While teaching at Miami University, I was once asked to be part of a visioning exercise at a Cincinnati architecture firm.  The purpose?  To discuss the mindset of recent college graduates and how that might affect their recruiting and business model in the future.

My invitation was based on an article in Miami Magazine about the creativity class I developed as part of the entrepreneurship curriculum.  A second panelist was William Strauss, co-author of the book Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069.  As I entered the large conference room and went over to introduce myself to Strauss, something about him looked strangely familiar.  Had I watched a televised interview about the book or seen his portrait on the back cover in some bookstore?  It was only when he said “hello” I made the connection.  This was the same Bill Strauss, who, in 1981, co-founded the satirical music ensemble The Capitol Steps, a project which began as Senate staff entertainment at a Christmas party and, until the pandemic, performed weekends at the their own theater in the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.  NOTE:  Sadly, Strauss died in 2007, after an eight year battle against pancreatic cancer.

As we start to emerge from the combined health and economic crisis precipitated by the spread of the coronavirus, I think about Strauss and the lasting effect of the past 15 months.  In Generations, Strauss and co-author Neil Howe establish the “Strauss-Howe generational theory,” described as follows on Wikipedia.

According to the theory, historical events are associated with recurring generational personas (archetypes). Each generational persona unleashes a new era (called a turning) lasting around 20–25 years, in which a new social, political, and economic climate (mood) exists. They are part of a larger cyclical “saeculum” (a long human life, which usually spans between 80 and 100 years, although some saecula have lasted longer). The theory states that a crisis recurs in American history after every saeculum, which is followed by a recovery (high). During this recovery, institutions and communitarian values are strong. Ultimately, succeeding generational archetypes attack and weaken institutions in the name of autonomy and individualism, which eventually creates a tumultuous political environment that ripens conditions for another crisis.

These critical events are labelled “crucibles.”  While Strauss and Howe document 500 years of such crucibles, I will focus on the last century of generation-shaping experiences from the Great Depression to World War II to John Kennedy’s assassination to 9/11 to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The first four fit the Strauss-Howe theory.  Each brought on a period of national unity eventually eroded by another crisis, the best example being the era of social and economic progress immediately following Kennedy’s death which disappeared with each increase in engagement in the Vietnam war.

The last six months raise a different question.  What happens if there are two or more competing crucibles?  Take January 2021.  During the first month of the new year, the death count from COVID-19 in the United States reached a high point of 102,014.  According to Strauss and Howe, such a traumatic shock to the populace should have triggered a recovery characterized by national unity and strong community values.  However, at the same time, America experienced an equally shocking moment on January 6th when a sitting president incited an armed insurrection designed to prevent Congress from carrying out its constitutional mandate of certifying a presidential election.

Why does it matter?  Twenty years ago, our daughter was a freshman in college on 9/11.  In response to an attack on the homeland, she enrolled in ROTC and now serves as a major in the U.S. Air Force, something no one could have predicted based on her pre-9/11 behavior. Generations contains many similar individual examples how a half millennium of historical events changed the course of people’s lives. If I could share our daughter’s story with Bill Strauss, I imagine he would say, “See, that’s exactly what Neil and I are talking about.”

But what about current freshmen in college?  What will be their personal crucible?  The fact that their transformation from adolescence to adulthood, being on your own for the first time, was interrupted?  Or for the first time in 200 years, the U.S. Capitol was breached, not by a foreign adversary, but by domestic terrorists?  How many young men and women will join the medical profession or become first responders?  And how many will join armed militias or conspiracy-based organizations such as Q-Anon?

What did Strauss and Howe miss that would help us understand “dueling crucibles?”  Maybe it was their belief that the cycle of crisis and recovery was the natural order of things.  However, in hindsight it appears a necessary variable is a leader who understands what Rahm Emanuel once stated, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  Think FDR after the depression, LBJ after the assassination, George W. Bush after 9/11.  In contrast, Trump will forever claim he would have been re-elected by a landslide but for the pandemic.  FDR, LBJ and W, based on their experience would tell him otherwise.  “When you take control of a crisis, regardless how bad, you win.  When you let it control you, you lose.”

