One of the many surprises in the last presidential election was Donald Trump winning in three “blue wall” battleground states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Now that the reality of a second Trump term is sinking in, some Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, Democratic state attorney generals, and a large group of issue advocacy groups are working diligently to put up a new “blue wall” in Congress to delay or derail President-elect Trump’s congressional agenda.

That proposed “blue wall” currently has an unexpected crack in an unexpected place–the United States Senate with John Fetterman, the Democratic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

Elected to the Senate in in 2022, Fetterman is the most unpredictable and unconventional member of the Senate since Arlen Specter, a former Senator who was also from Pennsylvania.

Once elected, Fetterman was widely expected to be a conventional partisan progressive and a reliable supporter for progressive public policy positions.

Since his election he has demonstrated a level of independence that has surprised and disappointed progressives, and surprised and pleased conservatives.

Fetterman has regularly and forcefully expressed staunch support for Israel in their ongoing war with Hamas.

On immigration, Fetterman has said, “I support a secure border.” He also supports the deportation of undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes committed in America. He has said he doesn’t know why anyone finds it controversial, that people illegally in the U.S. who commit crimes “need to go.”

Now Fetterman is publicly challenging Democratic members of Congress who are developing strategies to resist and derail Trump’s agenda in Congress.

In a recent interview with Jonathan Carl on ABC News “This Week”, Fetterman said he hopes Trump is successful in his second term and he’s not “rooting against him.” This follows Fetterman’s pre-election endorsement of Kamala Harris for president and endorsing former long term fellow Democratic U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania — Bob Casey.

He also said, “If you’re rooting against the president, you are rooting against the nation. So, country first. I know that’s become maybe like a cliche, but it happens to be true.”

That observation is consistent with Fetterman’s thought that in moving forward, Democrats can’t get wrapped up in “freaking out” over every move that Trump makes.
Most recently, Fetterman affirmed his independent nature by accepting an invitation to meet with President-elect Trump in Florida.

Fetterman announced his acceptance decision with his usual candor and bluntness, “President Trump invited me to meet, and I accepted. I’m the Senator for all Pennsylvanians — not just Democrats in Pennsylvania, I’ve been clear that no one is my gatekeeper. I will meet with and have conversations with anyone if it helps me deliver for Pennsylvania and the nation.”

Fetterman has walked his talk with regard to his role as a Senator in voting to confirm or reject confirmation of some of Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees.

Fetterman was one of the first Democratic Senators to meet with Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to serve as Secretary of Defense.

He has said he will vote to confirm Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations and Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.

He is still considering if he will vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Security.

While Fetterman’s approach to working with the Trump administration is not yet widely accepted by Democratic members of Congress, it is not unique.

At least one Democratic member of Congress has already embraced Fetterman’s approach to the Trump administration.

In a New Year’s Day New York Times guest essay, Congressman Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. urged fellow Democratic lawmakers to drop the resistance movement and work with Trump in his second term.

Suozzi wrote, “As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn, uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt. That would be a mistake. But
as a common-sense Democrat who won in a district that Mr. Trump also won, I am certain our closely divided electorate would rather have bipartisan solutions than political gridlock.”

Going forward it will be most interesting to see if cracks in any congressional “blue wall” of resistance get bigger and deeper.

While to date such cracks may be relatively small, they could expand to a point where a “blue wall” of resistance strategy is futile on stopping Trump’s ambitious second term agenda.

With slim Republican majorities in Congress, especially in the House, any support by Democratic members of Congress for Trump’s congressional agenda significantly increases the odds for approval of that agenda.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

A dictionary definition of a moral compass is a set of beliefs or values that help guide ethical decisions, judgments, and behavior, an internal sense of what is right and wrong.

A dictionary definition of broken is something that is no longer whole or working correctly.

As has been reported regularly and with great public interest since early December, Brian Thompson, the CEO of United American Healthcare Insurance Company was ambushed, shot and killed while attending a business meeting in New York City.

After reading a recent commentary authored by Adam Panucco and posted on Montgomery Perspective on the aftermath of that assassination, I suggest we are experiencing an emerging crisis due to a broken moral compass in American society.

Case in point are recaps in Panucco’s commentary of widespread reactions to the formal accusation of and trial for Luigi Mangione on his alleged involvement in the assassination of Brian Thompson. Panucco wrote in part:

“Celebrations of the murder broke out on social media almost as soon as the killing was reported. The then-unknown assailant had provided a public service by taking out a leader in a predatory and heartless industry, the killer’s fans asserted. The jubilation grew in fervor as each newly released surveillance video confirmed the original impression that the killer, still at large, was young and handsome. Once an arrest was made, the lionization of the suspect, reached a frenzy. Luigi”—always “Luigi—was the ‘hot assassin.’ Merchandise featuring his image and phrases from a handwritten manifesto he had carried with him sprung up on Amazon. A video projection of Mangione’s face was cheered at a rock concert in Boston.
A crowdsourced defense fund quickly swelled with donations. Wanted posters appeared in Manhattan with pictures of other corporate CEOs. The names and salaries of health-care executives were posted online. Private citizens who had helped with the manhunt were vilified as snitches, police officers involved in arresting alleged killer Mangione received threats.”

While these may be relatively isolated incidents, even more distressing are Panucco’s recap of public polling results on this matter.

“Over 41 percent of respondents supported the Thompson assassination, or were at best ambivalent about it. Nearly 16 percent of respondents were “unsure” or “neutral” about whether the killer’s actions were “acceptable or unacceptable.” A little over 8 percent of respondents found Mangione’s actions “completely acceptable.” Another 8.4 percent found those actions “somewhat acceptable,” and 9 percent found them “somewhat unacceptable.” It is not clear how “somewhat acceptable” differs from “somewhat unacceptable.”

Four of every ten Americans, in other words, will not unequivocally condemn the killing.

The younger the voter, the greater the level of support for political killings. Sixty-seven percent of voters aged 18 to 29 were ambivalent about or supportive of Mangione’s actions, with only 33 percent finding those actions completely unacceptable. Fifty-seven percent of voters aged 30 to 39 were unwilling to condemn the killing unequivocally, with only 43 percent finding it “completely unacceptable.” Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to find it either somewhat or completely acceptable.”

In closing remarks in his thought-provoking commentary, Panucco asks:

“What has gone wrong with Americans’ moral compass that so many could cheer the extrajudicial killing of an innocent man? That question has not been deemed worthy of exploring.”

I suggest what is wrong with America’s moral compass is simple.

Our moral compass is broken.

To the best of my knowledge this brokenness has not been deemed worthy of exploring.

It is imperative that we individually and collectively embrace the timeless principles contained in the United States Constitution, especially with regard to due process and the rule of law in America.

While every American has a right to hold and express their opinion, every American has a right and an obligation to point out and challenge misguided and hypocritical opinions that reflect a broken moral compass.

It is indefensible that anyone would support, celebrate, or glorify any accused killer who already has constitutional rights to:

An assumption of innocence until proven guilty
A properly processed indictment, i.e., a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime
Access to legal counsel and representation
Opportunities during a trial for cross-examinations
Verdicts on guilt or innocence on all charges
Opportunities to appeal all verdicts

That person does not have any right to act alone as the judge, jury, and executioner, thereby denying a murder victim the same rights, regardless of who he is or his occupation.

In his book, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

If America does not take proper immediate steps to address the consequences of a broken moral compass going forward, our society will not only cease to be good and cease to be great, but will also ultimately cease to exist.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

Next month the Maryland General Assembly convenes in Annapolis for a ninety-day session. 

All indications are the discussions, deliberations, and decisions on the state budget will be drawn out and divisive.

The reason is simple.

Last week, the General Assembly’s bi- partisan Affordable Spending Committee received a most sobering report on the state’s current and projected fiscal conditions.

The report included some of the worst state budget revenue and expense projections since the state endured pandemic lockdowns.

The committee staff is currently projecting a budget deficit of three billion dollars. That amount is even larger than the one a reported several weeks ago which was then 2.7 billion dollars. 

All the debate on the budget will include a wide range of key players with starkly different and strongly held opinions on the best way to address projected short term and long-term deficits.

At this point, the most likely options include spending cuts, fee increases, tax increases, revisions to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Kirwan Plan) and maintaining or increasing the flow of federal dollars into Maryland. 

With a new Republican President and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, it is almost a given that federal dollars flowing into Maryland from jobs, and funding of huge infrastructure projects such as the Red Line mass transit expansion in Baltimore and Amtrak tunnel rebuild, also in Baltimore, will run dry. 

One exception is recent bi partisan Congressional and White House approval of full federal funding for rebuilding and replacing the Key Bridge in Baltimore. Beyond that one-time massive level of federal aid, such outlays are gone at least for the next four years and maybe forever.

Despite all the above news, Governor Moore has repeatedly said he has a “high bar” for tax increases. He also and more recently stated that he supports revisions to the Kirwan Plan including, but not limited to, delays in the current schedule for full implementation. 

Moore has also said regularly that Maryland must attract more higher paying jobs to Maryland and must stem the number of high-income taxpayers leaving Maryland. 

To do that, Moore issued Executive Orders last week prefaced with the following messages: 

“Maryland has an opportunity to change the trajectory of the downward decline that our state’s economy has experienced over the past several years. For Maryland to win the decade, we must be clear-eyed about the impediments to growth, develop strategies to deliver short-term and long-term sustainable success, and create the climate that is necessary for businesses and talent to grow and relocate in our state.”

