potter film series, and Death on the Nile. Let’s hope she continues to add to this amazing acting repertoire.

One of my favorite writers of all time is Maya Angelou. Angelou, considered a poet, memoirist and civil rights activist, died in 2014 at age 86. With her publication of I know Why the Caged Bird Sings in 1969, she told of her life up to age 17. In addition to her prolific writing career, she made several appearances on the lecture series each year and continued doing so well into her 80’s. She recited her poem On the Pulse of Morning at Bill Clinton’s inauguration. Angelou appeared in a supporting role in the series Roots and later became a friend and mentor to Oprah Winfrey. At the age of 85, she published the seventh volume of her autobiography. Her words continue to resonate with so many of us. She was simply amazing. 

I just finished reading the novel Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver. At age 67, Kingsolver has written a true masterpiece. I found the novel in short, brilliant. Kingsolver took the plot of Dickens’ David Copperfield and transferred it to the plight of a boy growing up in rural Appalachia where she lives. The novel is powerful and an intense description of the plight of the downtrodden in terms of education, healthcare, and discrimination. It also is a novel about salvation. Kingsolver won the Pulitzer Prize for Copperhead as well as the Women’s Prize for Fiction. She is the only woman who has received that award twice. Born in Canada, Kingsolver is a novelist, essayist, poet, literary critic, teacher, environmentalist and inventor. Her best-known works include The Poisonwood Bible, and Animal, Vegetable Mineral.   

For the last few years, I have had the pleasure of attending several Chesapeake Chamber Music Festival Concerts at Easton’s wonderful Ebenezer Theater. If you haven’t gone to one of these concerts, please do. They are spectacular and inspirational. One truly inspiring contributor is Marcy Rosen.  She is the Founder and Artistic Director of the Chesapeake Music Festival, and an outstanding cellist. Every time I hear her play, I am transported. Rosen made her career debut with the Philadelphia Orchestra at age 18. Currently age 66, she has appeared with numerous symphonies and served on the faculties of several schools of music. She is considered one of the most respected musicians of her day and The New Yorker Magazine called her “a New York legend of the cello.”  She has released recordings of Mendelssohn, Strauss and Grieg, and many more, and has collaborated with the world’s finest musicians. Rosen is currently a professor of cello at the Aaron Copeland School of Music at Queens College. We are extremely fortunate to be able to hear her play the cello locally. Her mastery of the cello is beyond impressive. And her familiarity with so much of the music draws you in. It’s as if she’s coming home each time she plays one of her standard favorites.

I applaud the accomplishments of these women who have continued their creative pursuits as they aged. And one could argue many have improved with years gone by. The author Herman Melville once wrote, “To know how to grow old is the master work of wisdom, and one of the most difficult chapters in the great art of living.”  Perhaps we can all take a page from these amazing women’s chapters. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice at an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, music, reading, gardening, and nature. 

Five years ago today, an angry, deranged man entered the Annapolis Capital Gazette newsroom and killed five defenseless journalists. It was gruesome.

It shattered a sense of peace in Maryland’s capital city. It brought grief to the city.

The killer was upset that the paper had run a column about his harassment of a woman. He sought and failed to gain legal recourse. He then systematically pursued his grudge by blasting away with abandon in a newsroom.

Jarrod Ramos is now spending the rest of his life prison. He leaves a legacy of five dead people and a few survivors scarred for life. He showed no remorse during his trial. He confessed his crime. He claimed insanity as his defense.

Mass shootings are commonplace in our nation. We seem to become inured to the multiple tragedies, the senseless loss of life and community disruption.

Freedom of the press is our primary defense against anarchy and government corruption. The Annapolis Gazette Capital could not defend itself against an assault by a man firing a shotgun filled with hatred and revenge. The victims were faceless victims to the shooter.

A memorial in downtown Annapolis pays tribute to the five journalists and the First Amendment right of free speech. It marks an act of terror. It ensures that a rampage of murder will not be forgotten.

What the tasteful memorial does not do is describe the impact of the violence on the victims’ families, friends and associates. It does not address the human damage to a community’s sense of stability.

