The President and Democratic nominee Joe Biden face off on September 29 for the first of three Presidential debates and everyone is worried. Not, of course, for the same reasons. My Trumper friends (yes, I have a few) claim they are confident that the senile, sleepy, gaffe-prone former VP will be crushed. My Biden friends are equally confident that the tactics that arguably worked for Trump in 2016 against other Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton won’t work this time. One friend told me, “The crows are coming home to roost; he can’t lie his way to winning the debate.”

Although I patiently listen to this stuff, I suspect both sides are not only worried about the debates, but also worried that the outcome could decide the 2020 election. I’m not so sure about the entire election, but as someone ready for a change, I’m worried about Biden despite expecting Trump to do poorly in the debates. Trump has a record of defying expectations.  After all, when Trump stalked Clinton in one of the 2016 debates, some voters, for reasons only a psychiatrist may be able to explain, claimed that it was a winning tactic. Bullies, I suppose, always will have someone cheering them on.

In preparation for the 9/29 debate, Trump already has planted the seed that Biden requires drugs to enhance his performance. He suggests that it is physiologically impossible for the candidate who did so poorly in many of the interminable Democratic candidate debates, to be the Biden we see today.  According to him, only a good sniff of cocaine could produce the clear-headed, articulate Biden.

What does it tell us that Trump already has planted seeds for trying to explain away his defeat in the first debate?  It tells us that he is worried.  He clearly wanted Sanders as his opponent so he could use the fight against communism as a theme of his campaign. The [censored] he has thrown at Biden so far, hasn’t worked, much to Trump’s chagrin.  Biden doesn’t want to defund police, encourage riots, invite China to take over America, encourage late-term abortions, or take away everyone’s guns.  

Mind you, Trump will continue similar “appeals” in coming weeks against Biden, so this campaign isn’t over yet.  But the debates provide a unique opportunity for both candidates to quash allegations made against them.  Biden has answers, I hope, for everything Trump throws at him.  I am confident that his aides are rehearsing answers as I write this. Is it OK if I still worry about how it will work?

And Biden will attack Trump for failing to respond adequately to COVID-19. He also will suggest that Trump has stoked the fires of racism, indirectly promoting some violence that continues in cities.  He also will suggest that Trump is a world-class liar. Trump will have answers ready for each of these and many other allegations, but his principal strategy will be to discredit Biden. What better way of fending off nasty facts—more than 200,000 dead from COVID-19, for example—than by calling your opponent a senile old man or suggesting that he is even more corrupt than Hillary Clinton, the most notorious criminal of the 21st century?

While I wouldn’t want to be Trump on September 29 (or any other day), I remain worried that Biden could get angry and flustered if Trump attacks him for the Ukrainian crime wave or anything else. What if attacks on his family, especially his son Hunter, are his Achilles’ heel?

Going into the debate, I think Trump has a heavier lift. Unlike Biden, he has a record for the past four years to defend. If I supported Trump, I would be worried about how you claim to have done a great job on COVID-19 with more than 200,000 already dead and epidemiologists suggesting a widely-available vaccine might not be available until late fall 2021.  How do you lie your way out of that?

Additional Trump worries include his mispronouncing words, having trouble walking across the stage, and encountering the wrong moderator. Chris Wallace of Fox News will moderate the first debate and, as a few recent interviews have demonstrated, he is no pushover. Wallace has a lot to gain by standing up to Trump if Trump openly lies in the debate or otherwise misbehaves. Trump himself should be worried.

I will be tuned in on the 29th.  Let me stick my neck out and suggest that both sides will claim victory.  I plan to make a call on that debate, as well as the two others (October 15 and 22), in future columns.  Stay tuned.  

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

Last week saw several new revelations about President Trump. He allegedly called fallen US  soldiers buried in a cemetery in France “losers.”  He did not want wounded veterans to march in a military parade. He aggressively discouraged his own son from joining the Army. He could not understand why one General, whom he perceived as smart, joined the military.  

Are these vicious lies, spawned by never-Trumpers or, worse, Haters?  This week’s examples all come from one article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, a publication not known for sloppy journalism despite its consistent criticism of the Trump presidency. Trump’s reaction?  “What animal would say such a thing?”

The President, and many of his supporters, including several regular Spy readers, seem to condemn any negative reporting of Trump as “fake news” and suggests that those reporting or repeating the stories have been out to get Trump “since before he was president.”

Is Trump right?  Is he the victim of people who are still angry that Hillary lost (at least in the Electoral College), who are socialists, or those who simply hate America?  

An objective look at even a handful of the allegations made about Trump suggests that almost all the most damning allegations are not “fake.”  They are, with some exceptions, relevant to our responsibility as citizens to monitor the President’s execution of his office, his health, and his integrity.  

Last week Stephanie Winston Wolkoff released  Melania and Me.  She substantiates allegations of grifting by Trump and his family in holding the 2017 Inauguration.  Ms. Wolkoff has stated that she has proof of the allegations she makes. Should this book be dismissed as “lies” because it also discusses the First Lady’s character and attitudes towards some of the President’s older children?  Prosecutors don’t seem to think so.   

Remember “Mad Dog” Mattis?  The former Secretary of Defense wrote:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

In response, Trump called Mattis “the world’s most overrated General” and suggested his “primary strength” was “personal public relations.”  

Additional reports include those of former National Security Advisor John Bolton in The Room Where it Happened.  Bolton writes that “obstruction of justice was a way of life” and that Trump actively solicited Chinese intervention in the upcoming Presidential election. Trump responded by claiming he fired Bolton and that, “Everyone in the White House hated him.”  He also called Bolton a “washed-up guy.” Bolton, best known as a national security hardliner and President Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, always has been considered a conservative Republican.  

This list could go on.  Consider Mary Trump’s book, “Too Much and Never Enough:  How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.” She reports that Trump paid someone to take the SATs for him. She also describes him as a sociopath.

Consider reports that Trump declines to read national security briefings. Should we care? Are those who report this news disloyal? Or is this information relevant to citizens evaluating how Trump is performing as President.

Finally, remember that a picture is worth a thousand words and that (at least before Photoshop) pictures don’t lie.  Remember the picture of Trump in front of St. John’s holding a bible, upside down, in a photo opportunity made possible by the forcible removal of peaceful protesters?  Were the news outlets that published or broadcast that image “haters?”  Is what the President did irrelevant to whether he should be re-elected?

In the case of almost every negative story, picture, or report about the President, he is not a victim. Especially not a victim like the New York Times reporter with a disability that he chose to publicly ridicule. Not a victim like the children separated from their parents at the borders.  Not a victim like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

The sun looks like it’s setting on the Orange Menace. The Republican National Convention, a.k.a. the Trump Show, did not do much for his re-election odds. The death toll from COVID-19, a by-product of Trump’s failed leadership, has topped 185,000. His ham-fisted measures to force schools to re-open are backfiring, exacerbating an already bad situation. And civil unrest shows no sign of ending.

What to do if you are Donald Trump, a man who believes that you can lie, intimidate, cheat, or steal your way out of bad situations? Do you meet with competent advisors, do a candid assessment of the problems faced by America (as opposed to himself) and map a way out of the woods? 

Trump’s problem is that the same skills he developed as a sleazy New York real estate developer are the ones he relies on now. There is a serious deficit of competent advisors. Is Betsy DeVos the education expert to guide us on school re-openings? The problem is Trump has precious few competent advisors. His most trusted aides are sycophants. They reinforce Trump’s worst instincts, which, of course, are to ignore laws he doesn’t like, to influence people through fear, and, of course, to lie. These things worked in New York and New Jersey (sort of, because you must remember the bankruptcies), but they are not working now.

The curtain is coming down on Trump and he appears to know it.  Thus, sportsman that he is, Trump has turned to a football favorite—the Hail Mary.

Trump’s Hail Marys almost always are based on the destruction, or attempted destruction, of his opponents. Thus, “Crooked Hillary” was created. Unfortunately for America, it worked in 2016.  Enough people became convinced Hillary was indeed crooked that they overlooked her accuser’s own personal record.  (Of course, insights into Trump’s business ethics through a review of his tax returns were not possible because he refused to release them.)

This time, one of Trump’s early Hail Marys was to do to Joe Biden what he did to Hillary. Trump attempted to paint Biden as corrupt in connection with his troubled son Hunter’s service on the board of directors of the Ukrainian firm Burisma. The implication was that Biden already had done what Trump was being accused of in his sorry episode with Ukraine where he attempted to leverage American military assistance to launch an investigation into Biden’s “corruption.” Talk about a Hail Mary!  Discredit Biden and distract attention from your own corruption at the same time. Unfortunately for Trump, he got caught. He got impeached for it.  Whatever Biden and his son may have done in Ukraine no longer seems to be an issue among any voters other than the Trump cheering section.

Another Hail Mary has been the effort to paint Biden as a socialist. We all hate communism, don’t we?  This Hail Mary involves suggesting that Biden will adopt a New Green Deal, raise everyone’s taxes, encourage abortions up to the date of delivery, and end capitalism. Unfortunately for Trump, Biden has a long track record of being a moderate. That’s why he almost lost the nomination. The “socialism” Hail Mary is proving to be a dud.  

Let’s also label the fiasco with the Post Office a Hail Mary. First, he hires Louis DeJoy, a campaign contributor with no experience in running a postal service and with plenty of conflicts of interest. DeJoy is charged with the task of undermining the reliability of the Post Office. Trump now is attempting  to suppress turnout by suggesting that mail-in voting is fraught with fraud. The message:  Voting by mail is fraught with fraud and your vote might not get counted anyway—so why vote?  This Hail Mary backfired. You can call it a fumble. His Postmaster General is now being investigated for attempting to destroy the Post Office. No credible evidence of fraud in the past has been found. Trump has slunk away from the issue. 

Most recently, we have been witnessing Trump’s attempt to “fast-track” a coronavirus vaccine. If that vaccine can be developed and announced before election day, maybe voters will forget the series of blunders that could form the basis of a chronicle of Trump’s handling of the virus that could be titled, “While Donald Watched TV.”  Trump thinks he could yet emerge as a hero of the pandemic. Sounds like an 80-yard Hail Mary to me. Expect an incomplete pass.