Of one thing I am sure.  If Bill Strauss were still around on January 6th, he too would never think of “The Capitol Steps” in the same way.  In 1981, he and troupe co-founder Elaina Newport chose the name based on a rumor which became a widely repeated joke in D.C. political circles.  Rita Jenrette gave an interview in which she claimed she once made love to her then husband Congressman John Jenrette (R-LA) on the stairs to the east entrance of the building.  That meme (I know, an anachronism in 1981) led to a Rita Jennette Playboy cover and photo spread.  What happened on those steps in 2021 was neither a rumor nor funny.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Ten days have passed since former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on three counts of murder and manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.  The commentary since the verdict has focused on three things.  First, whether justice was served.  Second, whether this is a single moment in time or evidence Martin Luther King, Jr. was correct when he said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  And third, whether testimony of senior leadership in the Minneapolis police department against Chauvin now gives the overwhelming majority of decent, dedicated law enforcement officers new license to speak out when one of their own acts outside the law, department policy or their training.

Let’s be honest.  Yes, the Floyd family called for peaceful protests and told those who looted and set fires they dishonored Floyd’s memory.  But the atmosphere surrounding mass assemblies of justifiably angry and frustrated individuals creates an environment in which violence and destruction, though not inevitable, becomes more likely.  Sometimes it is simply the result of those participating in peaceful dissent being caught up in the moment.  In any protest, the fuel is there.  And all it takes is one stupid act by one individual to produce the spark.

In other instances, the perpetrators are opportunists who see a Black Lives Matter protest as a façade to commit crimes with little or no interest in the underlying reason for a demonstration.  It is the street version of “any excuse for a party,” except the “celebration” ends in property destruction and injury instead of hangovers and random accumulations of vomit.

However, the lasting impact of the Chauvin verdict may have less to do with justice for George Floyd than it has on responses to subsequent instances where the use of excessive and deadly force is at issue.  One need look no further than the six fatal shootings by police within 24 hours of the Chauvin verdict, five of which involved persons of color.  Each involves very different situations and needs to be looked at separately.  Even in the case of Andrew Brown, Jr., where reluctance by Elizabeth City, North Carolina officials to share the unredacted body cam video with the public, much less with the Brown family, there have been protests without the attendant violence or destruction associated with previous marches.

All of which leads me to the conclusion the single most significant winner in the debate over police reform and criminal justice is…PATIENCE.  Remember,  George Floyd died on Memorial Day 2020.  It took almost 11 months before Derek Chauvin was lead out of the courtroom in handcuffs.  In the aftermath of Floyd’s murder, the looting and property destruction took place simultaneously with the first protest marches immediately after the release of Darnella Frazier’s video.

Consider the difference between May 2020 and today.  Last year, the debate on how to stem social unrest was reactive, centering on the appropriate level of deployment of more law enforcement and the national guard.  “Law and order” advocates on the right wanted us to believe protesters and rioters were one and the same.  These issues have not been necessary the past ten days despite the continued instances of fatal police shootings.

Why?  Maybe the root cause of the metamorphosis of protests into riots was never about the circumstances of any individual event but a lack of belief in a system of law enforcement and criminal justice.  The Black Lives Matter has sent a powerful message to members of Congress over the past week and a half.  If you really want to curb violent and destructive social unrest, the best way to do that is passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.  It will reinforce and institutionalize the level playing field that existed in the Hennepin County courtroom during the Chauvin trial.  A playing field on which we are willing to wait because we know the facts and the law can prevail.  The question, as always, “Will they listen?”

POSTSCRIPT

Open letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy:

Look at the following pictures and please explain why you think there is no difference between the Black Lives Matter movement and the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.

Attorney Ben Crump and families of victims of deadly police force came to the Capitol yesterday to encourage passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Insurrectionists storm the Capitol on January 6th to interrupt certification of the 2020 electoral vote.

It is time for an independent commission to investigate the attack on the Capitol and the underlying causes.  Do not delay its creation by making false equivalencies about the motivation and scope of these very different events.