A coffee shop now occupies the former site of the Capital Gazette newsroom. Life goes on, as it must. Painful memories remain.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. After 44 years in Easton, Howard and his wife, Liz, moved in November 2020 to Annapolis, where they live with Toby, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who has no regal bearing, just a mellow, enticing disposition.

Why do so many of my fellow citizens like and support Donald Trump? I have worked on this puzzle off and on for the last seven years.

The little I get from MAGA friends is indirect, by inference. That’s because we want to remain friends, and we have agreed to make discussion of Trumpian politics taboo.

But I read articles and listen to Trump supporters on TV. When my Trump pieces are published in The Spy, I save dissenting comments to a Word log that I continue to build – anything that will add another piece to the puzzle.

As an engineer, I have a propensity for analysis, and I know that to understand any difficult problem, especially one involving human views, I must be as objective as I can be. With that in mind, in this piece I take the position of trying to see Trump through the eyes of a MAGA person.

I decided to present my analysis in the form of a top ten list of reasons to like Donald Trump. Note that this list is a compilation of inputs, not all held by every supporter. As with most top-whatever lists, the order will be from least to most important. The order is rather arbitrary, my thinking at this moment. That is, except for Reason #1, which all my data says is deserving of that exalted position. Try to restrain yourself and not skip ahead.

Okay, here goes.

Reason #10 – His physical appearance is attractive. He is tall, large, white, and, though a little overweight, appears physically fit for his age. He is not skinny or obese. He is always well-groomed. He looks good in well-tailored suits. He looks “presidential”, especially beside other world leaders.

Reason #9 – He was good at foreign policy. It was America First, and he called out our NATO partners for not contributing their fair share. He knew how to control authoritarian leaders through a combination of flattery and fear. He admires Vladimir Putin because (a) he is a powerful leader and (b) he helped the right American candidate win in 2016.

Reason #8 – He is an astute communicator. He understands the symbolism of our flag and the Bible. He was quick to grasp the power of Twitter in talking directly to his audience, bypassing the filter of liberal media. Overall, his writing is succinct and not atrocious. It’s never hard to get his meaning. His speech is easy to understand; he doesn’t mumble, slur or stutter.

Reason #7 – He is good for business and our economy. He worked diligently for America. He lowered our personal taxes and excessive taxes on corporations. He was not given enough time to prove that the “trickle down” economics of Reagan and Bush Sr can actually work. He was trying to drain the DC swamp.

Reason #6 – He defends American values and conservative principles. He is a patriot. He wants to return us to a time when America was respected, when certain types of people were less vocal, disruptive, and knew their place. He defends our borders from illegal intruders. He is good at exposing conspiracies against the US (vaccines, deep state rigging of our elections, big pharma, climate change, green energy, and witch-hunters). He agrees with Bobby Kennedy Jr who exposed Dr. Fauci as one who pushed the covid hoax for his own enrichment.

Reason #5 – He is tough, a strongman, an alpha-male with a certain charisma. He is not too nice (think Jimmy Carter). He is a street fighter. If you hit him, he will hit back twice as hard. He knows how to stick it to wokey liberals who play identity politics. He knows how to demean his political opponents by giving them memorable nicknames. Let a criticism go unanswered? Nope. Admit he’s wrong? Never.

Reason #4 – He is sincere. What liberals call lies, he truly believes are not lies. He is not faking it when he says things that seem to have no basis of fact or evidential support. In his mind, these things are true, and I believe that in most cases he is at least partly right. You can trust that he won’t discard you as long as you stay loyal to him.

Reason #3 – He is resolute. He exudes strength of purpose and self-confidence. He is committed to what he believes in. He is not a flip-flopper. He does not equivocate.

Reason #2. He is useful. He works tirelessly to promote long-term conservative principles. He won’t allow liberals to take my guns away. He is pro-life. He appointed dedicated conservative judges. Though he may have a few personal flaws (no one is perfect), the ends justify the means. He is not a liberal, a progressive, or a Democrat.