His Executive Orders create a Governor’s Office of Business Advancement, a Maryland Coordinated Permitting Review Council, a Certified Sites Program, and a Governor’s Economic Competitiveness Subcabinet. 

His orders also provide for a Government Loaned Executive Program, an all-of-government approach to supporting priority industries and sectors; the Department of Commerce to coordinate economic development, marketing, and branding efforts with local governments; directing a comprehensive review of the Business Tax Credit; Financial Assistance and Incentive Programs; and a review of Certain Business Licensing Programs. 

Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson has been less direct in his opinions on tax increases. 

Ferguson has said, “We are going to have to look at revenues in certain areas because when we look at the budget overall, the gap cannot be accomplished by cuts alone.” Ferguson has echoed Moore’s position that a decision on tax increases will have a high bar for his support.

The current views of Moore and Ferguson put them at odds with two high ranking and influential leaders in the House of Delegates — Majority Leader David Moon and Appropriations Committee Chair Ben Barnes.

Both are unapologetic progressives who believe strongly that substantial state tax increases are long overdue. They also oppose suggestions to delay or revise the implementation of schedules or mandates in Kirwan, including mandates opposed by some local school boards.

Delegate Barnes took a page from the messaging book of Governor Moore and Senate President Ferguson by saying he has a “very high bar for any rollback of education reforms.”

I predict when all is said and done, the Democratic super majorities in the General Assembly along with Governor Moore will reach agreement on and approve a mixture of spending cuts, tax increases, fee increases, and revisions to Kirwan. 

I also predict the Republican minorities in the General Assembly will continue efforts already underway to strongly oppose tax increases. 

 As always, the minority will have their say, and the majority will have their way. 

The General Assembly’s regular session ends in April. Barring any subsequent special sessions, only then we will know how Governor Moore chose to define a high bar on tax increases.

Eventually, we also will know how that choice impacted his political future that many believe includes a run for President, assuming he is reelected to a second term as governor.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant Easton.

 

As President elect Donald Trump moves forward on a transition to his second term, he is affirming his oft stated objective to be a disrupter to business as usual in Washington DC.

He is doing so in several ways. 

First and foremost, Trump has been moving quickly on choosing individuals for his cabinet, related cabinet level positions, and senior staff positions.

Not surprisingly, this has generated criticism from media outlets, individuals in academia and not-for-profit organizations like the Partnership for Public Service, a group that identifies itself as a nonpartisan advocate focused on building a better government and stronger democracy.

 With regard to the media, the headline for a recent Associated Press (AP) article was – “Trump sets records with pace of appointments, but that doesn’t mean the transition is going smoothly.”

In the article, the reporter mixed news with opinion, when he wrote, “In the two weeks since Election Day, President-elect Donald Trump has been setting records with the pace of appointments for his incoming administration. But speed shouldn’t be confused with organization.”

With regard to academia, David Marchick, Dean of the Kogod School of Business at American University, and co-author of a book on presidential transitions has said, “Last time they were slow and disorganized, this time they’re fast and disorganized.”  

With regard to the Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier, their president, and CEO has said that Trump’s team is missing a critical component of the process. Stier noted Trump is moving at least four times as quickly at rolling out his Cabinet as his modern predecessors, but added: “They’re moving with speed, but they’re making new mistakes.”

Stier identified one of the biggest mistakes is a lack of proper vetting saying, “He’s going at breakneck, reckless speed because there’s no vetting. Moving fast isn’t a very good strategy if you don’t move well — And they’re not moving well,” Stier also has said, “It’s being done quickly, but it’s being done without the kind of due diligence that ordinarily takes place and ensures that mistakes are not made.”

With regard to Steir’s observation on due diligence, I suggest that recruiting individuals for serving at high levels in government is a most challenging process. As a result, there are never foolproof ways to ensure that mistakes are not made.

Stier’s criticism on vetting and due diligence is a moot issue now as Trump’s transition team recently signed an agreement with the Justice Department to conduct FBI background checks despite them not being required by law.

A quick review of the Trump transition efforts to date reflects that he has announced choices for thirty-nine cabinet secretaries and cabinet-level positions that require Senate approval and twenty-eight senior staff positions that do not require Senate approval.

To date, only two announced choices are no longer under consideration: former Congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General and Hillsborough County Florida Sherriff Chad Chronister to head the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. Gaetz has said his withdrawal from further consideration was voluntary, Trump has said the Chronister withdrawal from further consideration was not voluntary, despite earlier comments from Chronister that it was.

Trump is not the first President-elect to experience challenges with candidate vetting.

Previous president-elects whose announced choices withdrew from consideration before Senate consideration include Clinton (four times), George W. Bush (three times), Obama (two times), and Biden (one time). The Senate also rejected George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense choice, which was unexpected since his nominee was a former three-term U.S. Senator.

Donald Trump is proceeding with an acute awareness (reinforced in last month’s congressional election results) that control in Congress is subject to change at any time. This is the case especially after midterm elections, but also by members leaving Congress due to a debilitating illness, death, early retirement, and resignations to accept other opportunities.

Trump also knows that despite their current minority status in Congress, Democratic members of Congress are preparing strategies and tactics to aggressively challenge, modify or stop the plans of the Trump administration over the next four years. These strategies and tactics are more likely to succeed if members of the Democratic party flip control of one or both houses of Congress anytime during Trump’s four-year term.

Accordingly, Donald Trump and his advisors are proceeding on a transition and a governing philosophy in a manner consistent with an observation of Harvard Professor John Kotter in his book “A Sense of Urgency.”

Kotter writes: 

“The single most crucial factor in achieving permanent and meaningful change is a continuous sense of urgency. A true sense of urgency occurs when you acknowledge action on critical issues is needed now, not eventually, not when it fits easily into your schedule. Now means making real progress every single day. Urgent behavior is not driven by a belief that all is well or that everything is a mess but, instead, that the world contains great opportunities and great hazards.”

David Reel is a public Affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

I, along with countless others, closely followed a recent U.S. Senate election in Pennsylvania.

The stakes in this election were extremely high. The outcome was expected to help decide if Republican Senators or Democratic Senators would have a majority in and control of the Senate for at least the next two years.

In this election, voters had a clear choice between two candidates with sharply differing views on President Biden’s performance record over the past four years.

Both candidates raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to share their differing views with voters. As a result, voters had numerous opportunities to reach informed decisions on which candidate’s views resonated best with their own views.

Prior to the election, conventional wisdom was incumbent Democratic Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. would win reelection.

Senator Casey’s father, Robert P. Casey Sr., was a popular and still widely revered former governor of Pennsylvania. Casey Jr. was elected to the U.S. senate three times after being elected once for state Treasurer and twice for state Auditor General.

Consistent with many other expected election outcomes this year, conventional wisdom was proven to be wrong.

It was wrong, in part because Donald Trump’s better than expected support in Pennsylvania generated votes (aka coattails) that helped Dave Mcormick, Casey’s Republican opponent. At the same time, Kamala Harris’ lower than expected support in Pennsylvania did not generate enough votes (aka coattails) to help Casey.

In any event, the outcome of the election was incredibly close.

Before the results were certified, McCormick had 48.8 % of the vote and Casey had 48.6% of the vote. The close results triggered a state law mandating an automatic government-funded recount since the margin of difference was less than 0.5%. The law also allows the projected “losing” candidate to decline a recount. Not surprisingly, Casey chose not to do so.

While the recount was underway lawyers for both campaigns engaged in aggressive attempts to seek a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling to determine if state law allowed incorrectly dated, undated, incorrectly signed, or unsigned provisional ballots to be counted.

A majority of the seven-member court ruled in a 4-3 vote that state law was clear that these provisional ballots could not be counted This majority opinion included two Democratic justices voting no and two Republican justices voting no.

Following the Supreme Court ruling but before a recount was finished, Casey conceded.

In his concession speech, Casey thanked the people of Pennsylvania for the privilege of serving them and for placing their trust in him. He said it has been the honor of his lifetime.

In his speech, Casey never expressed bitterness or anger over the election outcome, nor did he assign blame for his loss. He did not complain about an aggressive and ultimately successful effort by attorneys with the McCormick campaign to secure the court ruling prohibiting the counting of certain provisional ballots. Casey also noted that he followed a long-standing protocol in politics by calling McCormick to congratulate him on his win.

In response to Casey’s concession call, McCormick released a statement that included the following — “Senator Bob Casey dedicated his career to bettering our Commonwealth. Dina and I want to extend our sincere gratitude to Senator Casey, Teresa, and their family for their decades of service, hard work, and sacrifice.”

In McCormick’s statement, there was no gloating or disparaging remarks about his opponent. He did not complain about an aggressive, extended and ultimately unsuccessful effort by attorneys with the Casey campaign to secure a court ruling allowing the counting of certain provisional ballots.

Some may say both candidates’ post-election remarks were carefully scripted by campaign staff and were insincere at best and at worse masked the candidate’s true feelings.

Maybe so, but I disagree. I believe both candidates’ remarks were sincere and from the heart.

Their remarks reflected the character of two opposing candidates who ran issue-based campaigns, focused on telling voters about significant differences of their positions on critical issues of the day.

When the election results were finally confirmed almost two weeks after election day, both candidates accepted a court ruling (the rule of law), accepted the election results, and displayed respect for each other.

I suggest their actions reflect a small, but long overdue missing commitment to civil discourse in today’s contentious and increasingly polarized world.

The actions of soon-to-be former Senator Casey and now Senator-elect McCormick are a model for civil discourse in the political arena.

Going forward, that model should be embraced by every candidate and the supporters of every candidate in every election at every level in America.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

 

Almost immediately after Governor Wes Moore was elected in 2022, political pundits in Maryland and beyond proclaimed Moore is destined to be a President of the United States. 

Moore, in turn, is doing what one would expect from a potential future presidential candidate.

 He supported President Joe Biden for re-election until Biden pulled out of the race. He then threw his support to Vice President Harris. He traveled regularly to speak on her behalf. He gave a prime-time speech at the Democratic National Convention. He helped Democratic Senator-Elect Angela Alsobrooks defeat Larry Hogan in a race previously deemed critical to Democratic Party efforts to retain control of the U.S. Senate. 

All these efforts may be overcome by events in Annapolis next year when the General Assembly is back in session. Prior to adjourning, they must approve a state budget and send it to Governor Moore. Before that happens, the General Assembly will again engage in dialogue, deliberations, and decisions on unfinished business from the last session on state spending and tax increases. 

Last session, a compromise was eventually reached on select tax increases, select fee increases, spending cuts, more state borrowing, and drawdowns from the state’s “rainy day” fund. 

This compromise was approved over strong objections of progressive legislators who viewed this outcome as a temporary deal and a short term delay on future decisions to reject spending cuts and approve tax increases. 

Progressives maintain tax increases are essential for full funding of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Kirwan Plan) and for a mass transit system extension in Baltimore.

As often happens in the General Assembly when state spending and tax increases are debated, those debates are overcome by events. 

Next year this will be especially true given a recent bleak report from the General Assembly’s independent Department of Legislative Services. 

That report projects that Maryland is heading into a severe fiscal crisis that could be the worst in twenty years. The report projects a gap between state tax revenues and state spending that is more significant than the outlook the state faced during the Great Recession in 2008- 2009.

Budget analysts suggest full funding for the Kirwan Plan is by far the biggest driver of the state’s long-term budget problems. They note that starting in the 2028 fiscal year, about $2 billion for Kirwan needs are unfunded, a figure that grows to $3.2 billion in the 2030 fiscal year.

Complicating matters further is uncertainty about how much and when Maryland will get federal funds to replace the former Key Bridge in Baltimore. 

Whatever the General Assembly does on the spending budget and taxes, Governor Moore will have a major and highly visible role starting with submitting a proposed state budget in January. Following General Assembly approval of a budget bill, Moore can agree to it, make line-item vetoes, or veto the entire bill. The General Assembly can in turn override those vetoes.

I predict another contentious General Assembly session as there are still deep divides on budget priorities and tax increases between Governor Moore and the Democratic legislative leaders and progressive Democratic legislators who want tax increases now and who are increasingly unwilling to take no for answer.

Resolving these differences will be even more challenging with a President and Congress planning on significant cuts in federal spending and federal jobs. Both plans will reduce historical levels of federal monies coming into Maryland.

Last week, a Baltimore media outlet published a response from the Governor’s office on two questions – Should Marylanders anticipate any taxor fee increases in the coming years? Does Governor Moore plan to make any major spending cuts and if so where they might be? 

His office responded with this written statement: The budgetary challenges that Maryland faces are as tough as they’ve ever been, and while the challenges have been years in the making, Governor Moore is committed to continuing to work in collaboration with the dedicated leaders of the state legislature, including Senate President Ferguson and Speaker Jones to fix them. The Moore-Miller Administration has a high bar for increasing the tax burden on Maryland families, and the governor knows the next leg of the mission to address our fiscal challenges will be harder than the last. We will continue the work of prioritizing our expenses and reviewing our revenue model to determine how it aligns with our objectives. Marylanders have come to expect fiscal responsibility from the Moore-Miller Administration and the governor will continue to move forward into the next session with that at the top of his mind.

These are his words now. The question is, what will his actions be next year and beyond?

I suggest voters should be ever mindful of an answer by Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign manager after Nixon’s election in 1972. When asked what to expect from the Nixon administration he replied, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

If voters do so that could be problematic for Governor Moore in pursuit of a presidential bid. 

Democratic primary voters may not embrace a Democratic candidate they see with a record of blocking or limiting progressive policy initiatives and higher taxes to pay for them. At the same time, general election voters may not embrace a Democratic candidate they see with a record of supporting progressive policy initiatives and higher taxes to pay for them. 

In either case, voters may make voting decisions after deciding if what Governor Moore said on his intended actions on government spending and tax increases matches what he actually did.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.

 

Even before he was sworn into office in January, Donald Trump had firmly secured a prominent place in American history books.

He is only the second president in U.S. history elected to two non-consecutive terms.

The road to that outcome was a long and winding one.

It was also a road where Trump repeatedly challenged conventional wisdom and proved it to be wrong at every step of the way.

Below is a recap of conventional wisdom (CW) from the 2024 presidential election, with conventional wisdom being defined as a widely accepted assumption and prediction.

Below each conventional wisdom is a recap of actual outcomes relative to conventional wisdom.

CW: Donald Trump was finished in politics due to being impeached twice in the U.S. House of Representatives during his first presidential term, federal criminal indictments (still pending), and state felony convictions (still being appealed).
OUTCOME: With a combination of resilience, determination, and perseverance, Trump triumphed over fifteen Republicans for the Republican party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

CW: In a June debate between Biden and Trump, both would deliver solid performances.
OUTCOME: Biden’s debate performance was arguably the worst in history.

CW: Despite his debate performance, Biden would stay in a reelection grudge match with Trump.
OUTCOME: In September Biden abruptly withdrew his bid for reelection and immediately endorsed Kamala Harris, a move that led to her being the Democratic Party’s standard bearer.

CW: Harris would not do well in her only debate with Trump.
OUTCOME: Harris exceeded expectations which gave her campaign a much-needed boost.

CW: There would be a t least one “October surprise” from the Biden administration.
OUTCOME: An “October surprise” came early but not from the Biden administration. It came in July when Trump narrowly escaped death from an assassination attempt.

CW: Harris could mobilize support from women voters with two campaign messages. One was a message used very effectively by Democratic candidates in the 2022 midterm elections – vote against Republicans as they are not pro-choice on abortion. The second message was now women voters had another opportunity to elect a woman as President of the United States.
OUTCOME: More women than the Harris campaign expected concluded that the state of the economy and high levels of inflation were their top concerns. Concurrently, they also concluded that despite electing a woman for President of the United States was a long-awaited opportunity, Kamala Harris was not that woman.

CW: Trump would experience the same lack of support from working class voters, urban voters, Black voters, young voters, Asian voters, and Jewish voters that Republican presidential candidates have historically experienced.
OUTCOME: Trump’s support from all these groups exceeded all expectations. He won the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as well as four other “swing states”.

CW: Despite being fiercely loyal to President Biden and all of his progressive policies for almost four years, Kamala Harris could tell voters she would be a very different President than Biden.
OUTCOME: Voters rejected that messaging after Harris answered a question on what she would do differently from President Biden with – “Nothing that I can think of.” U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders also cast aspersions on her integrity when he said publicly Harris was a progressive who would say whatever she needed to say to get elected.

CW: Kamala Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, could help offset Trump’s campaign messages that Harris has been and is a radical San Francisco, California progressive. Walz could be branded as a quintessential American “everyman” – a former high school teacher, former high school football coach, military veteran, former member of Congress, and now Governor of Minnesota.
OUTCOME: Walz was quickly and negatively viewed by voters as not ready for prime time due to frequent verbal gaffes and his answers (misleading at best) to questions about his background, especially his military service record.

CW: The November election popular vote outcome was expected to be a tossup that could result in a narrow popular vote win for either candidate.
OUTCOME: Trump won with 50.38% of the popular vote compared to 47.96% of the popular vote for Harris.

CW: The November election Electoral College vote outcome was expected to be a tossup that could result in a narrow Electoral College win for either candidate.
OUTCOME: With 270 Electoral College votes needed to win, Trump received 312 Electoral College votes compared to Harris’ 226 Electoral College votes. Trump was the first Republican President elected since 2004 to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

Going forward, the 2024 presidential election confirmed two absolute truths about conventional wisdom for political candidates, campaigns, pundits, voters, and others.

Never assume anything will happen until the polls close on election day.

Anything may happen at any time until the polls close on election day.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In late October, President Biden visited Baltimore to announce that the Maryland Port Administration will receive $147 million in federal funds for infrastructure improvements.

During his visit, Biden did not acknowledge or address serious issues with another much larger federally funded infrastructure project in Baltimore.

That project is the construction of a new $6 billion Frederick Douglass Tunnel in Baltimore for Amtrak, America’s quasi-public rail passenger company.

The current tunnel is over one hundred and fifty years old and is a major bottleneck on Amtrak’s high speed northeast corridor passenger rail service between Boston and Washington DC.

As a long-time staunch supporter of Amtrak, I understand the need for this long overdue tunnel replacement project.

That said, I am stunned and disheartened by how much this project has been mismanaged.

In early October, Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a scathing report on this project.

The mission of Amtrak’s OIG is simple and straightforward.

Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations relating to agency programs and operations; promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency; prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.

Consistent with their mission, in OIG’s report on the Baltimore tunnel project, they noted that Amtrak did not establish a program management structure early enough. As a result, they struggled to complete the necessary planning in scheduling, communications, document management, and risk management for this project on a timely basis.

The OIG criticized Amtrak’s initial assignment for project management responsibility of a $6 billion dollar project to a single individual.

Eventually, the program team was expanded to seven members, but five told OIG auditors that they were still overwhelmed by their workload.

Amtrak officials have since acknowledged staffing was insufficient and said the Capital Delivery team should have been staffed before it received responsibility for the program.

Amtrak later decided to hire a “delivery partner” to provide management and oversight, but that contractor wasn’t engaged until the spring of this year. Amtrak officials agreed that the decision “should have been made earlier” to “maximize the benefits the delivery partner was intended to provide.” As a result, the new contractor has to plan a management structure as it also prepares for construction.

The OIG report made three recommendations: complete program management planning for the tunnel project, establish processes to ensure the a project’s management structure is established early enough to produce strong oversight for the life of the project and establish processes to ensure program teams have sufficient staff before projects are assigned to the Capital Delivery department. Amtrak management, in their response to the report, agreed with the recommendations and outlined how it is acting to meet those goals.

The OIG report concludes the project now “faces a significantly increased risk of cost overruns and additional delays as it proceeds into major construction.” The OIG report does not include projections for future cost overruns and additional delays.

One thing is almost certain about a six-billion-dollar construction project. Cost overruns and completion delays will likely be substantial. As a result, funds needed for other Amtrak service improvements to increase ridership and reduce their government subsidies will not be available.

I am sure Amtrak’s colossal mismanagement of federal funding is not unique.

Unfortunately, conventional thinking is public infrastructure project completion delays and cost overruns are standard operating procedures. In other words, this is the way it has always been and the way it will always be.

That thinking needs to change especially when the federal budget deficit is at record levels, currently at 1.83 trillion dollars, and growing.

Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen once observed, “A billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking real money.”

Many Americans are carefully monitoring their budgets and adjusting their spending habits on a regular, even daily basis in order to pay their bills for basic living expenses.

Going forward, we need and deserve elected and appointed officials at every level of government to take appropriate steps to ensure funding for all government-funded infrastructure improvement projects is spent efficiently and effectively.

They need to address the fact the current audit process is largely reactive, not proactive.

Concurrently, government project managers must be fully aware of and committed to best practice project management policies and procedures prior to and during large-scale and complex infrastructure improvement projects.

It is common sense to help ensure things go right in the first place as opposed to learning what went wrong after the fact.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Almost twenty-five years ago, Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam wrote Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 

In it, Putnam provides a detailed analysis of the measurable decline of what he calls “social capital” in American society that started in 1950. Putnam also discusses the very serious consequences of that decline. 

Putnam suggests these consequences include, but are not limited to, disengagement from community involvement, decreased voter turnout, low attendance at public meetings, and shrinking memberships in fraternal groups, civic organizations, and political parties. Putnam also cited Americans’ growing distrust in their government. He maintains all of these consequences undermine the active civic engagement that a democracy requires from its citizens. 

Since his book was published, I suggest the decline in social capital in America has reached new low levels, due in large part to long term limited social interactions during the covid pandemic.

This has been especially the case with regards to young children in their formative years (ages birth through age 8) when their brains are most active in the development of how they communicate and interact with the world. 

As I write this commentary, I am in a state of shock about an incident at the October 25th Talbot County GOP Lincoln Reagan Dinner. While the guest speaker was delivering his remarks, he was confronted which led to an arrest and assault charge against the confronting individual.

This occurrence brings back memories of World War II when German Nazis threatened the principles of civil discourse, free speech, and the democratic governance principles of Western society. They came very close to invading Britain which would have almost guaranteed Britain’s surrender and a different end to an epic global struggle between good and evil.

During those dark days, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a master at rallying the British people. During one especially challenging time when there were regular and unpredictable Nazi fire bombings of civilian targets, Churchill said, “In times of great uncertainty, look for great opportunities.” Churchill’s understanding of the value of social capital and his communication skills ultimately led to Britain and Britain’s allies (including the United States) winning World War II.

America is certainly facing times of great uncertainty. Now more than ever America needs a renewed commitment by our citizenry to look for great opportunities to learn about engaging in collaborative efforts to increase and maintain social capital.

A place to start is here. A time to start is now.

There are three outstanding opportunities to do so on the Eastern Shore.

The first opportunity is to read Putnam’s book, which is available at the Talbot County Library. 

The second opportunity is attending an upcoming program sponsored by the Chesapeake Forum, a local not-for-profit academy for lifelong learning. The program topic is – Our lost sense of community – how do we fix it?

This program includes three sessions to be held on November 7, November 14, and November 21 between 10:30 AM and Noon. All sessions are at the YMCA on Peachblossom Road in Easton. For online registration go to chesapeakeforum.org. The registration fee is $50 per person. A reduced registration fee is available. Questions? Email [email protected].

The third opportunity is a Baylor University Baylor in Washington webinar. The webinar topic is Political Desaturation: How to Thrive Before, During, and After the 2024 Election.

Webinar speakers are Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, Curt Thompson, M.D., psychiatrist, author, and speaker, and Elizabeth Oldfield, senior fellow of the think-tank Theos, and a coach and consultant working with purpose-driven individuals and organizations.

Some pertinent observations from the speakers in this free one-hour webinar include: 

Get in the same room. “When human beings get in the same room as each other, they find they have acres in common.” — Curt Thompson

Seek understanding over division. “We’re increasingly capable of being disagreeable; but we’re becoming less capable of disagreeing because it’s harder to understand what another person’s position actually is.” — Robert Talisse Rebuild. “We need to rebuild the civic infrastructure of our common life away from politics.”— Elizabeth Oldfield

The entire Baylor webinar is available for viewing using the following link:

https://washington.web.baylor.edu/events/past-events      

Some may suggest a group of Eastern Shore of Maryland residents reading Putnam’s book, attending a Chesapeake Forum program, and watching a Baylor University zoom meeting will not make a difference in an uncertain world.

I disagree. 

Working together to expand and maintain social capital will make a difference in our community. 

It can also be a much-needed step forward in our society to affirm Margaret Mead’s timeless observation — “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton. 

 

The official voter guide and sample ballot of the Talbot County Board of Elections for Talbot County voters includes the following introduction on upcoming Board of Education elections.

 Non-Partisan Contest

Candidates in this contest may or may not be affiliated with any political party.

This election cycle, at least three Maryland political party organizations will be involved in local board of Education elections at significantly different levels.

One is the Maryland Democratic Party. Recently Maryland Matters reported “The Maryland Democratic Party will spend “tens of thousands of dollars” targeting at least eighteen school board candidates that they maintain are looking to bring a “hateful” and “right-wing agenda” to schools.” 

The article noted the Maryland Democratic Party has never before been involved in nonpartisan races for local boards of education.

The article also noted the Maryland Democratic Party plan includes hiring workers to canvas, knock on doors, and urge voters not to elect twenty-six school board candidates whom the Maryland Democratic Party says support rewriting history, discriminating against kids, and book bans. The Maryland Democratic Party will also provide resources to local Democratic Central committees for helping candidates who support “Democratic and inclusive values.”

Nowhere currently on the Maryland Democratic Party website is a definition of “Democratic values,” nor a mention of supporting candidates who back efforts to improve student achievement scores and ensure safe classroom learning environments.

Maryland Democratic Party leaders say this unprecedented initiative is needed to fight “extremist” agendas favored by certain candidates in eleven Maryland counties — Anne Arundel, Calvert, Carroll, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, St. Mary’s, and Talbot. The party also plans to warn against eight other candidates in Allegany, Cecil, and Washington counties.

In Anne Arundel County, the Maryland Democratic Party has identified three candidates as “extreme” candidates who not only support book bans but are also against those in the LGBTQ community. In a post on “X,” the Maryland Democratic Party has referred to the three candidates as the “Anne Arundel Hate Slate.”

The Maryland Democratic Party is not the first or only political organization to target candidates in school board elections. At least two Republican County Central Committees have either done it or are doing it, albeit on a much smaller scale than the Maryland Democratic Party.

The Cecil County Republican Committee endorsed three Republican school board candidates in 2022. The Calvert County Republican Central Committee endorsed Republican school board candidates in at least two election cycles – 2022 and 2024. 

This year the Calvert County Republican Central Committee website lists three issues for their endorsed candidates – safety and discipline, fiscal responsibility, and educational excellence.

Going forward, it is impossible to predict if, how, or how much, state, and local political party organizations may be involved in local board of education elections and what their campaign messages may be. 

Some may suggest state and local political party organizations have a right to endorse and support local school board candidates. 

They do have that right. The larger question is if they will exercise that right in the correct way. 

The correct way is embracing the principle of civil discourse even with those who hold widely differing opinions. In other words —agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Incorrect ways include referring to certain school board candidates as the “Anne Arundel Hate Slate” and targeting at least eighteen school board candidates who are characterized as looking to bring a “hateful” and “right-wing agenda” to school boards. 

Our society is already dealing with deeply held and seemingly irreconcilable differences on a wide range of public policy issues based largely on vitriolic and divisive messaging from political party organizations. Their continued involvement in local school board elections is almost guaranteed to generate even more divisiveness.

Voter access to information to make informed voting decisions is not an issue. 

Voters already have numerous opportunities to research and evaluate every school board candidate’s background, experience, and views on what they consider to be the most critical issues of the day, as well as their positions, or lack of positions, on those issues. 

These opportunities include but are not limited to information posted on candidate websites, candidate campaign literature, candidate meet and greets, and candidate forums where all candidates are invited to speak and answer questions from attendees. Voters can use all these opportunities to draw their own conclusions on which candidates have views on education matters that resonate best with their views. 

Voters do not need any political organizations to make those conclusions for them. Let the voters and the voters alone decide.

Accordingly, with regard to all future local school board elections, no state and no local political party organizations need to be or should be involved in any way in those elections.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton.