Month: November 2022

While I tend not to write about politics, the recent mid-term election was so fascinating, and seems to auger so many significant developments, that I cannot resist. In doing so, I am aware that I am probably saying nothing that is particularly novel or hasn’t been said by others. (My apologies if it is somewhat Pennsylvania centric).

To recap for those of you who dozed off last Tuesday afternoon, and are just waking up, pundits predicted that this year’s midterm election would result in a significant shift toward Republican officeholders, with both the Senate and House trending red, as well as state elections. Instead, the Democrats retained control of the Senate, shifting one seat in their favor, and probably holding onto all others (assuming Warnock wins the runoff in Georgia). And while the Republicans did take the majority in the House, it was by a slim margin, much less than expected. State results seem to be similar.

A shift would have been no surprise. In the 21 midterm elections held since 1934, only twice has the president’s party gained seats in both the Senate and the House. In 19 of those 21 elections, the President’s party lost seats in the House, often dramatically (for example, there was a 71-member shift against Roosevelt in 1938, and a 48-member shift against Eisenhower in 1958).

With inflation trends over the last year, and the relentless pounding by Republican candidates on crime, it was natural to assume that 2022 would conform with this trend. If ever a President’s party looked poised to lose big, this year was it. That is why the results seem to carry more import than they usually do.

So, what are the takeaways? First, election denial seems to have died on the vine. While many people still believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 Presidential election, this assertion did not sway voters. Even if some people are skeptical about 2020, they want to put that election behind them. And for many voters the boasts of candidates like Mastriano, who suggested that as Governor he would, in essence, pick the state’s Presidential winner, regardless of vote tallies, were a distinct turn-off.

An important consequence of the denial flop is that there is unlikely to be any significant changes in voting laws. After 2020 there was a lot of calls for “reforms” that would cut back on some of the electoral provisions that made voting easier, such as drop off boxes and wider access to mail-in voting. While these proposed changes were supposed to eliminate fraud, they really were designed to restrict access. With the death of the election denial issue, these changes are unlikely to occur, which means that the 2024 election will be conducted under basically the same rules that governed the 2020 election.

Conversely, access to abortion was a big issue, and will likely remain as one. Abortion rights were on the ballot in 5 states, and in each of those states the right to access was affirmed, and it generally was not close. That included Kentucky and Montana, states that are thought of as conservative, joining Kansas in rejecting bans on abortion. In other states, such as Pennsylvania, abortion rights seemed to drive more turnout than you normally see in midterms.

Republican candidates will have to come to terms with abortion, especially in swing states. A call for outright bans, such as that made by Doug Mastriano, simply will not sell. Nor will weaselly responses like that by Mehmet Oz, calling for oversight by “local politicians”. There is still strong anti-abortion sentiment out there, but politicians inclined to cater to that base will have to figure out how to tap that sentiment without provoking a significant backlash. Good luck.

Perhaps realizing the limited reach of anti-abortion rhetoric and election denial, Republicans chose to make law and order central to their election theme. This issue should have had more of an impact than it did. It has been a successful ploy in years gone by, and violent crime has risen over the last few years. Yet, while many polls confirmed that crime was a concern, it did not seem to sway many voters.

Part of the problem was the Purge-like commercials that Republicans chose to highlight crime. For many, those videos reinforced their view of the cities that they avoid, but those people were going to vote Republican anyway. For those who live or work in cities, the videos were caricatures of a much more intractable problem. It is simplistic to suggest that the increase in crime is the fault of one party, or that the other could eliminate lawlessness. Voters may have been concerned about crime but were not impressed by such hyperbole. Crime will remain a viable issue in elections to come, but more locally than nationally.

All of this confirms a trend that will undoubtedly continue, which is that the center will be hard to hold. In the final weeks of the campaign, Dr. Oz tried desperately to paint himself as a centrist, running adds that claimed he would bring balance back to Washington. The problem was that he could not run away from the perception that he was Trump’s man, and that undermined any confidence in his posture as someone who would reach across the aisle.

The primary system will continue reward the more partisan politicians. Winning a nomination for a national office will require voicing positions on key issues, like abortion, that will be difficult to backtrack on in a general election. Unless the electorate in both parties move back to the center, candidates reluctant to be strident in their stances are unlikely to prevail with their party. I just don’t see that happening soon.    

Finally, there is the elephant on the room – Donald J. Trump. Candidates backed by the ex-President and touting his favorite issue – election denial – did not fare well. I am sure he envisioned the announcement of his 2024 Presidential bid as coming on the crest of a red tide that would allow him to say, “See, I really did win in 2020”. His inability to make that claim, leaves him with little new to say.

There is no doubt that most Republican politicians would love to see him go away, but it will not be that easy. He will be difficult to beat in the primaries. Trump still has a massive and rabid following. Republicans shun him at their peril. He is egomaniacal and vindictive and will use his popularity as long and as aggressively as he can.

However, it is hard to picture Trump winning in 2024. He is a lightening rod, and if he runs, he will be the issue. The turnout against him will be huge. Other potential Republican talking points will not matter. People will vote, and vote in droves, so that he does not become President again, maybe even more so than in 2020.

That does not mean the Democrats should be complacent. The midterms cannot be seen as an endorsement of Joe Biden. People are concerned about inflation and crime. They will expect to see progress on these and other issues over the next two years, even with a Republican-majority House. Failure to move forward on their agenda could jeopardize the support of the younger voters the Democrats need.

Well, that is that, for what it is worth. Like more prognosticators, I probably am reading too much into the tea leaves. American politics will take its twists and turns, and heaven knows where we will end up. But 2024 will be on us before we know it, and one thing is for sure – it will be interesting.       

I was walking on the Schuylkill Trail recently, enjoying a beautiful spring day in November, when I noticed a woman with a T-shirt emblazoned with the Trenton New Jersey slogan, “Trenton Makes – The World Takes”. I have often seen this slogan displayed proudly on a railroad trestle while crossing the bridge headed toward the Trenton Amtrak Station. Every time I do, I wonder what could have possessed the city leaders to choose and then so blatantly promote a town motto that sounds so peevish. The woman’s T-shirt prompted me to answer that question.

Not surprisingly, the Trenton motto came out of a slogan contest sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce looking to spread the city’s industrial achievements. Such contests are generally a bad idea, though they can produce some interesting entries. John Oliver highlighted the contest to design a refashioned New Zealand flag, which prompted some wonderfully quirky designs, to say the least. Not that you would actually want to adopt any of them.

Considering the slogan Trenton embraced, there must have been some intriguing runners-up. Like, “We do all the work, but you take all the credit”. Or maybe, “You’re just jealous because we’re great”. Or “I do all my chores, you don’t, but mommy still likes you best”. Anticipating the placement of the motto on the bridge, there might have been an entry for “Our slogan is bigger than your slogan”.

In 1910, when the slogan was adopted, Trenton’s biggest industries were pottery and rubber. You would think that might have prompted slogans like, “Trenton – we always bounce back.” I also like, “Trenton – shaping the world, one jug at a time.” Those are slogans that a city can build on.

Trenton is not alone in having a less than ideal city motto. Mount Horab, Wisconsin sells itself as “The Troll Capital.” That might have been OK when trolls conjured up weird little guys with wild hair and big feet, but in today’s world of social media, it is a bit off-putting. Utica, New York, showing a negative self-worth that would make Trentonians proud, bills itself as “The City that God Forgot”.* Considering the hurricanes, flooding and earthquakes elsewhere, that might not be as bad as it sounds.

Lest you think that odd city slogans are solely an American phenomenon, Tisdale, Canada bills itself as “The Land of Rape and Honey”, rape apparently (hopefully) referring to the rapeseed grown in that area (those crazy Canadians). It seems that Dunedin, New Zealand doesn’t want to get your hopes too high with “It’s all right here.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement. While I don’t think it was an official slogan, Toronto wits commemorated a bad time a few years back by erecting an entry sign that said “Welcome to Ontario’s Capital. Our hockey team sucks and our mayor smokes crack.”

Promoting a city is just not that simple. Here in Philadelphia, we got lucky. Our name lends itself to the catchy slogan of “The City of Brotherly Love”. We really don’t have to live up to that moniker. It isn’t as if it was adopted because we are all such wonderful, welcoming folk. In fact, we often rank as one of the rudest cities in the U.S., but no matter. It’s like calling Los Angeles the “City of Angels”. If it wasn’t literal, it would be ironic.

New York is big enough, it doesn’t have to worry about promotion, and can adopt a slogan as meaningless and vague as “The Big Apple”. I have no idea where that came from, or what it is supposed to mean, and while I could look it up, I don’t want to. It’s better to just repeat it as if it’s somehow profound, nod your head knowingly, and move on.

Cities like Trenton and Utica don’t have that luxury. If they want people to take notice, they have to come up with something original and catchy. Some cities just settle for the bland and uninspiring, like Rockville, Maryland’s “Get into it”, or Rochester, New York’s “I’d Rather Be in Rochester – It’s Got It”. My guess is that these cities spent big bucks to come up with and promote these witty bon mots, but since no one will ever be inspired, or even remember them, a slogan contest may have been the way to go.

While it’s easy to deride city slogans, it’s much harder to come up with one. I’ve tried with Trenton, but all I could come up with is “Trenton – We’re Kind of Midway Between New York and Philly.” Or, “Trenton – The New Jersey State Capital, For What That’s Worth”. They could update the current slogan with “Trenton Used to Make, But the World Took it All, and Now We have Nothing!!” I admit, none of these are bridge worthy.

Maybe the bottom line is that city legislators should focus on things other than slogans if they want people to remember their city. They should highlight the attractions that make them worth an exit off the highway. Let’s face it, no one comes to Philadelphia for hugs. They come for the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall (and the cheesesteaks). Similarly, people don’t go to Trenton to relive past manufacturing glory, but for the Yankees AAA team, a couple of decent museums and access to places like Princeton. And yes, to see the “Trenton Makes – The World Takes” bridge. Not earthshaking, but it’s a start.

*I must admit, all of these slogans may not be official. That doesn’t make them less fun.

There is a scene in Tim Burton’s 1989 movie “Batman” where Jack Nicholson as the Joker leads his band of merry men on a rampage through the Fluegelheim Art Museum in Gotham City. Suggesting that his henchman broaden their minds, Nicholson orchestrates a parade defacing and destroying the artwork, accompanied by a Prince jam called Partyman. The scene ends with the Joker’s minions throwing buckets of paint onto a series of recognizable masterpieces, including works by Rembrandt and Degas.

I have read several articles calling this one of the best in all the Batman movies. They may be right, because it is the one that stuck with me even after most of this Batman film blended into all the others. I always found the pure random chaos of this sequence extremely disturbing.

This scene came to mind recently when climate activists Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland threw a can of tomato soup across Vincent van Gogh’s iconic “Sunflowers” painting inside the National Gallery in London. Plummer and Holland justified their act as bringing attention to their campaign to obtain a government commitment to end the issuance of licenses and consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the UK.

A climate change protest also occurred here in Philadelphia at the halftime of the Penn/Yale game. Roughly 75 students overran Franklin Field protesting their school’s inaction on climate change. The protesters, a campus advocacy group called Fossil Free Penn, wants Penn to divest its holdings in the fossil fuel industry, as well as invest in Philadelphia public schools, and provide aid for families in affordable housing. 

The Penn protestors were apparently channeling another pop culture stalwart, Don McLean’s “American Pie”. Like the marching band in that song, when the players tried to take the field for the second half, the protestors refused to yield. McLean never tells us what happened when the players and band clashed, though having been a band nerd for many years, I would guess it wasn’t pretty. At Penn, the protesters were cuffed, led away and charged with defiant trespass (as opposed to amenable trespass).

To me there is a world of difference between these protests. While both were peaceful, the London defacing of the Van Gogh was a direct attack upon the artistic legacy that helped reframe how we look at the world. The protestors swear that the painting was not permanently damaged, which the museum confirmed. I wish that I could be so confident, but I have had enough cheap tomato soup to think that it could eat through anything (hopefully it wasn’t Campbells, though considering Warhol’s Soup Cans, that may have been fitting).

The London attack echoed not only Batman, but the destruction by the Taliban and ISIS of irreplaceable relics of our past. The obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in 2001 and the ransacking of the Mesopotamian antiquities in the Mosul Museum were designed to eliminate rivals to the hard line philosophies of these organizations, real or imagined. Presumably, the Sunflowers protestors had no such intent. Yet, in their desire for publicity they risked a similar result.

This goes back to the age-old question of whether the ends justify the means. I am sympathetic to the aims of Plummer and Holland in a way that I could never be to the ugly, narrow religious visions of the Taliban and ISIS, but still my inclination is to turn away in disgust. The message behind their actions was lost in the revulsion engendered by seeing a masterwork defaced.

In contrast, the Penn protest welcomed reflection on the issues raised. Penn is a huge, incredibly wealthy institution in Philadelphia that is exempt from real estate taxes. That is all well and good, but with great benefit comes great responsibility. They should find ways to support the struggling Philadelphia schools that could sorely use the revenue that would be generated by a tax on the Penn holdings. They also need to be cognizant of the implications of expansion on their neighbors. The Penn protest highlighted these issues.

It also brought to the fore institutional complicity in climate change. Since many Penn Professors, such as recently hired Michael Mann, are leaders in the fight on environmental issues, Penn should look at whether its investment policies are contrary to its own faculty research. The football protest raised this issue without causing any damage persons or property. The protestors did not pillage the Penn Museum of Anthropology and Archeology or throw hummus on Andrew Wyeth’s Early Morning in the Penn art collection to make their point. To me, it made their protest that much more effective.

I admit that it’s unfair to compare Plummer and Holland to the Taliban and ISIS. They are unlikely to chop off any heads or ban girls from schools. Yet, it’s unclear where they go from here if their National Gallery stunt does not get them the attention they desire. Will they decide that an ultimately harmless act is not enough and actually cause damage? Will they topple Stonehenge or decapitate the Peter Pan statute in Kensington Gardens? Maybe that’s unlikely, but so was the thought of someone throwing Creamy Tomato at Van Gogh.

So, what is my rule for terrorists? Don’t do anything that would convince the rest of us that we would not want to live in a world where you are in charge. I do not trust the judgement of Plummer and Holland, no matter what their intent. On the other hand, the issues raised by Fossil Free Penn deserve consideration, not handcuffs, even if they did delay the second half. I know that looking for rationality from terrorists is absurd, but if the whole point is making a point, then they should step back and think about the message they are sending.       

The University of Pennsylvania added a new wrinkle to their undergraduate admissions this year. Prospective students are to write a thank-you note to someone they would like to acknowledge. They are then encouraged to share that note with the person being thanked. This is in addition to the usual prompts, such as “If you could choose to be raised by robots, dinosaurs or aliens, who would you pick? Why?”, and “Tell us about spiders.” (Actual college prompts, though not from Penn).

These prompts are supposed to give the school a sense of the student outside of the raw GPA numbers and their chosen extra-curricular activities. According to Whitney Soule, Dean of Admissions at Penn, the gratitude prompt was “an opportunity that benefits the applicants and those of us who get to read their answers”. In other words, Penn was including this as a public service to the prospective student, and a morale builder for its employees. As the Church Lady would say, “Isn’t that special”.

To be clear, I am not anti-gratitude. I think that gratitude is a wonderful quality to possess, and that everyone should recognize those that have helped them along the way. Too often we are inclined to attribute success to our own efforts, when the truth of the matter is that achievement is rarely individual. It takes support, encouragement, and a good bit of luck to thrive.

Nor do I underestimate the task college admissions officials have before them. According to Ms. Soule, Penn receives 55,000 applications each year, for a freshman class of 2,400. Even if half of the submissions can be dismissed out of hand, that leaves an incredible pool to assess, especially now that SAT/ACT scores have become less important, and admissions offices look to implement important university goals, like diversity and community engagement.

I also acknowledge that prompts have a place in this system. There must be some mechanism whereby a student can try to shine outside of the cold academic numbers, whether they be GPA’s or test scores. Extra-curricular activities help, but they are easily exaggerated. Knowing that a high schooler was the founder of a quidditch club, donated time to save the nematodes, and was on a team that placed first in the regional Odyssey of the Mind competition may make for interesting conversation, but does it tell you anything about the student? Not really.

That being said, including an extra prompt to “benefit the applicants, and those who get to read the submissions” stops just short of cruel and unusual punishment. Any kid that has a legitimate shot at getting into Penn is probably applying to another 6 – 12 schools of comparable quality, since there is no way to assure acceptance regardless of your academic record. Each of these schools is going to have its own set of prompts (“What advice would a wisdom tooth have?”, or “Which Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavor (real or imagined) best describes you?”). The admissions staff has thousands of prompts to review while making difficult decisions that will inevitably knock out numerous worthy applicants. Are either really benefited by this additional task?

And task it is. I have no doubt that more than 95% of those applying will look at this prompt as just one more box they need to tick to complete a long and arduous process, and miss the benefit being conferred. Can you blame them? The common app may make the basic application easier than it once was, but with all the prompts, the need to secure recommendations, and the other hoops involved in seeking acceptance at top schools, the stress is significant. What 17-year-old needs more?

And let’s not forget that these kids are still in school. They need to study for the next test, write the next paper, and complete the next lab report. Then there are those pesky extra-curricular activities they committed to, which the colleges so love, and which give them so much more than an application prompt ever could. All that needs to be handled while filling out these applications. One thing is for sure, their gratitude note won’t be written to the admissions department for making them jump through this extra hoop (though that may be a good ploy).

This minor bit of social engineering points to a larger problem with higher education. It all too often seems designed not for the students, but for other constituencies, most usually alumni and donors. Schools are more worried about questionable rankings (No. 1 Mid-Atlantic Phys-Ed program at a medium sized school in a rural setting) and inflated placement statistics (Bob is an Assistant Manager at Popeye’s!!) than they are about producing adults ready for the world beyond academia.

I am probably overstating my point. Colleges are filled with faculty and administrators that care deeply about the students. They are ready, willing and able to provide support, encouragement and advice so the students can succeed. However, that attitude seems to get lost at an institutional level where the current undergrads seem low on the priority list, unless, of course, mommy and daddy are major donors.

So, I will write my thank you note to all of those in the University system who fight that trend, embrace the students, and see them as the center of the college mission. In the meantime, good luck to those applicants going through the process. See it not as a lesson in gratitude, but another opportunity to show patience with your elders who mean so well.   

*No pictures today. I couldn’t find anything useful that was not copyrighted. Bummer.