Reason #1 – He tells me what I want to hear. “Covid will be over by Easter, like a miracle,” and “If re-elected I will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours” are examples.

To explain Reason #1, I am morphing from MAGA avatar back to me. There are two human qualities at work here. The first is that people don’t want to hear bad news, so a potential leader who bears bad tidings will have a hard time getting elected in a democratic society. Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth” of climate change was a good example. The second is “confirmation bias”. People want to believe that which reinforces what they already hold. Thus, MAGA folks are predisposed to believe what Donald trump expounds.

Couple these qualities in a political system where folks are forced to choose (in practical terms) between two less-than-perfect (I’m being kind) candidates, and it helps me understand why so many of my fellow citizens prefer Donald Trump.

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University

In a previous commentary, I shared my reasons for my prediction that Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2024. In this commentary, I will share my reasons for my prediction that Joe Biden will not be the Democrat nominee for president in 2024. My reasoning on the Biden prediction is based largely on a review of the 1968 Presidential election.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was the incumbent Democrat president. Prior to serving as president, LBJ was a U.S. Senator and ran for the 1960 Democrat presidential nomination in a field of seven candidates. He lost to John F. Kennedy, who then selected LBJ as his running mate. After Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson automatically succeeded him. In 1964, LBJ ran for re-election and branded his Republican opponent – Barry Goldwater — as a radical unhinged ultra conservative who was not fit to serve as president. Johnson won in a landslide. LBJ then immediately and aggressively pursued a very liberal public policy agenda – “The Great Society.” Implementing that policy resulted in inflation, budget deficits, economic turmoil, and civil strife that included rioting in many urban areas. On the foreign policy front, Johnson oversaw a huge buildup of American involvement in the Vietnam war that resulted in heightened tension between America, the Soviet Union, and China.

The parallels to this history recap of 1968 and 2024 are striking. Biden served in the United States Senate and lost to Barack Obama in a bid for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination. Obama in turn selected Biden as his running mate. Biden served in that role for all eight years of the Obama presidency. In 2020, Biden was nominated by the Democrats for president. Like LBJ, the Biden campaign launched a campaign branding Donald Trump as an unhinged, hot tempered, boorish, loose cannon who was not fit to be President. The media also dutifully advanced a false narrative that Biden would govern as an even tempered and bipartisan moderate. He has not done so. From day one in the Oval Office, Biden has aggressively and unapologetically pursued a robust progressive agenda on domestic affairs. I predict he will not pivot to the center going forward. He simply cannot risk incurring the wrath of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, plus, at his core, he is and always has been a progressive.

While I have no doubt Biden’s support with the progressive wing of the Democrat Party is deep and solid, I predict his governing record will result in a measurable drop in support from conservative and moderate Democrats who vote in primaries.

Just as in 1964, the top campaign issues in 2024 are likely to be the economy and public safety, with world peace, a third.

I predict Biden’s record, particularly on domestic issues, will lead to the same result in 2024 as Lyndon Johnson’s failure to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. That is not Republican wishful thinking. The American electorate is shifting.

Results from recent Gallup polling indicate the American electorate is becoming more conservative. Thirty-eight percent of poll respondents said say they are conservative on social issues, up from thirty three percent last year. Forty four percent say they are economically conservative, the highest level since 2012. Voters saying their social views are very liberal or liberal has dipped to twenty nine percent from thirty four percent in each of the past two years, while the portion identifying as moderate (thirty one percent) remains near a third.

Gallup reports further there have been double-digit increases in conservative social ideology among middle-aged adults — those between the ages of 30 and 64. At the same time, older Americans’ ideology on social issues has been stable, while there has been a modest increase in conservative social ideology among young adults.

That reality is also occurring in deep blue Maryland albeit it to a lesser degree.

A recent statewide Gonzales poll indicated that fifty two percent of respondents approved of the job Biden is doing; a six -point drop from January polling results That drop was driven by a nine point drop in support among unaffiliated voters.

A pivot by Biden to a more moderate governing style before the 2024 elections will not happen. A pivot will alienate the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, which is a crucial element of Democrat Party support, especially in primaries. Secondly, moderate and conservative Democrats who vote in primaries will view a pivot to the center as too little, too late.

The recent actions of Biden to reach a compromise on a debt ceiling limit with House Republicans does not foretell more bipartisanship by Biden going forward. This one-off occurrence was the result of grudging acceptance by key decision makers in Washington that failure to enact a debt ceiling limit increase would have resulted in a catastrophic impact on the American and world economy. It is telling that immediately following signing of the debt ceiling limit bill, Biden resumed his take-no-prisoners approach to advancing a progressive agenda.

Last, but certainly not least, is another significant obstacle on Biden’s quest for the 2024 nomination is a replay of events from 1968. In the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Eugene McCarthy captured a stunning forty two percent of the Democrat primary vote while LBJ got forty eight percent. Soon thereafter, Johnson announced he would no longer pursue, nor would he accept the Democratic presidential nomination.

Earlier this year, Robert F Kennedy Jr. son of Robert F Kennedy, announced that he will challenge Biden in the 2024 New Hampshire primary. The Democrat Party leadership is so concerned about this challenge they changed their primary calendar so that New Hampshire’s long held position as the first in the nation primary will now follow South Carolina. This is telling as South Carolina played a critical role in rescuing a floundering Biden primary run in 2020. Troubling news for Biden is polling reports of polling in New Hampshire showing RFK Jr. getting nineteen percent of the vote. More troublesome for Biden is speculation that his name may not even appear on the New Hampshire Democratic primary ballot so he could lose there by default. Most troublesome for Biden is the fact that three times in recent history, incumbent presidential candidates who survived serious challenges in the primaries leading up to the general election, ended up losing the general election.

The bottom line is Democrat party power brokers understand and embrace the timeless wisdom of George Santayana – “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

They may not say it publicly yet, but I am sure they are learning from history. As a result, I predict individually and collectively they are concluding that Joe Biden is unelectable in 2024. Accordingly, they will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure Biden is not their presidential standard bearer in 2024. You can bet on it.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

A proclamation from the mogul and family patriarch Logan Roy to his children in the HBO series Succession is, “I love you, but you are not serious people.” I have been thinking about how many people in the public domain today are not serious people—that is to say, you can’t take them seriously. They have become almost caricatures of who they aim to be. 

Truth be told, I find this revelation about the preponderance of unserious people disturbing. How is it that so many people who have substantive positions or are celebrities in the constant spotlight have gone off the deep end? 

Here is a random list of people who are difficult to take seriously in no particular order.

George Santos. An imaginative novelist could not dream up this character who is a Republican congressman from Long Island, NY. How did this guy get elected? He lied about where he went to high school and college. He lied about his religion. He lied about working on Wall Street. He lied about founding an animal charity. He lied about claiming that his mother’s death was related to 9/11. In short, he has lied about pretty much everything. He is the least serious person in Congress today—and that says a lot. It is beyond bizarre that this guy roams the hallowed halls of the Capitol building. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene. The congresswoman from Georgia has said January 6 protestors have had their rights “fragrantly violated,” has lied about the definition of Critical Race Theory, has called a petri dish a “peach tree” dish, and has referred to the “gazpacho police,” and “wonton killings.”  And that, fellow reader, is the tip of the iceberg.

Josh Hawley. It’s hard for me to get off my Josh Hawley soapbox. A Republican Senator from Missouri, who writes a book called Manhood, fist pumps January 6 Capitol insurrectionists, and when he finds himself in danger after the Capitol break-in becomes deadly serious, scurries away, tripping over people in an effort to run for cover. 

Ron DeSantis. The current governor of Florida and Republican contender for the 2024 presidential nomination, has already become somewhat of a caricature. This governor has taken on the so-called “woke” mob, banned books in schools, and then taken on Disney for its inclusive approach to hiring. And folks, we have only just begun.   

J Lo and Ben Affleck. Like many other movie stars, they claim to be strong environmentalists.  Within the last month, they purchased a 38,000 square foot $60 million mansion in Beverly Hills. That’s right, 38,000 square feet.  How environmentally sound is that?  How big is that carbon footprint? Obviously, it’s great to have a nice pad when you have tons of money, but does any family require 38,000 square feet?  Call me crazy, but would 19,000 square feet suffice?  And, by the way, they own more than one home.

Kanye West. This rapper recently legally changed his name to Ye with no middle or last name. Ye once claimed that his greatest regret was not being able to see himself perform live. And he said he is too busy writing history to read it. My case rests.

Johnny Depp. Many claim he is an extremely talented actor. That may be so, but during the Amber Heard trial he admitted to painting on walls with the blood from his finger. In earlier days, he also admitted to spending $5 million blasting Hunter S. Thompson’s ashes from a cannon.   

Lauren Boebert. A Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, Boebert’s Christmas card features her four young sons holding semi-automatic rifles in front of the Christmas tree. She has made several anti-Muslim and anti LGBTQ+ remarks. During Biden’s State of the Union speech, she heckled him and turned her back on the Cabinet. She promotes family values, but her husband, who recently filed for divorce, once exposed his private parts in a bar the couple owned. 

Robert Kennedy Jr. He is the only Democrat to date to announce that he is running against Joe Biden in the next election. While getting kudos for his work as an environmental lawyer, he has drawn sharp criticism for his promotion of conspiracy theories, for his anti-vaccine stance, for his claim that Bill Gates was pro-vaccine so he could make more money, and who equated Dr. Fauci with fascism and claimed that Fauci was in the pocket of big pharma. When his book The Real Anthony Fauci was published, Fauci called it, “a complete lie.” He has also claimed that federal health officials conspired with the Chinese to hide the pandemic’s origins. Many in his own family refuse to support his candidacy. 

Mark Zuckerberg. His accomplishments are beyond impressive. He is the CEO of Facebook (and now its parent company Meta) and has donated billions of dollars to medical research. He became the world’s youngest self-made billionaire at age 23. His net worth is estimated at $85 billion. He has, for many years, been described as “quirky.” At one time, he challenged himself to eat meat only if he killed it himself. He said he wanted to be more connected to the food and the animals that give their lives so that he could eat them. He wore a tie to work every day for a whole year to prove to his employees he was a serious person. His power is complicated because, as he has claimed when testifying in Congress, if he controls content, he becomes even more powerful. He has a history of apologizing—mostly about misinformation posted on Facebook. And he has repeatedly apologized to users to whom he promised that their information would remain private. He then repeatedly allowed it to be made public. 

Rudy Giuliani.  Once “America’s mayor,” this guy has clearly fallen from grace. His appearance in Borat 2 will live in infamy. He peddled disinformation relentlessly after the 2020 election. He recently was accused of sexual assault. And who can forget his stellar performance on the Masked Singer or seeing hair dye dripping down his face during a press conference when he claimed election interference?

Aaron Rodgers.  I must admit that after living in Green Bay for two years, I became a Green Bay Packers fan and have watched Rodgers play too many games to count. He is a great quarterback—no doubt about it. But he has gotten increasingly weird.  He was weird about the vaccine (immunized not vaccinated). Weird about unconventional methods of self-reflection and mind-altering drugs. And most recently weird when he decided to decide his football future by going to a four-day sensory-deprivation total darkness retreat in a hobbit-like structure called a “sky cave.”

Lindsey Graham. The Republican senator from South Carolina is the ultimate flip-flop man. Once best friends with republican Arizona Senator, John McCain, Graham’s backtracks on issues are too numerous to count. When Graham was running for president against Trump, his distaste for the man was off the charts. He said he didn’t even vote for him in the 2016 election but instead voted for a third-party candidate. How times have changed! He is now Trump’s major wingman and ultimate toady. He has stated that if Trump gets indicted, there will be violence in the streets—in a sense encouraging another insurrection. 

Donald Trump. He is my last example. He is a liar, a cheat—the ultimate grifter. Where Graham is a flip-flop man, Trump is a flim-flam man. He is not a serious person. And when president, he made no effort to fill his cabinet with serious people. He certainly made no effort to do a deep dive and promote America’s policies and priorities. Instead, he made a mockery of pretty much every American institution. 

The big question is why is this happening? Why do we idolize these people? Why do we settle for mediocrity and worse?  Many psychologists opine that Americans are going through an identity crisis. We don’t know who we are or who we want to be. So, what do we do? We glom onto people’s points of view who are constantly in the news. Psychologists theorize that we use these people as some kind of life raft to hold onto. Also, over the last few decades, many people have achieved fame without exhibiting any real talent or expertise—think social media mavens like the Kardashians.  With the rise of social media, we find ourselves wanting to be entertained as opposed to being educated—hence the rise of Donald Trump. Unfortunately, our quest for competence and expertise has been kicked to the curb.  

Where have all the serious people gone? Let’s hope and pray, to quote Peter, Paul, and Mary, not to “graveyards every one.” When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice at an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, music, reading, gardening, and nature. 

Our Lord of Christ Computer
xAnswers all to those who ask
And offers Priests to teach and tutor,
xOthers who need more time in task.
xxBy inputting their deepest dreams,
The supplicants leave little to speculation.
xxThis machine outputs in digital stream,
xnxA flowing language of basic revelation.

-December 2013

Stan Salett has been a policy adviser to the Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton administrations and is the author of The Edge of Politics: Stories from the Civil Rights Movement, the War on Poverty, and the Challenges of School Reform and Beyond the Scene He now lives in Kent County, Maryland and has been an advisor to the Spy Newspapers since 2010. 

 

The 13 American colonies/states during the Revolution and until the ratification of the US Constitution functioned in many ways, like independent countries. In fact, it was their legislatures – not the people – that approved the Constitution, as countries would a treaty. The residents of the 13 states were accustomed to identifying themselves by their state first and were jealous of protecting their local powers, and many still are.  

Thus, there were two principal positions at the Constitutional Convention: one wanted a stronger central government and the other wanted to retain their state powers against a weaker national authority. However, after their almost 13 year experience with the weak, dysfunctional Articles of Confederation, the  majority early on accepted a stronger national government. And the Virginia Plan provided the template. And then there is the directly related Constitutional debate over the “Reserved Powers” (10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are preserved to the states respectively or to the people.” )

However, the conflict over states rights, even after the Civil War reconfirmed the dominance of the Union, continues in 2023. States pass legislation on important issues, that differ from one another, the national consensus and/or the Federal Constitutional position. The states rights’ squabbles now play out in the Federal court system.   

Another vocal group  in 1787, were those who feared that strong states or the powerful Federal Government could crush individuals.  Thus, the Bill of Rights , the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, were added prior to ratification, giving the Feds authority to protect personal rights, e.g. to practice their religion, to assemble, free speech etc. 

By the middle of the 19th Century though, it became clear that a central government that did nothing regarding individuals participating in the US Congress and/or Executive Branch, was allowing a small minority of very wealthy people from Southern states, to take over the country and threaten to control the people. Thus, Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant and millions of Americans learned, at great cost) what their government could do, to impose equal rights before the law, equal access to resources and more, that were embodied in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. All of which strengthened the hand of the Federal Government. 

Similarly, early in the 20th Century the damaging impact of industrialization expanded the role of the Central Government again, to protect individual workers from abuse by wealthy owners of giant corporations.  Once more the Feds stepped in, this time to rein in industrialists and to regulate how they did business. The strategic goal was to level the economic playing field. 

In the 1930s, following the catastrophe of the Great Depression, the FDR Administration added more missions to the USG. It created organizations to provide work for millions of unemployed Americans and ultimately introduced a basic social safety net. 

As we move through the 21st Century, most, but not all, Americans accept the evolving list of USG tasks and the authority of the Federal Government to continue to protect equal rights, to maintain a more or less level economic playing field as well as an effective social safety net. 

None of us knows specifically what comparable existential events will challenge us in the decades ahead, but the ability of our Federal Government to address them successfully, as in the past, should be a given. 

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.