Finally, we have the emergence of Trump as the law-and-order President. This Hail Mary consists of blaming the riots on Democrat governors and mayors, suggesting that Biden and others coddle rioters and may welcome violence, and that only he can stop efforts to defund police. White women and the suburbs are in danger. Unfortunately for Trump, his attempt to capitalize on violence may not be moving the polls in his direction as much as he hoped. What to do?  Encourage your supporters to engage in counter-protests. Praise them, even when they engage in violence. And visit troubled cities even when those cities’ mayors plead with you to stay home. Kenosha. Find excuses for police murder and misconduct. Did you see Trump equate the murder of Jacob Blake with a golfer choking and missing a three-foot putt?  You can’t make this stuff up.

Expect more Hail Marys in the next 62 days before the election. It will get worse—it always does with a candidate who has no character or conscience.  Hopefully, the quality of Trump’s efforts to date is an indicator of what he will come up with next. If that happens, Trump will leave the national political arena for good in January.  But don’t forget that it’s dangerous to underestimate Trump. We must make every effort to get out the vote and to encourage people to vote early. Our lives depend on it.  

 J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

President Trump is a man with a curious collection of friends and a long, growing list of enemies.  As election day draws near, any of us not yet clear on the worth of our President would do well to review who Trump considers his friends and who is urging his defeat. As Aesop said, “A man is known by the company he keeps.”  A modernized version of this wisdom might add, “and by the enemies that reject him.”

Trump’s past and current friendships include a menagerie of recent arrestees, convicted criminals, porn stars, and crackpots. Among the President’s past or present associates are Steve “Build the Wall” Bannon, Paul “Ostrich Jacket” Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael “Russiaman” Flynn, and the turncoat rat, Michael Cohen, author of the upcoming best-seller, Disloyal. 

Among the President’s current friends, QAnon is of the greatest concern. President Trump has described this group as “people who love our country.“ The FBI has described it as a terrorist organization. QAnon believes that liberal elites, composed of Satanist pedophile cannibals threaten to take over America. Donald Trump, they believe, is leading an effort to eradicate them.  

Other friends of Trump include the white nationalists behind the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Trump said the group includes some “very fine people.” Trump has followed up on his praise of these racists by making the preservation of confederate monuments a major theme of his re-election bid.  

Remember  former KKK leader David Duke?  He makes this list, as does the fascinating Ghislaine Maxwell as well as her friend and benefactor, the late Jeffrey Epstein.  Also memorable, but more difficult to pronounce (even than “Ghislaine”) is Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor who tried to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat after Obama resigned to assume the Presidency. Trump pardoned him.

Other friends include Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, and Philippine dictator, Rodrigo Duterte, nicknamed “the Punisher.” In 2019, Trump described Erdogan as a “hell of a leader.” His actions in Syria have been described as “a gift to Russia, Iran and ISIS.”  What is it that this trio has in common that made them attractive to Trump?

And how bad are these despots?  Putin was accused just last week of poisoning a political rival. One quote from Duterte stands out, “Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now, there are three million drug addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them.”  Trump has claimed to have “a great relationship” with Duterte. 

Let’s not forget Kim Un Jong of North Korea and, of course, the disgraced lawyer, Roy Cohn, who gained national prominence assisting Senator Joseph McCarthy identify Communists in the 1950s.  Despite Cohn’s efforts, the Democrats have now nominated one for President, at least according to Trump.

Is it fair to judge Trump through a list of his friends?  Perhaps not, but, if you complement this list with a list of enemies, including Republicans who have condemned him or left the GOP all together, it is hard to deny that you are dealing with a troubled man.

Do the names Bush, Romney, Bolton, McCain (Cindy), and Powell ring a bell?  All have said they are not voting for Trump. And 27 former Republican Members of Congress have publicly announced they are voting for Biden. It is unfair to describe some on the list as former friends of Trump, but their actions send a clear message. They view Trump as an existential threat to the GOP. 

Perhaps even more damning, more than 70 former national security officials from various Republican administrations endorsed Vice President Biden on the basis that Trump is “dangerously unfit to serve another term.  A procession of prominent Republicans headed by former Republican governor John Kasich of Ohio also spoke at this year’s Democratic convention.

Identifying reasons to oppose Trump’s re-election is easy. Thinking of reasons to support him is a heavy lift. Trump can’t win on his response to the pandemic and his message that Democrats and their anarchist buddies are burning down America’s cities. His thinly veiled appeal to white nationalists will work among some voters, but their votes will be more than offset by others who consider Trump’s continued residence in the White House as an invitation to disaster.

Don’t forget to register to vote and to vote early.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

When I learned that Talbot Council member Frank Divilio premised his vote against removal of the Talbot Boys statue from the grounds of the courthouse on the need for more time to study the issue, I was, frankly, gobsmacked. The explanation is ridiculous. His vote, notwithstanding his support for the addition of another statue that would depict both Union and Confederate soldiers, was a vote to keep a symbol of White Supremacy, offensive to many Talbot County residents, right where it is.  Apparently, the many arguments for immediate removal did not persuade him and the other two Council members who joined him. 

At first, I found the delay in removing the statue sad. Justice delayed is justice denied. As long as the Talbot Boys stand vigil in front of the courthouse, how can a black person expect justice inside?  Are the county’s judges comfortable with what many citizens, and, more importantly, people in the criminal justice system—arrestees—see as a racist symbol remaining?  Where are their voices?

Upon reflection, I am coming to see the light. The statue prompts us to learn history. It teaches us that boys from the county fought for the Confederacy and the right to own slaves.  Not the type of history to celebrate, but maybe worthwhile to know even if you don’t need a statue in front of a courthouse to teach it.   

Of course, there’s more. The statue represents something beyond just the Civil War. Something more recent. If you dig a little deeper and look into how the statue made its way onto the courthouse grounds, you learn that in 1916 in our county, as well as hundreds of other places, white people wanted to commemorate “The Lost Cause” and celebrate the men who fought for it.  What was the benefit in this?  Was it to remind African Americans that while the war was over, sympathy for what it stood for was not?  

Do you need evidence for the motivation behind the erection of the statue?  Read the writings of the racist lawyer, Joseph B. Seth, a leader in  the effort to erect the statue. He was unambiguous in revealing his motivation.  Seth viewed slavery as a fine institution. In his book, written with his wife, Mary W. Seth, Recollections of a Long Life on the Eastern Shore, Seth writes:

The bulk of the slaves were devoted to their masters and their families, taking great interest in everything concerning them.  They considered themselves part of the family and their devotion was so great that they would run any risk to protect them.  They considered themselves a part of the family and their devotion was so great that they would run any risk to protect them.  The families were equally devoted to the slaves and with the whole Southland had the tenderest affection for the faithful old Mammies and Uncles. 

Please note that Council member Peter Lesher, who voted to remove the statue, is aware of Mr. Seth’s contribution to our history. Are the three members of the Council who want the statute to remain? If so, how can they sleep at night? 

The history lessons offered by the Talbot Boys do not end in the 20th century. Unfortunately, it is offering new ones, one’s that may haunt future generations of Talbot County residents.  Here are two:

As late as 2020, the Council, through its inaction, maintained a symbol of White Supremacy in front of the County Courthouse despite the pleas of citizens to remove it. The message inherent in the Council’s vote is “Black Lives Do Not Matter.”

In 2020, an elected Council member was too cowardly to just admit he wanted to keep the statue and instead claimed more time was needed to study the issue.  If he is successful in keeping the statue in place, it teaches the unwholesome lesson that delay can often lead to success.  Deferring a vote clearly reflects the hope that “things will calm down” in a few months and that the fight over removing the statue will be over.  

Hopefully, outcries and protests over this symbol of racism will continue and force the Council to reconsider their shameful vote.  If that doesn’t happen, maybe the Council should allow various groups to erect a few new statues on the Courthouse lawn that might have educational value like the Talbot Boys. How about a statue of Richard Nixon?  He signed the bill creating the Environmental Protection Agency, which has done a lot to clean up the bay. How about a statue of Trump (to be erected after he leaves office)?  This one could teach children the price of incompetence in responding to a pandemic. If large enough, the pedestal for the statue could include the names of Talbot County residents who died from the pandemic. Given that the worst may be ahead of us, it may have to be a big pedestal. The lesson from the Trump statue would be:  Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Thank you, Talbot Boys. You got me thinking. Your final lesson to me is how important my vote is. I do not need more time to decide who needs to be voted off the Council.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

President Trump’s pathetic COVID-19 press briefings are NOT the highlight of my summer. They have, however, prompted me to turn off my television when they appear. Whenever you turn off a TV, it’s usually a good thing. Thus, the President makes it onto my list of highlights, one of which is NOT watching a lot of TV. Thank you, Mr. President.

Enough about the Orange Menace. Let’s not pursue such lowlights any further. Many good things are going on. Despite all the misery and challenges of this summer, I have a lot for which to be grateful. To identify them, I periodically reflect on things that have made me happy or a better person. I make a list of them. Where appropriate, I make a point of thanking those who made this possible.

On top of my list for the summer of 2020 are our hummingbirds. In May, we planted salvia, a plant that naturally produces the nectar on which hummingbirds thrive. Now that the salvia is in full bloom, we get air shows of these incredible birds every afternoon and evening. The agility of these tiny birds is incredible, as is their speed. I could, and have, watched them for hours. The highlight of this highlight is when a pair of hummingbirds work the flowers together. It looks like some sort of mating ritual, but I am told it is the wrong time of year. Whatever is going on, I hope it continues. There can’t be too many hummingbirds.

Sunflowers are also near the top of my list. I regularly drive by the fields of Eason’s farm, where rows upon rows of sunflowers can be found. I am deeply grateful for the beauty of these flowers.

I’ve also thoroughly enjoying harvesting the fresh fruits and vegetables from our garden—cucumbers, tomatoes, blackberries, peppers, eggplant and zucchini have been a wonderful addition to our meals this summer, especially since we’ve been doing a lot more home cooking during the pandemic.

Oxford’s Strand also makes my list. I regularly load Lucca, the Eastern Shore’s best goldendoodle, into my car and drive there for walks. Lucca practices social distancing and loves seeing the occasional boat go by. She revels in the cool breezes and observes the families enjoying the beach. There are many, many good things about Oxford, but The Strand is my favorite. I am grateful for how the town manages it.

Curiously, a debate also makes my list of highlights. It is a debate I have been following on the pages of the Talbot Spy about the impact of Paul Prager and Bluepoint Hospitality on the town of Easton. It has been interesting, and educational, to me to read the comments of those who oppose or fear the changes he is making in Easton.

The concerns articulated, frankly, were things I had not considered. Things like the businesses being a “Disneyland” fantasy world intended for an audience of people who do not already live here. I also have appreciated those who welcome the new businesses, including the “perfectionism” that Bluepoint has pursued with each of them.

Where do I come out on this debate? I don’t know right now. So far, I think all Bluepoint establishments are top drawer and a welcome addition to the town of Easton. But I’m still listening and, hopefully, learning. In the meantime, I welcome the debate, at least those parts of it not involving name-calling, threats, or worse. Citizens engaged in an honest debate over Easton’s future is a good thing.

Let me also add to the list the remarkable vision of Chesapeake Music. The virtual chamber music concerts were a highlight of my June. I am grateful to the organizers and musicians. I am particularly fond of classical music. Thank you, Chesapeake Music!

Another highlight of the summer, and the last one I will mention here, is the way much of the Eastern Shore has responded to the pandemic. Adherence to safe practices—mask-wearing, social distancing, handwashing, etc.—has been remarkable. Our area puts other parts of the State (and country) to shame. I am grateful to all those who are doing their part to keep us safe. You have inspired me to step up my own efforts to join you.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

In the aftermath of his failed Presidency, Donald Trump will leave us with a lot more than bad memories. We can live with images of the crude and incompetent, especially after he is safely out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but other Trump legacies will be far worse. Among his contributions to history will be undermining democracy and the two-party system.  A likely special bonus is unintentionally facilitating a sharp left turn in our politics, something that may prove good or bad, but would not have happened without him.

It is, of course, wrong to blame the President for all the elements of the “Perfect Storm” that  could lead to what some refer to as another “Great Reset,” major changes in our social contract with each other that changes how we live, what we value, and the type of world we leave our children.  Other contributors to the “storm” are the pandemic and its impact on the world economy, global warming, and increased interest in social and economic justice.  On all these factors, the President may be credited with responding to them inadequately or inappropriately but blaming him for any of them is unjustified.  Who, after all, can blame Trump for increasing interest in social and economic justice?

The sad history of our national response to climate change during the last three years and to COVID-19 for the last six months is well known.  What is not appreciated by many of us is how Trump has undermined democracy and the two-party system of government.

Most simply put, Trump has weakened our democracy by undermining confidence in the Constitution.  Most Constitutional lawyers, for example, would tell you that Article II of the Constitution does not give Trump unbridled power to ignore law.  Neither does it give the President immunity from prosecution for crime, including those committed while he is in office.   The President’s (and Attorney General Barr’s) claims to the contrary weaken the commitment to Constitutional government that is inherent in our society.  This commitment, which is premised on the belief that our system of government produces results reflecting the will of the people, is what has allowed the United States to survive for over two centuries.  This commitment has been weakened by a President who repeatedly ignores the will of the people.  And if the people become convinced that their participation in the democracy, best exercised by voting, is irrelevant to how they are governed, they will quit participating.  In a worst-case scenario, they throw the towel in altogether and rebel, perhaps violently.

We have already seen signs of the worst-case scenario.  Recent protests reflect, in large part, the belief that answers to the problems of racism and economic injustice can’t be solved through appealing to lawmakers. The governed, basically, have turned against the government.  The protests suggested that the elected authorities, ranging from mayors, to the Congress, and to Trump, were not listening and, in some cases, not worth appealing to.

It gets worse.  The Trump takeover of the Republican party has set the stage for a Democratic landslide in November.  The GOP has become an embarrassment for many Republicans, many of them now former Republicans. These voters, including some conservatives, would like to see a party that embraced what were once known as “Republican values,” things like limited government, reasonable taxes, reasonable regulation, and free trade.  They have nowhere to go.

The effective collapse of the GOP, which some believe will complete its implosion once the final 2020 ballots are counted, will set the stage for Democrats to move left, perhaps radically.  On many issues, such as climate change, responding to the pandemic, and addressing racial and economic injustice, such a move may be a good thing.  But on others, things like radically increasing federal regulation of corporations, the story may be different.  Its only a fear, but if the creativity and energy of our current capitalist economic system were substantially eliminated, what will that mean for our economic future?

A Democratic government which includes the Presidency and strong majorities in the House and Senate will also likely lead to a fissure in the Democratic party that could lead to problems of its own.  Will Democratic centrists, of which there are many, come to see the party as having left them?  That could be a likely scenario.

Now a bit of wilder speculation.  What if both parties effectively imploded at the same time the confidence and support for democracy diminished?  Will we see a far-right party emerge (The Trump/Tea Party)?  Or maybe an openly socialist party led by AOC, Sanders, and others.  Could there also be a centrist party?  But if so, can it successfully navigate the issues, adopting “good” policies from across the entire spectrum?  Who is out there to lead the creation of such a party?

That leaves us feeling queasy about 2020.  Biden hasn’t won yet.  He might yet do a bit of imploding himself, either through gaffes or, heaven forbid, something that derails his candidacy altogether.  And then there is the Orange Menace himself.  Is he really thinking about postponing the elections?  How would that work in terms of building confidence in the Constitution?

As of this writing, Trump appears to be stumbling towards the exit.  Respected publications are openly speculating that he will resign to avoid a stunning repudiation at the polls.  President Pence, anyone?  Anyone?

And then there are the dozens of policy proposals that Vice President Biden has embraced as he has sought to unify his party (translation:  as he has sought to secure the support of his party’s left-wing).  If you review the proposals, you will find Elizabeth Warren’s Greatest Hits as well as plenty of Bernie and AOC.  Only time will tell how much of the agenda reflected in these proposals will be pursued by a President Biden but the mere existence of some of the proposals is a cause of worry.

Although some suggest party platforms are often irrelevant, that doesn’t make me sleep better at night.

We are living in interesting times.  Some sort of a Great Reset is likely. Stay tuned.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

 

The coronavirus has created unique challenges for colleges of all types. Every aspect of running a college has become harder. Admissions and attendance have become difficult to predict with many students considering a gap year or transfer in light of suspended or partially suspended in-person classes.  Facilities, especially dorms, classrooms and dining facilities are ill-suited for social distancing. And the finances at many schools are in crisis. 

Survival for many schools will depend on how college administrators, states, and Boards of Directors respond to the crisis. But some schools face special challenges resulting from declining enrollment that started before Covid-19 and, in all too many cases, imprudent “investments” by schools financed with debt. Too many schools acted under the “build it and they will come” principle, hoping that new facilities, attractive amenities, and competitive athletic teams would give them an edge in the competition for students.

Unfortunately for many schools, those “bold visions for the future” may create financial challenges that prove insurmountable. Thus, a tragedy is unfolding. The losers will not only be future generations of students, but also America itself.  Educational choices will become more limited. The college experience, as many of us experienced it, is disappearing. The economic boost propelled by increasing college attendance and completion rates will diminish. What some once referred to as the crown jewel of American education—our incredible wealth of colleges and universities—is in jeopardy.

For many schools, the crows are now coming home to roost. A steady stream of schools are closing permanently or merging. Budget deficits are growing. Enrollment of foreign students has dropped dramatically, depriving schools of yet another needed source of revenue. Students, and their families, are growing more price sensitive. State schools, once enjoying the security of regular state appropriations, are now being asked to increase their dependence on student revenues. Some predict a third of private, non-profit four-year colleges could close.

This situation is dire, but failure is not the only option. While some colleges will be goners, others can make changes  to address the new reality. These changes include reducing money-losing athletic programs, mothballing or closing underused facilities, entering new partnerships with other schools and institutions, and enhancing marketing.  All this, importantly, must be done while maintaining the quality of the academic programs that colleges offer.  Without a quality product (the education offered), no cost-cutting, fund-raising, or marketing will work. 

But more important, perhaps than positive steps that can be taken, are steps that need to be avoided.  Some schools appear to be forgetting that first and foremost, schools are educational institutions. Some schools are more willing to cut faculty than football or other budget expenditures not central to the mission of educating students or facilitating their enrollment at a reasonable, manageable cost. 

One example of a school that appears to be headed South is the University of Akron, a public institution that describes itself as its region’s “most influential public research university.” That’s great. So why, earlier this month, did the university’s Board of Trustees vote to eliminate 178 facility positions and 82 staff and contract employees through layoffs? And why did the Board allow more than a third of the university’s academic and support staff to leave since the start of the pandemic?

Were there alternatives?  The faculty proposed deeper cuts to athletic programs. Also, although the most recent budget cuts follow others in recent years, the college does not seem to appreciate what they are doing.  And, curiously, a visit to its website does not inform prospective students that the college is engaging in a type of restructuring like Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.

There is no doubt more to the University of Akron story, and it may be unfair to single it out as an example of what not to do. But, in some ways, it appears to be following the textbook on how to kill the college.

Not specific to Akron, here a short list of sure-fire ways to kill a college or university: 

First, cut tenured faculty, especially the higher paid faculty members. Get rid of as many of them as you can. Replace them with adjunct faculty—part timers that are paid a fraction of what full-time faculty make.  Don’t worry about the impact on those faculty that are not laid off.  Will the talented faculty who have alternatives start looking elsewhere, creating yet more instability?  Maybe the students won’t notice.

Second, ignore your own admissions standards.  If the students you once hoped for aren’t applying, admit anyone who can pay. Go for the low-hanging fruit and hope you don’t get sick from it. 

Third, protect those sports teams! Convince yourself that they are essential to attract students.  Convince yourself that alumni support will wither away if the teams are cut. And be sure to keep that high-priced football coach on the books. So what if he makes 10 times as much as a full professor.

Fourth, don’t cut your own salary. Institute a salary freeze for faculty and staff but maintain your own salary. You’re working harder than anyone else.  Right?

Fifth, tell your students that all is okay. The dramatic cuts in faculty will have no impact on the quality of their education. Tell them the college is still a bargain.

This list should go on. The bottom line is that many schools, drunk with billions in federal student loans and grants, once favorable student demographics, legions of foreign students, and the belief that a college education guaranteed economic success, expanded too fast, ignored the possibility of a crisis like the one now in full swing. Now they find themselves backed into a corner. The budget is busted, and the board doesn’t know what to do.

The motto of the University of Akron is “Let there be light.”  A faculty-less university can be a very dark place.  I wish them the best. Their closure would be a loss to the Midwest. 

And let’s hope that other colleges, with the help of  $14 billion in emergency Federal aid and the likelihood of more, college leaders will remember their mission and address today’s unique challenges the right way.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Last week saw the carnival known as the Trump presidency hit a new low. The chief clown embarrassed himself, again. This time it was at a campaign event masked as a press conference to discuss sanctions on China for its recent outrages in Hong Kong. Somewhere between the White House door and the Rose Garden Trump forgot this and proceeded to excoriate Joe Biden and other Democrats. He also added to his mountain of lies.  

In a telling action, CNN and MSNBC both cut-away from coverage in the middle of the event. It wasn’t the first time this has happened, but their stomachs apparently could take no more. They shifted back to “fake news,” things such as the death toll from the coronavirus and the latest polls documenting that the Trump base has now pretty much shrunken to non-college educated white males living in rural areas. One must wonder why he doesn’t quit now given that he hates losing. Why not let Pence take the November shellacking and then go on TV to condemn him for blowing it?

It is, of course, too early to count chickens regarding the outcome of elections still more than three months away and utterly naïve to expect Trump to do the right thing and simply walk away from the disaster he helped create. So anxious are some of us to be rid of him that we’d guarantee him a pardon from his many felonies if he would just quit. Donald, take my word for it, that would be the deal of the century.

Between now and January 20, 2021, Trump will have many opportunities to do more damage. He could start a war, for example, or disband the CDC and NIH. He could give Alaska to Putin in exchange for the right to build a Trump Tower in Red Square. You get the idea.  

And not that it matters, he will have very few opportunities to rehabilitate himself. The economy is headed for a painful recession. Pundits suggest that Trump’s touted stock market “wins” will be history by November, once the reality of the economic tsunami that accompanied the pandemic fully blossoms.   The poor souls who incredibly tell us we are fortunate to have a “businessman” as President will realize that the emperor has no clothes. He may very well be run out of DC on a rail by some of his own former supporters. Yes, even reality-denying zealots have a breaking point.

Looking forward to the next three months of our national nightmare, you can expect the following:

No progress on healing the racial divide that continues to simmer. In fact, given the unfortunate inevitability of another tragic triggering event, more civil unrest may be inevitable.

Growing recognition that Trump’s failed leadership has resulted in a pandemic that will still be with us in the fall.  Odds are better than 50-50 that the virus will be worse on election day than it is now.

A severe recession.  How much stimulus can the Treasury afford?  Eventually, as we already are seeing, many small businesses will call it quits. There will also be a realization that some industries, such as airlines and cruise ships may never return to normal.

More scandal.  Does anyone expect Trump to turn over his tax returns to New York authorities before election day?  Does anyone not expect more Trump administration officials to get caught, or at least be credibly accused, of serious misconduct?

Trump will resort to new lows in his attempt to discredit Joe Biden and Democrats generally.  Remember when Trump suggested that Senator Ted Cruz’s father was involved with the assassination of JFK?  Remember Trump’s leadership on the “birther issue” that he used to gain national prominence?  You ain’t seen nothing yet. By the time Trump is done with Biden, Al Capone will look like a saint by comparison. Remember, truth is not an obstacle to the man described as a sociopath by his own niece.

Trump needs to go and, fortunately, appears to be Biden’s best weapon. The Orange Menace has imploded, but only a fool would assume that the end of his presidency is inevitable. People got to vote.  We better take nothing for granted because even though we expect the worst from Trump, he keeps surprising us. America, vote. Do whatever you can to encourage your friends and neighbors to vote. Our future depends on it.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.  

 

Little imagination is required to suggest that if President Trump were successful in forcing schools to reopen, more than a few students, teachers, administrators, and support personnel could die as a result.  His directive,  premised on the assumption that it will create a potent issue on which to run this fall, is reckless. It’s also beyond his authority—the President cannot force states and school districts to open or close schools.  

Despite Trump being wrong about forcing schools to open, he is right that education at all levels is in crisis. Spring school closures effectively ended learning for many elementary and secondary school students. Regardless of how they continue their educations, they will have learning gaps that will create unique challenges for years to come. During this pandemic, some students successfully continued their studies online. But many others, probably, a majority, did not. 

Studies suggest that online education creates unique demands on learners. Motivated, focused students can use remote learning tools successfully.  Most other students require the presence of a skilled teacher to focus and sustain the attention needed to truly learn. Thus, education may be described as in crisis. If schools open this fall, students in many areas will be at serious risk of contracting the coronavirus.  If schools remain closed, the risks associated with online education will continue.  

So, what to do?  First, let’s throw out the insane idea of forcing schools to open in locations where local authorities believe it is imprudent to do so. Let’s also listen to teachers and administrators.  It they tell us they are uncomfortable with returning to pre-virus practices, we need to listen. A teacher who fears for his or her life, and those of their students, every day in the classroom is unlikely to be effective.  

Second, let’s forget about cutting off funding for schools that refuse to open. If a state or school district decides to keep its schools closed, or to open partially, as proposed by Mayor De Blasio in New York City, they will need more, not less, money. Many communities suffer from the “digital divide,” including the Eastern Shore.  If online learning is needed, all students must have access to the internet. This is a matter not only of ensuring students have the right equipment, but also that they can connect to the internet and know how to engage and benefit from instruction. That means schools also will need funds to train teachers in new pedagogies. They also will need funds to implement measures to minimize the risk of infection in preparing for partial or eventual complete reopening. Cutting funding not only punishes students; it would be counterproductive in many other ways.

Third, schools, teachers, and the Department of Education must be honest in assessing the effectiveness of alternative pedagogies. Existing research documents that most online education is not as effective as in-person learning. There are, of course, exceptions, such as synchronous remote learning, but if you accept that students have very different learning styles, it is clear that implementing online education involves choosing the right software and approach to meet the needs of individual learners. This is no small task. It involves measuring whether students are truly learning and reporting the results. Decisions on how to confront the educational crisis need to be based on facts, not political expediency.

Fourth, recognize that modern technology, including techniques such as easy-to-use video conferencing, creates opportunities to make distance learning more effective.  Many educators, including education leaders in our area, appear to already be there.  Our national leaders at the US Department of Education, however, may be another matter.  President Trump’s (and Secretary DeVos’) assumption that online education is universally ineffective, can be dismissed as the nonsense that it is.  And, of course, to put these new tools to work everywhere they are needed, we need leadership. Unfortunately, expecting that from Secretary DeVos is naive. Trump is more likely to quit both tweeting and lying than she is to support schools in finding the right tools to use to meet the crisis. Among the suggestions of the Secretary is to award parents of students whose schools do not reopen (or reopen fully) funds to support their children attending private schools.  Remember “Leave No Child Behind?”

There is a lot of complexity on the issue of schools reopening. Not a great time to be a school superintendent. Many school leaders are frustrated that Washington is not doing enough to help them navigate the issues. One solution—really a small part of what is a huge issue—would be to bring the best minds to the table on the issue of how to implement remote learning.  Because it now is clear that the pandemic is not going away any time soon, the fact that many schools will not be able to reopen fully, or, in many cases even partially, must be accepted as a given. For students attending these schools, if effective remote education is not available, learning will suffer.

Because the President and Secretary DeVos are taking a different approach, maybe former Vice President Biden could take the lead. Ideally, he would not convene a task force himself, something likely to (fairly or unfairly) taint whatever recommendations were made with politics. Instead, he should ask one of the nation’s education-focused foundations to convene a task force and produce recommendations, focused on remote learning, within 30 days. Biden could help publicize the report once it was complete.

Thirty days is a short time. It is doable, however, because many answers are already out there. A blue-ribbon panel produced report on best practices and how to implement them would be invaluable help to the many school districts struggling  to implement distance education. Appropriate experts are likely to welcome such an initiative as a way of putting their knowledge to work to help students. 

What might the foundation be? The foundation I chaired several years ago would be a candidate—KnowledgeWorks in Cincinnati.  A much better known group, one with effectively unlimited financial resources and a larger team of experts already on board, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are, however, many other good choices. Maybe Biden could quickly pick one and set them to work.  If his choice did not already have the financial resources needed to do the job, perhaps he could give the chosen foundation funds from his campaign. Just a thought.

The 30-day report would not decide the big issue of whether to open schools, completely or partially.  That needs to be made on the state and local level  Instead, the report would focus on what works in terms of tools needed for effective remote learning—the software, supporting pedagogies, teacher training, and the necessary infrastructure. The report would have as much specificity as possible, including implementation costs. It should outline immediate action steps and, where possible, identify challenges.  Ideally, Congress could use the report to provide funding to implement the recommendations by those school districts that determine that prudence dictates not “returning to normal.”

The road ahead for America’s students at all levels is not an easy one. Failure to address the educational crisis is not an option. It’s time to get real. The virus is not going away any time soon. Either we get to work to do the best we can to meet our obligations to America’s students, or students, and the rest of us, will suffer the consequences.

And one more thing—addressing the issue of how best to make online/distance education work is only part of the problem that must be addressed. Just one example:  During this period of severe economic hardship, schools play an important role in ensuring that students get adequate nutrition. More than 20.2 million students received free lunches from schools before the crisis. That number has no doubt increased. Another eight million students get reduced-price meals. President Trump’s threat to cut funding to schools that choose to remain closed because of the virus should be viewed with this in mind. 

On June 29th, the Spy published an excellent article by Chestertown’s Al  Hammond titled, Minding a Big Gap:  Digital Divide Leaving Students Behind. The article includes a Spy video interview with Talbot Superintendent of Schools Kelly Griffith on Digital Divide Learning Students Behind. I highly recommend both.  

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He served on the Board of Directors of KnowledgeWorks Foundation from 2000-2016.