I anxiously await your response as I lack the patience of the Floyd and Brown families.
Dr. ESP

What do sports and the American judicial system have in common?  Both employ an individual or individuals tasked with responsibility for interpreting and then enforcing the rules.  And in each arena, the measure of an official’s performance is quite counter-intuitive.  The highest benchmark of excellence is often the extent to which that party is invisible.

To understand this maxim, look no farther than the pass interference non-call in the 2019 NFC championship game between the the New Orleans Saints and the Los Angeles Rams.  An otherwise well-played, sustained effort by both teams was overshadowed by what became known as “the snafu under the dome.”  And Bill Vinovich, the game’s referee, became a household name.

I thought about Vinovich as I watched Judge Peter Cahill give final instructions to the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial before they left the courtroom to begin deliberations.  NOTE:  I had to just now look up Cahill’s name as I could not remember it after four weeks of watching him preside over the case.  What higher praise can any legal adjudicator earn?  This is not always the case. (Can you say Lance Ito?  I knew you could.)

It was 5:00 p.m. EDT when the jury was dismissed, just in time to switch to ESPN to get my daily dose of analysis of the previous day’s sports highlights.  However, as I reached for the remote, Cahill indicated he had some unfinished business with the prosecution and defense lawyers.   For the same reason one should never leave a movie theater before the final credits play out, I stayed with the trial coverage, wondering if I might get a preview of what might come post the jury’s verdict, especially if Chauvin was found guilty.

I am glad I did.  What followed was the true test of Cahill’s handling of the proceedings.  If found guilty, Chauvin would be subject to Minnesota sentencing guidelines which have different prison terms and fines depending on whether the crime is considered simple versus aggravated assault.  The defendant  is given the option whether that decision is made by the judge or by a jury.  When asked, Chauvin waived his right to a jury, leaving the decision to Cahill.  Wow!!  Even if convicted of second degree murder, the defendant thought enough of the judge’s fairness during the trial he was willing to trust him with a decision which could mean a significantly greater level of punishment.

It did not end there.  Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s lead defense attorney, then asked for a mistrial.  First, he focused on what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct during the state’s closing arguments.  When prosecutor Jerry Blackwell referred to the defense’s analysis of the evidence as “stories” versus “the truth,” Nelson objected claiming Blackwell’s choice of words was demeaning and violated legal precedent.  Without a moment’s hesitation, Cahill reminded Nelson why he had overruled the objection and why he had also warned Blackwell to be careful how he characterized the defense.

Nelson then suggested California Representative Maxine Waters had influenced the outcome when she called for more protests and confrontation on the streets if Chauvin is acquitted.  Nelson claimed this was a threat of more violence if the jury did not convict his client.  In the tradition of King Solomon, Cahill cut the baby in half.  First he chastised Waters and all other elected officials who showed such disrespect for the judicial system.  Moreover, he warned that Waters words could give the defense the opening it sought to declare a mistrial.  “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”  SIDEBAR: Where were all Waters’ critics when the former guy incited an insurrection of January 6th?

Then he explained in detail why he would not declare a mistrial.  He trusted the jury.  He had ordered them not to watch the news and had no reason to believe they had not followed his instructions.  In hindsight, I now understood what I thought was an overemphasis on the role of implicit bias during his final instructions to the jury 30 minutes earlier.  He acknowledged we all have such prejudices, but awareness of them gives each of us the opportunity to look beyond these natural predilections.  He was pointing out the difference between opinion and evidence, and the only thing that mattered when it came to the defendant’s guilt or innocence was the evidence.

Regardless of the verdict, the Chauvin trial is one more example that government, in the hands of competent individuals, can fulfill its constitutional potential.  How refreshing after four years of sound bites and tribalism to know the police will not always protect a rogue officer, there are capable prosecutors who rely on the evidence to make their case and there are citizens who fulfill their responsibility as jurors and eye-witnesses in the pursuit of justice.

But above all, if I were to be a defendant in a court of law, when the bailiff asks me to rise because “here comes the judge,” I hope it is Peter Cahill or someone with his wisdom and demeanor.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP