History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Fourth Turning is Here (What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End)
Author: Neil Howe
Narration by: Neil Howe
Neil Howe (American author, historian, economist, and consultant.)
Neil Howe argues the United States is in the middle of a crisis. He views political polarization is as great today as it was during the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression. He suggests society has broken into two “mega-identities” that is evident in the news of the day. He sees a red and blue American society with a distinct part of society being rural/suburban, evangelical or traditionalist, nationalist, anti-elite, and distrustful of institutions. The other side is urban/metropolitan, secular and pluralist, cosmopolitan, and pro-institution with a trust in expertise. (In fairness to the author, this reviewer did not listen to Howe’s entire book.)
Generational beliefs.
Howe goes on to suggest there is a generational quality to these two camps. Boomers are those born between 1943 and 1960 (my generation). Generation X born from 1961-1981, Millennials (1982-2004), and Generation Z (2005-to the present). The problem with this broad categorization of Americans is that one can see themselves in each generations view of American government and society. Americans are both Red and Blue, believe strongly in the equality of human beings, are skeptical of absolutes, and believe in common good and the importance of government. Americans are relatively free human beings who will ultimately make the right decision to preserve the health and well-being of democratic society.
Is immigration an American crisis or a discouraged opportunity?
Howe argues today’s America is at a once-in-a-century crisis. He suggests American governance has become too polarized and that institutions of government are decaying in ways that are diminishing the economic prosperity and influence of democracy in the world. Polarization is not new to America. One who has reached a Boomer’s age remembers political polarization from the excesses of America during Vietnam. The mistakes and lies of the Johnson administration are not unlike the lies of Donald Trump. Democrat’s support of Johnson’s Great Society created too many programs like urban renewal and anti-poverty that remind one of Republican’s support of Trump’s overzealous deregulation of environmental protection, finance of projects to aggrandize his reputation, and welfare policies that penalize the poor. Both Johnson and Trump show poor management of their major policy initiatives. The social and political consequence of their mismanagement has damaged America’s economy and influence in the world. Both Johnson and Trump represent what can go wrong in a democracy but is eventually corrected by elections of future leaders founded on the principles of the Constitution.
Johnson’s Great Society.
There are differences and similarities between Johnson and Trump. The obvious difference is the parties to which they belong. Johnson creates bureaucratic sprawl and economic waste by expanding government services while Trump creates bureaucratic ineptitude through fragmentation from arbitrary firing of government employees. Both Presidents believe they are benefiting American society while they made decisions that damaged the economy and diminished the value of democratic governance. The extent of their damage did and will take time to repair but the structure of America’s democratic government assures its recovery.
History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government.
Lincoln is elected to take the giant step needed to put America back on the path of human equality and opportunity. Franklin Roosevelt saved America from economic collapse. Just as Lincoln is not survived by a President who reinforces equality of Americans, the same will likely be true for the next President after Trump. But, as Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.
Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Vast Enterprise (A New History of Lewis & Clark)
Author: Craig Fehrman
Narration by: Jason Culp & 5 more
Craig Fehrman (Author, journalist, historian of Presidents and American history.)
Craig Fehrman writes an excellent history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. It entertains and informs reader/listeners of the lives of Meriwhether Lewis, William Clark, an enslaved man named York, and a tribal native named Sacagawea. From President Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning and his decision to create an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific, one learns something new, old, and troubling about America.
Thomas Jeffereson (1743-1826, President of the U.S. 1801-1809.)
Thomas Jefferson is characterized as a shrewd, partisan, and forceful political operator who had a clear vision for the future of continental America. That prescient vision of America by Jefferson hides his blindness to the truth of human equality of Black men and women as inferior to white men. However, Fehrman notes Jefferson believes natives of this continent had the potential to be the equal of white Americans. Jefferson’s shrewdness and forceful opinion is illustrated by his understanding of the importance of trading posts as a way to expand control of land possessed by native inhabitants and held by Spanish and French interests. Lewis and Clark’s western expedition is, in Jefferson’s opinion, critical to America’s future land interests.
Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark (American Explorers.)
Both Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark are characterized as relatively educated colonial citizens suited for an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific. Though both leaders for the expedition were heroic, their personalities, leadership styles, and temperaments were quite different. Lewis is characterized as brilliant but an inwardly volatile man, while Clark is a steady, self-confident manager of people. Lewis is the visionary who works in the Jefferson’ administration as secretary to the President while Clark is former military officer who gets things done with people who report to him. Lewis clearly understood Jefferson’s objective in exploring the west, its diplomatic purpose, and geopolitical importance. Clark’s frontier experience, military discipline, and surveying skill served Lewis’s understanding of Jefferson’s objectives.
Lewis & Clark Expedition
Both Lewis and Clark understood they were not only entering a wilderness but a continent full of other nations which made them effective negotiators and intermediaries with native tribes. Lewis’s intellectual understanding of Jefferson’s objectives is complimented by Clark’s skill in managing native tribe relationships. With the help of a Black slave owned by Clark and a native Shoshone woman married to a French trader, this former military man manages to gain the aid of the Lakota, Shoshone, and other tribes to save the Lewis and Clark expedition from failure.
Image of York (Slave owned by William Clark.)
The history of York (Clark’s owned slave) in the expedition is interesting. What the author, York, and enlisted members of the expedition show is that Lewis and Clark were dependent on their crew for the success of the mission. Men like York provide the labor and skill needed to complete the journey. As a young adult, York shows the value of all human beings to the success of the expedition while being a slave. The sad fact is that York is never released from his bondage to Clark. Despite York’s alleged inferiority, Clark relies on him for his field abilities and reminds reader/listeners of the importance of other cultures and ethnicities that make America. Fehrman infers York is a symbolic bridge between ethnic worlds; i.e. not just the Black and White world but the native and English American world. York is an example the difference of human beings in America; i.e., from people of color to native tribes in a dominant white culture. Fehrman’s story infers human difference reinforces belief that native tribes (Black, white, or other) could co-exist though not be treated as equal human beings. This is no stretch of a reader/listener’s imagination based on America’s history of Indian/American wars and slavery. There is one native American that travels with Lewis and Clark. She is Sacagawea, the only woman on the expedition. Her story reflects on America’s view of women as property despite their contribution to life and their contribution to social and economic society.
Image of Sacagawea on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Fehrman suggests Sacagawea is a full participant in the expedition. To Fehrman she represents a symbol of Native nations. Sacagawea and York became part of the diplomatic fabric of the journey demonstrating the truth of human equality. Sacagawea became pregnant from her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Her baby is born on the expedition. Charbonneau had two native wives, the first of which did not accompany them on the expedition. Sacagawea had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa tribe in a war with the Shoshone when she is 12. Charbonneau is 20 years older than Sacagawea. Sacagawea is 13 when she is forced to marry Charbonneau by the Hidatsa. The tribe had traded goods with Charbonneau. Sacagawea and Charbonneau are reluctantly hired by Lewis and Clark for the expedition. Both act as interpreters on the expedition but Fehrman argues Sacagawea represents more than being a translator because of her heritage and knowledge of the territory through which they will travel. Sacagawea’s Shoshone tribal heritage had diplomatic value beyond mere language interpretation. On the other hand, Charbonneau seems more a liability than asset to Lewis and Clark.
Shoshone Tribe in western America.
Fehrman shows the expeditionary Americans were not dominant actors in their relationships with native tribes. In the wilderness, they acted more as guests or supplicants in their dealings with various tribes. They recognized they were outsiders that needed political alliances with native tribes because they had meager knowledge of the territory and customs of indigenous tribes who controlled the river lands they explored. Their need for food, horses, guides, and knowledge of the land depends on their relationships with indigenous tribes. Without tribal help and guidance, they would have no protection or chance of safe passage. Native tribes provide horses and information that kept them on their course to the west and saved them from starvation and death. It is a combination of Jefferson’s somewhat arrogant plan for the country’s consolidation for the expeditionary force to be dependent upon indigenous tribes who are repeatedly deprived of their land in America’s growth as a nation. It is the explorer’s humbleness and humility that allows Lewis and Clark to succeed in growing an American continent that historically suppresses indigenous land ownership and use.
Most Shoshone Tribes appear more southwestern than northwestern.
Indigenous tribes were politically naive in their aid to American explorers. Without tribal’ naivete, the early days of America’s influence and growth as a singular nation would have failed. One presumes, the continent would have remained a land of tribal ownership and internecine conflicts over land and natural resources. In the early years of American government, it is humbleness, humility, and the growth of trade between natives and early Americans that transform a land of native tribal presence into a singular nation among nations. In Fehrman’s opinion the prime mover of that accomplishment began with Thomas Jefferson and “The Vast Enterprise” of explorers like Lewis and Clark.
The last chapters of Fehrman’s book leave listener/readers with notes about Lewis, Clark, York, and Sacagawea that are sad to read or hear. Lewis becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. Clark refuses to give York his freedom. York dies from cholera while Clark lives a life of success and power. Clark becomes governor of -Missouri Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Sacagawea is leaves her French husband and dies at Fort Manuel in 1812.
Robert Frost (1874-1963.)
Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise”.
To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Young China (How the Restless Generation Will Change Their Country and the World)
Author: Zak Dychtwald
Narration by: Zak Dychtwald
Zak Dychtwald (Author, public speaker, fluent Mandarin speaker, world traveler, graduate of Columbia University who moved to China and spent 4 years interviewing local Chinese.)
“Young China” is a fascinating comparison of a world traveler’s perception of the difference between young Americans and Chinese youths. A reservation one has in listening to Dychtwald’s explanation of Chinese youth is whether a 4-year immersion in a foreign culture constitutes a society’s truth or just a topical view of an intelligent observer who gravitates to students of similar ambition.
America’s Achilles heel.
Not knowing the author’s life experience, one assumes he has not lived the life of most American college students of his generation. As a graduate of Columbia, his decision to learn Mandarin Chinese, and choice to travel to China for a four year stay suggests he is not a typical American youth. Further, as the meaning of the saying “Birds of a feather flock together”, one presumes his choice of interviewees is not likely to be typical Chinese college students but those who excel in intelligence and academic pursuit.
Contrast of lives in China.
The main Chinese youths whom the author interviews and becomes acquainted with are Ben, Vivian, Chen, Liu, and Mei. Ben–who is a striver who has a rural background. Vivian is a young professional woman who speaks English and comes from the middle class. Chen is a university student who embraces nationalist beliefs of young Chinese. Liu is a young teenager who experiences the meritocratic pressure of academic achievement in China. And finally, Mei is a young Chinese college student dealing with job aspirations, dating, marriage pressure, and career ambitions.
Education is the great strength of China.
In some sense, these characters have American student similarities. One can find similar Americans in each of the broad categories of these five Chinese students. However, Dychtwald sees Chinese students as “dreamers and strivers” while his experience is that American students are skeptical about the value of education and their future. Dychtwald finds Chinese college students take their performance on college exams more seriously than American college students. High academic achievement is a critical goal to a Chinese student while to an American graduating with a degree is the primary goal and finding a career is more important than achieving high scores on college exams. Chinese youths see themselves as a part of a national achievement for China while Americans see themselves as cogs in a capitalist machine that may or may not turn into successful careers.
College is a pressure cooker for Chinese students while it’s more of a cultural experience and stage of life for most American students.
Finally, Dychtwald notes Chinese students are globally curious, Western influenced, while being confident in the superiority of their own country. In contrast, American students care less about other countries, know few languages beyond English, and see their country as just one of many cultures in the world. Dychwald is an outlier in that he does not view China as a threat to American hegemony, but a country focusing on improving the lives of their citizens.
The risks of singular leadership.
Admittedly, this review is a narrow interpretation of Dychtwald’s fascinating book. Only an extraordinary intellect would move to China after graduating from college and learn fluent Mandarin during a 4 year stay in China. It makes we who are old wish we had the privilege of Dychtwald’s intelligence to live life over again.
To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens. America has the advantage of 4-year democratic change in leadership while China is dependent on an authoritarian’s health and judgement as a singular leader.
A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Battleground Ukraine (From Independence to the War with Russia)
Author: Adrian Karatnycky
Narration by: Daniel Henning
Adrian Karatnycky (Author, Ukrainian American political analyst.)
“Battleground Ukraine” is an important history of the transition of Ukraine from being part of the U.S.S.R. to an independent nation-state. The author offers a chronological political history of Ukraine’s drive for independence after glasnost. Karatnycky outlines the achievements and setbacks of three decades and six leadership changes in Ukraine’s Government. He shows nation-building is no easy task for a country that is split between desire for independence and a history of Soviet Union domination.
In researching the qualification of Adrian Karatnycky, one finds he is considered a leading analyst who has written about Ukraine in publications like Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, and National Review.
Adrian Karatnycky is characterized as a Ukrainian American political analyst, and a democracy advocate for Ukraine. He is a managing partner of a consulting firm representing clients with interests in Ukraine. He co-founded a cultural initiative to promote positive relations between Ukrainians and Jews and has studied Russian Ukrainian’ relations, written a number of articles about Ukrainian human rights, political freedoms, and its development as a civil society. He understands and speaks English and Ukrainian, and presumably Russian.
Leonid Kraychuk (1991-1994, First President of Ukraine)
His book is informative but complicated because of unfamiliarity with most of the six leaders of Ukraine after its separation from the U.S.S.R. The first president of independent Ukraine is Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994). Kravchuk presided over the breakup and helped establish the independent nation of Ukraine. According to this history, Kravchuk seems reluctant to create a decisive break with the Soviet-era experience. The authoritarian habits of administration led to the blossoming of oligarchic networks in Ukraine that resemble the oligarchs who control the Russian economy under Putin today. The growth of Ukraine as a relatively free capitalist country is sidelined by Kravchuk’s rule. Nevertheless, Kravchuk’s administration appears to have accomplished the break from the U.S.S.R. without civil war.
Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004, Second President of Ukraine.)
The second leader of Ukraine is Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004). The author notes Kuchma accepted the growth and corruption of oligarchs in Ukraine. In some sense, the economy stabilized under Kuchma’s rule while improving ties with Russia and even the West. However, authoritarianism is reinforced by a cadre of oligarchs that corrupt Ukrainian society and enrich themselves while reinforcing attachment to Russia.
Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010, Third President of Ukraine.)
The third leader is Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010). In 2004, the Orange Revolution begins in Ukraine with nationwide protests, civil disobedience, and political mobilization against oligarchic rule in Ukraine. Kuchma is replaced by Yushchenko as a result of a Ukrainian Supreme Court ruling that demands a new vote. That vote results in the election of Yushchenko. Yushchenko is characterized by Karatnycky as a pro-Western democrat. He allows Ukraine media to remain free by not repressing its citizens. However, Yushchenko is characterized as a political failure who, at best, creates space for the growth of democracy in Ukraine. Though Crimea is not lost during Yushchenko’s rule because he resisted Russian military expansion, he fails to move his country toward democracy.
Crimea’s annexation by Russia in March 2014.
Russia had a base in Crimea but its role in the invasion and confiscation of Crimean territory expanded with the next Ukrainian President’s administration. At worst, Yushchenko’s political ineptness and weak governance paved the way for a more kleptocratic Ukrainian President named Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014). As Yushchenko leaves office, Russia lays plans for the invasion of Donbas in 2014.
Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014, Fourth President of Ukraine.)
Karatnycky views Yanukovych as the latest pro-Russian ruler of Ukraine. Yanukovych uses his position as President to enrich his family and allow Russian intelligence service to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. In the author’s opinion, Yanukovych opened the door to Russian aggression which led Russia to surreptitiously invade Donbas and annex Crimea. Karatnycky infers Putin launches the Donbas incursion as a result of a power vacuum created by Yanukovych who flees Kyiv on February 22, 2014. Crimea is annexed by Russia on February 23, 2014. The Donbas incursion begins in April 2014.
Ukrainian corruption during the Yanukovych presidency.
By a slim margin of 3.5% Yanukovych won the Ukrainian presidency in 2010. He escapes to Russia in February 2014 after ordering a violent crackdown on Ukrainian protesters. Karatnycky’s assessment of Yanukovych is highly negative. He argues Yanukovych centralized Presidential power, weakened independent institutions, persecuted political opponents, and drew the government closer to Putin’s Russia. He defeated Uylia Tymoshenko, a pro-Western leader, who is imprisoned in 2011 during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Yanukovych remains in Russia today and is convicted in absentia for treason in aiding Russia during his term in office.
Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019, Fifth President of Ukraine.)
After Russia’s incursion in Donbas, Ukraine elects Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019). Karatnycky suggests Poroshenko recognizes Ukraine’s military has to be rebuilt because of Yanukovych’s neglect. Poroshenko turns to the West for support in the battles occurring in Donbas. His appeal is answered with U.S. and EU backing that secures sanctions against Russia. Ukraine increases NATO cooperation to make Ukraine a frontline for democracy. As a delaying tactic, in Karatnycky’s opinion, ceasefires were agreed to by Poroshenko in order to give Ukraine more time to rebuild its military. In the author’s opinion, Porshenko did not break Ukraine’s oligarchic power, but he secured Western support of Ukraine and rebuilt the army which strengthens Ukraine’s national identity. Karatnycky characterizes Poroshenko’s rule as a true beginning transition of Ukraine from authoritarian to democratic government. However, Kartnycky notes the judicial system and established oligarch’ influence continues to obstruct democratic ideals. Further, Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through his administration.
Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through Poroshenko’s administration.
Finally, we get to the election of Volodymry Zelensky in 2019. Karatnycky sees Zelensky as a pre-war and wartime President. Zelensky’s successful election is shocking considering the author’s assessment of Poroshenko’s successes in transitioning Ukraine to a world recognized democratic rather than authoritarian government. Zelensky, a comic actor, soundly defeats Poroshenko in the election of 2019. Zelensky appears completely out of his element in becoming President of Ukraine. He struggles with political reform and shows an ineptitude in dealing with political infighting. Karatnycky describes Zelensky as “…well-intentioned but inexperienced naïve in his first two years as President. However, as Russia chooses to invade Ukraine, the wartime Zelensky becomes a unifying national leader. His experience as an actor/comedian makes him a master communicator. Zelensky becomes a wartime decision maker that gathers Western support for the defense of his country. Zelensky overcomes his political shortcomings in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Zelensky manages to unite Ukraine against a much larger enemy despite the economic stagnation of the Ukrainian economy.
Volodymry Zelensky (President of Ukraine 2019-?)
It Karatnycky’s opinion, Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and will remain a sovereign country. A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
Van der Kolk outlines some of today’s psychiatric breakthroughs. New psychiatric discoveries have helped reveal childhood abuse memories and war’s traumatic events to give survivors some peace of mind.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Body Keeps the Score (Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of)
Author: Bessel van der Kolk M.D.
Narration by: Sean Pratt
Bessel van der Kolk (Author, Boston-based Dutch American psychiatrist.)
As a parent, “The Body Keeps the Score” is a difficult book to read or listen to because of fear about mistakes a parent may have made in raising their children. The trauma of war is well documented as a cause of psychological imbalance and the truth of “The Body Keeps the Score”. What makes van der Kolk’s book even more concerning is the realization that our behavior as parents can leave scars on our children’s minds. It is not just because of an abhorrent parent or priest who has molested or seriously distorted a child’s view of the world but on more subtle missteps by parents that may have had lasting effects on their children’s growth to adulthood. Every family has differences. Some have one parent who is absent from the day to day lives of their children because of their job. Another parent may fail to show enough respect or affection for their child’s accomplishments. Some parents (usually women) are left by their husbands or mates to raise children on their own. In single parent families, a parent is faced with having to make a living while caring for a child who has no idea of how stressful life can be when their mother is on her own. On the other side of a child care spectrum, there is the doting mother and father who overwhelms their children with meaningless praise and falsely grandiloquent appreciation of their behavior. Van der Kolk’s point is the mistakes parents make in raising their children can have lasting effects on their children as they grow into adulthood.
Child abuse is an abhorrent reality in America and other cultures.
The events that Dr. Kolk addresses are serious and harmful adult actions toward their children, but the concern any reader/listener may have is in the responsibility they have in raising their children to be decent emotionally centered human beings. Americans live in a society that highly regards wealth, physical and emotional maturity as important characteristics of adulthood. The pressure of making a living often interferes with the attention husbands, wives, or caregivers provide for children’s healthy emotional and physical growth. Kolk’s focus is on abusive or neglectful people who interact with children in ways that leave psychological scars that cause behavioral dysfunction. What is troubling to reader/listeners of “The Body Keeps the Score” is the pressure and trauma that American parents feel in their lives that affects the social and psychological health of their children.
Employment.
On the one hand, van der Kolk explains how parents may inadvertently distress their children by verbal or physical behaviors that are related to the pressures and expectations of a working life. Those pressures can cause parental meltdowns between parents and children. The consequences can have an emotional and consequential impact on the lives of the children for which adults are responsible. The effect on family members can range from a rageful response to a child’s moodiness to fear or lasting resentment that may create emotional scars that affect a child’s later behavior. A parent’s meltdown can become an indelible scar on a child’s mind. Van der Kolk calls them the injuries of American culture; not because it is only in America, but that it occurs in all cultures.
Social inequality in American culture.
A reality in American life is that it is fed by wealth, poverty, and unequal opportunity. Inequality of opportunity creates pockets of poverty reinforced by racism, family instability, and societal breakdown. All of these social impacts bare down on the development of children and future generations. Working families often do not have time or inclination to take care of their children because of their jobs. These are fundamental issues that have broader consequence to children than the horrendous stories of child abuse that van der Kolk recounts. Of course, it is appalling to know of priests that molest children or fathers who rape their daughters, but it is the general observation that adult behavior toward children can negatively affect children’s lives. Horrendous acts like child molestation undoubtedly have immense impact on the future of those who bare them. However, the realization that day to day experiences of parents’ lives can also have negative consequences in their child’s lives. What is of more concern is a culture riven with poverty, sexual infidelity, and divorce that sets a table for future generations of broken lives.
“The Body Keeps the Score” infers much about the weaknesses of American capitalism. It recognizes suffering in American society and shows how trauma in one generation passes on to the next. Bad behavior has consequences beyond the perpetrator and victim. It offers some solutions to the mistakes parent’s and society make in raising their children.
Van der Kolk outlines some of today’s psychiatric breakthroughs. New psychiatric discoveries have helped reveal childhood abuse memories and war’s traumatic events to give survivors some peace of mind. Trauma is a neurobiological event that can come from the violence of war or parental upbringing. It affects human behavior because trauma changes brain structure, hormonal regulation, and human feelings. Traumatic events become encoded in memory and affect humans’ future. Van der Kolk explains how psychiatric science has evolved to treat the consequences of life’s experience of traumatic events.
American democracy is like a giant ship at sea. It takes time to turn a giant ship impeded by brief storms until the return of calmer seas. America is weathering a Trumpian storm today but there is reason to believe there is another Lincolnesque or Rooseveltian leader in America’s future.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Country of Lords (Neo-Aristocrats, Social Darwinists, Tech Utopians, and the Long Fight against Equality in America.)
Author: Kim Phillips-Fein
Narration by: Sarah Welborn
Kim Phillips-Fein (Author, American historian, Professor of History at Columbia University.)
Kim Phillips-Fein argues the widening gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else in America is because of American culture’s anti-egalitarian beliefs and tradition. Beginning with the Founding Fathers of America; i.e., John Adams, Alexander Hamiliton, and Thomas Jefferson, Phillips-Fein’s argues these 3 men set the table for America to become anti-egalitarian. In part, she has a point because these three were elitists with university educations. However, she neglects to mention that George Washington was largely self-educated and seems unlikely to have been anti-egalitarian. However, despite Washington’s limited education and his role as a military leader, he is unlikely to have disagreed with Adams, Hamilton, or Jefferson.
George WashingtonJohn Adams
As the author points out Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson believed in a “natural aristocracy” that would improve society. Of course, this idea comes from white American Founders that gave little weight to non-white races, believed in slavery, and white male superiority. Phillips-Fein explains these foundational beliefs held great influence in American society. The growth of industry labor biases is magnified by intellectual distortions of Darwinian evolution. The author goes on to explain influential Americans like Willam Sumner (an influential American social theorist in the 19th century) opposed welfare because of belief in Darwin’s discovery of natural selection and the concept of “survival of the fittest”. American economic growth and the rise of personal white male wealth diminish the status of laborers, women, and non-white Americans.
Andrew Carnegie (Scottish American, industrialist, and philanthropist 1835-1919.)
Andrew Carnegie (a steel magnate who created America’s first billion-dollar corporation) writes an essay titled “The Gospel of Wealth” in 1889 which argues the rich should rule because their wealth came from their natural superiority. Henry Ford creates his fortune in the automobile industry with a rigid hierarchy based on paternalistic control of workers’ labor and domestic lives. The outgrowth of industrial success in America leads authors like Madison Grant to racialize society with a belief that the white race is biologically superior. People like Charles Davenport (an American biologist who died in 1944) espoused a eugenics movement with a belief that poverty and crime are based on heredity which reinforces illogical beliefs of leaders like Adolph Hitler.
The author explains distortions of science and the advance of IQ testing have led to the rise of technocrats and corporate hierarchies based on preferential promotion and ascension of mostly white American men. Corporations grew to become quasi-governments that reinforced anti-egalitarianism. A meritocracy grows with sociologically biased IQ testing as a way to reinforce inequality based on cognitive difference rather than experience, proven, and/or innate ability.
Consequence of inequality of opportunity. Octavia Butler (a highly regarded American writer who died in 2006) shows an evolution of cities into silos of cultural difference rather than communities of common interest.
The irony of Phillips-Fein’s history of American thinkers and elites is that because people are not equal, they should not have equal opportunities. She notes people like John Adams believed too much egalitarianism is dangerous because it would empower the wrong people; i.e. presumably poorly educated Americans (ironically people like George Washington). The growth of racism and belief in eugenics by people like Lothrop Stoddard (a Harvard educated historian who died in 1950) argue that equal opportunity is foolish because laborers and particularly non-whites are less educated and equal to people who have acquired great wealth. The effects of that belief reinforce the false belief that wealth is a measure of human worth. That false belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that creates a perennial underclass that is denied an equal opportunity to improve their lives.
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) FOUNDER OF THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
After this depressing history, Phillips-Fein suggests anti-egalitarianism in not a permanent, unchangeable characteristic of American democracy. Social Darwinism is collapsing as its distortions of evolution are better understood. The proof of Jewish contribution to society will never offset the horror of Adolph Hitler’s holocaust but few rational human beings can fail to see how important Jewish culture has been to science and the advance of civilization. The movements of abolitionists, labor, civil rights, feminists, immigrant and disability rights in the 20th and 21st centuries encourage egalitarian beliefs.
American democracy is like a giant ship at sea. It takes time to turn a giant ship impeded by brief storms until the return of calmer seas. America is weathering a Trumpian storm today but there is reason to believe there is another Lincolnesque or Rooseveltian leader in America’s future.
Despite President Trump’s words and deeds, America is and always will be a haven for those who seek freedom and equality of opportunity.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
First Principles (What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped Our Country.)
Author: Thomas E Ricks
Narration by: James Lurie
Thomas Edwin Ricks (Author, American journalist. Pulitzer Prize winner for National Reporting for the WSJ and Washington Post.)
Thomas Ricks has written an enlightening view of the founders of America’s government. In his opinion, the founders established a republic ruled by an American government based on ancient Greek and Roman political ideas. He argues the self-taught education of George Washington, and college educations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were steeped in knowledge of Greek and Roman beliefs reinforced by Scottish intellects who studied the classical ideas of Greek and Roman society. Ricks notes Roman and Greek writings about virtue, law, deliberation, political structure, and social restraint are important sources of America’s government organization.
Epicurus (341-270 BC Greek humanist.)Socrates (470 BC-399BC, Greek founder of Western philosophy.)Xenophon (430 BC-354 BC, follower of Socrates.)Aristotle (384BC-322BC, Greek follower of Socrates and contemporary of Xenophon.)Homer (8th century BC Roman historian.)
Ricks argues Greece’s Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, Xenophon, and Homer were read by important framers of the American Constitution. Particularly, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were influenced by Greek writers and famous Romans like Cicero, Plutarch, Polybius, Cato the younger, Cataline, and Caesar. Even the unschooled George Washington read the works of Cicero, Cato the Younger, and Plutarch. Ricks writes that the Greek and Roman authors were the curriculum basis of the Scottish enlightenment of the 17th century.
Cato the Younger (95 BC-46BC, Roman senator.)Cataline (108 BC-62BC, Roman politician and soldier.)Polybius (200 BC-118 BC, Greek historian.)Cicero (106 BC-43 BC, Roman statesman and philosopher.)Plutarch (50 AD-120AD, Roman philosopher and historian.)
Jefferson absorbed the beliefs of Scottish writers like Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, and Adam Smith to form a moral philosophy and belief in the natural rights of humanity. Adams adopted the civic virtues propagated by Scottish intellectuals like Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith. He admired the moral vocabulary of virtue and grasped a realistic view of human nature with a belief in mixed government that required checks and balances; i.e., not a pure unconstrained democracy. Madison relies on the Scottish Hume, and Smith to understand how human nature requires administrative regulation to mitigate factionalism in a government based on separation of powers. Madison became the synthesizer of enlightenment beliefs promulgated by Scottish intellectuals.
George Washington (1732-1799.)
George Washington is not characterized as a deep thinker about philosophy, but Ricks suggests he had read Plutarch’s Lives and revered the lives of Cato and Cincinnatus who were known for civic virtue, sacrifice, and public duty. Cato the Younger is noted for stoic discipline and moral seriousness while Cincinnatus voluntarily relinquishes his power after successfully defending and saving the Roman Republic from the Aequi (a militant mountain tribe living near Rome). Cincinnatus defeated the Aequi in a 16-day defensive war for the Roman Republic. He could have crowned himself as King as a result of his success.
Cato the Younger, as a Roman statesman became famous for his emotional restraint, moral rigor, personal austerity, and commitment to virtue. Washington emulated Cincinnatus’s actions after America’s revolutionary war when he could have used his fame to take command of a fractured continental congress. He exhibited Cato the Younger’s statesmanship throughout his career as leader of the American miliary and later as the first popularly elected President of the United States. The soon to be summoned military commander returned to his farm in Virginia after the end of America’s war with Great Britain.
George Washington’s Farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Washington had no college education and limited formal education. He had learned to read and write but relied on self-education through practical experience. He joined the Virginia militia at age 21 as a major. He entered the military service during the French and Indian War with orders to convince the French to leave the Ohio valley. However, he failed. He is defeated by the French in 1754. What he learned is that overconfidence, poor preparation, and logistic mistakes could only be overcome with discipline and clarity.
British General Baraddock.
Washinghton went on to serve under British General Braddock in 1755 and learned the importance of discipline, and military organization while fulfilling his duties in battle. Washington found the British underestimated Indian tribes that parlayed and fought together against America’s colonists taking of Tribal lands. Washington shows his personal courage in a battle in which two horses are shot from under him while a bullet passes through his coat. His commander, General Braddock, is killed. Washington learns discipline, order, and humility while in the military. He matures to recognize the importance of reputation in leading others.
Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is in someways shown to be a bon-vivant who seduces other men’s wives. However, Ricks shows Jefferson to be a brilliant omnivorous consumer of political philosophy. His beliefs are shaped by a blend of Greek, Roman, and Scottish Enlightenment ideas. His studies of the Greek philosophy of Epicurus and Aristotle fed his belief in agrarian republicanism reinforced by reading Cicero and Virgil. His reading of Scottish writers like Hutcheson, Reid, and Smith make him a philosopher-statesman who understood the principles required for government organization. He owned slaves and held a tortured, contradictory, and harmful view of slavery. He knew slavery was morally wrong and noted it in writing. However, he viewed slavery as an indispensable practice, believing Black people were inferior. He feared emancipation more than slavery. In regard to slavery, Ricks writes Jefferson is a moral philosopher who fails morally. Slavery is recognized by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison as a societal fault that would lead to civil unrest and probable war.
John Adams (Second President of the United States.)
Ricks argues John Adams’ government beliefs revealed solid connections between American government creation and Roman and Greek thought. Adams spent much of his time reading Greek and Roman classics. However, Ricks characterizes Adams as thin-skinned, irritable, self-righteous, and prone to hurt or hostile feelings. Despite these character flaws, Ricks shows Adams to be the intellectual heavyweight of the Founding fathers of the Constitution. His reading of Plato and Aristotle gave him a clear understanding of the importance of virtue, education, and the inherent instability of pure democracy. In reading Polybius, he recognized the importance of mixed government. With Cicero, he understood the importance of rule of law. His research in Roman history gave him an appreciation of the risk of corruption, factionalism and its potential for government harm. Ricks notes Adams’ character could lead to excessive moralizing and hectoring of his subordinates which often made him temperamentally unsuitable for the give and take of politics. Adams’ pessimism is noted to have come from Plato’s warnings about demagoguery that led to the collapse of Rome. On balance, Ricks seems to find Adams to be a tragic intellectual unsuited for the Presidency despite his contribution to the founding of America’s government.
James Madison (the 4th President of the United States is considered the “Father of the Constitution”, author of the Bill of Rights, and co-author of the Federalist Papers.)
Ricks assessment of James Madison is the most positive of the Founding fathers of American government. Madison coalesced the many elements of classical and Scottish thinkers of the past to create the American Constitution. He seems the least charismatic but most effective of the Founding fathers of the Constitution. His introversion made him highly intellectual but not a natural leader. He neither had Washington’s gravitas, Jeffeson’s elegance, or Adams’ fire but he had the mind for institutional design. Madison understood power and a Republic’s risks of corruption, factionalism, and its potential for failure and collapse. His realistic grasp of human nature turned classical theories of the ancients into a flexible and durable democratic government. America has survived despite John Adams Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson’s defiance of the Supreme Court, Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Woodrow Wilson’s 1918 Sedition Act, Nixon’s Watergate, George W. Bush’s use of torture and warrantless surveillance, and the first 4 years of the Trump administration.
Thomas Ricks reminds Americans of how far we have come and how imperfect American Democracy has been. Many Presidents have challenged America’s Constitution without fundamentally changing the republic’s self-government. America’s rule of law, government checks and balances, freedom of Speech and Press, its peaceful transfers of power, and citizens’ drive for civic equality, are part of America’s past, present, and foreseeable future. Despite President Trump’s words and deeds, America is and always will be a haven for those who seek freedom and equality of opportunity. America owes a great deal to its Founders of the Constitution and their study of the ancients and Scottish teachings in the 17th century.
Ahamad suggests the public needs to oppose policies based on economic and political leaders’ singular judgements. Public input to government decision-making is an essential strength of democracy and the great weakness of autocracy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
1873 (The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World)
Author: Liaquat Ahamed
Narration by: George Newbern
Liaquat Ahamed (Author, American financial historian.)
Liaquat Ahamed’s book, “1873”, has been somewhat anxiously awaited for by the public because of his previous book “Lords of Finance” which reported central bankers’ roles in the Great Depression. Talk of depression swirls around the public today. What parallels are there between “1873” and the current world financial market? Liaquat Ahamed explains the impact of railroad expansion and world trade that exploded in the 19th century. He suggests that explosion seems parallel to today’s impact of transformative technology like A.I. which has shown potential for productivity increase around the world. That expectation magnifies the amount of capital being invested in a changing paradigm in society that Ahamad argues is similar while different from railroad introduction in the 19th century.
Globalization of information technology.
Globalization makes change more impactful today because of the world wide web and a potential for spreading useful and harmful information. Ahamed suggests the vast investment in railroads has parallels to communication technology’s introduction in today’s economy. The rush to create datacenters requires large capital investments with the creation of data centers that challenge today’s energy availability. Corruption became common in the 19th century with schemes designed to lure nations and investors into impractical investments. Ahamed recounts grifter’ pitches in the 19th century similar to crypto bubble makers of the 21st century. In the 19th century, mostly banks, governments, and wealthy risk takers were making foolish investment risks for hoped-for wealth. Today, crypto bubble makers reach into the pockets of the poor and middleclass.
Crypto investment.
As the public today becomes skeptical about tech investments, the banks of the 19th century belatedly turned skeptical about transportation system expansion. The growing malaise of recession turned into a depression in the 19th century. Ahamed argues today is similar to what caused the 19th century economy to slip into recession and depression. Ahamed suggests the political polarization occurring in the 19th century is evident in today’s political climate. The split between Trump supporters and detractors is widespread in America. Trump’s attacks on global cooperation seem similar to what occurred in the 19th century. Like the farmers of 1873, factions of America resent their loss of jobs and manufacturing income to other countries. The geopolitical shocks of the Ukraine war, America’s bombing of Iran, Russia’s Ukraine war, and growing tensions with China magnify inflation and create capital reallocations that harm respective economies and increase potential for world-wide financial collapse.
Ahamed’s book outlines similarities and differences between the past and present, foretelling a possible future.
Ahamed suggests that America needs to avoid a rigid monetary policy based on “who’s ox is gored”. Further, investment in technology needs to be reined in by reducing the hype about loss of jobs with a realistic judgement of employment impact and technologies’ benefits. Political and business leadership need more transparency and public oversight to improve societal decisions on technological investment. Investment opportunities need to be reasonably evaluated to avoid bubbles that distort capital flows. Ahamed suggests power brokers, whether private or public, need to avoid over reaction to inflation by being wary, but not overly punitive, toward investment in new technology.
Breadlines in the 1929 economic crash.
Ahamed offers several individual examples of con men who created hype-driven market manipulation that fueled 19th century fraud with over-optimism, and self-promotion based on new railroad building schemes. One listens to the methodology of these con men and will recall news articles today about technology fraudsters. Though only 3 to 4 percent of SpaceX shares are owned publicly, it reminds one of the over-optimism and self-promotion of Elon Musk. This is not to say Musk is a con man, but it reflects how over confidence in technology is similar to the over confidence in railway expansion in the 19th century. Additionally, search of the news of crypto scammers in the 21st century show there are three Thai suspects, 22 accused scammers in Palau, 82 accused scammers in Eswatini, and an astounding 15,260 suspects worldwide.
Liaquat Ahamed suggests the U.S. presidential elections are directly distorted by the financial crisis surrounding 1873. Ulysses Grant’s administration is undermined by the loss of public confidence in the federal government. The civil rights movement is stalled because northern voters were less willing to support federal intervention in the South. The Republican Party lost the political will to continue Reconstruction policies. Voters punished incumbents because of the economic crisis of the 1870s. Ahamed argues the economic collapse destabilized all governments and empowered reactionary forces that weakened government reforms. Conspiracy theories blossomed with scapegoating of all who had been elected to govern in the western world.
People are being arrested based on the color of their skin with the presumption that they are not citizens of America and are deported without legal recourse.
Today’s American government has stalled support of fundamental rights written in the Constitution. People are being arrested based on the color of their skin with the presumption that they are not citizens of America and should be deported. A majority of American voters elected a President who empowers the government to destabilize its relationship with former allies of democracy. Conspiracy theories abound on causes of global warming to support beliefs that it is a natural event that cannot be mitigated by reducing fossil fuel use and accelerating wind, water, and solar energy uses. Belief in a “deep state” conspiracy has created government and political distrust. QAnon like cabals have grown to spew allegations of secret wars being waged by special interests. Distrust of the United Nations is increasingly viewed as a body plotting to replace nation-state government. That view grows and feeds America’s “go it alone” belief as the only way to sustain democracy.
Where unemployment is created by new technology, America needs to support those who are displaced.
Despite Liaquat Ahamed’s argument that today’s America has similarities to America’s 19th century circumstances, he suggests there are reasons to believe 19th century mistakes can be avoided. Where unemployment is created by new technology, America needs to support those who are displaced. When faced with inflation and economic threat, rather than depending on singular leadership decisions, government should support flexible polices by the central banks of America. Public input to government decision-making is an essential strength of democracy. When public expertise is ignored, judgement is degraded and America becomes less democratic and more likely to fail.
Rothschild Family Tree
As one nears the end of Ahamed’s book, one wonders why the Rothchild’s are prominently noted in its subtitle. His point is that the Rothschilds were the only global financial institution that successfully survived the ups and downs of the banking industry in the 19th century. Their success influenced unjust anti-Semitic growth in the world. The Rothschilds embodied the tension between stability and speculation with their long-term stability as a lending institution. The Rothchild’s stability became a symbol of global finance that influenced political actions around the world. The price paid by the Rothchild families’ success fed the worst in human nature exemplified by the Holocaust of WWII.
Americans need to come to grips with their history, mend its fences, and use its cultural diversity as a means for acceptance of difference and rebirth of its founder’s principles. Empathy is a relatively minor part of America’s institutional, economic, and moral decline.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Suicidal Empathy (Dying to Be Kind)
Author: Gad Saad
Narration by: Gad Saad
Gad Saad (Author, Canadian professor of marketing and evolutionary behavioral scientist.)
Gad Saad has written an interesting book about human empathy. He describes empathy as a biological, socially beneficial, and important characteristic of human cooperation. However, he notes empathy has the potential for societal harm that can be destructive with long-term negative consequences. He suggests empathy can distort the harm done by criminals against victims and compound ethnic differences that are a detriment to society. He argues empathy is an emotion that can lead to harmful decisions, and poor social policies that create moral distortion and confusion. His examples carry some weight.
A definition of empathy.
Criminal defenders sometimes frame an argument that violent offenders are products of their life circumstances and should be empathized with, rather than punished, for their actions. However, with empathy as a treatment, victims of personal crimes become victimized twice. Once by the actions of the criminal and a second time by leniency toward a criminals’ actions. An argument is made by a criminal defender that poverty and systemic faults of a legal system or society are the fault of others, including the victims of the perpetrators’ crime. Empathy for the defender gets in the way of justice for society and the individual is victimized twice in the guise of empathy. Violent offenders are released or given reduced sentences that offer opportunity for a repeat of violent crimes. Saad extends this argument to society that empathizes with terrorists, radicalized individuals, and ideologically driven attackers.
Saad suggests too much empathy creates an atmosphere of moral relativism, and identity-based hate groups that reinforces an “us-them” mentality that diminishes social difference. One can easily agree with Saad’s observation, but history shows difference of one’s group identity is both good and bad. The contributions of Jewish group identity have been a great boon to society. Jewish identity is a prime example of the value of group difference. The educational and identity-based tenants of Judaism have made immense contributions to science and industry. Of course, at the other extreme, moral relativism and identity-based hate led to the holocaust by the Nazis.
The troubling part of Saad’s argument is his selective focus on empathy as a cause of cultural decline. Corruption, politicization, self-dealing elitism, and societies’ failure to deliver justice, safety, and education to the public are the fundamental causes of cultural decline. Whether Jew, Gentile, or other, it is not empathy that has caused the widening wealth gap, loss of group identity, labor displacement, collapse of local industries, and/or the erosion of intergenerational opportunity.
Cultural decline cannot be reduced to a single cause as inferred by Gad Saad.
Cultural decline cannot be reduced to a single cause as inferred by Gad Saad. It is cultural destruction of group differences beginning with the diminishment of native Americans, through America’s history of slavery, and today’s loss of civic trust in government that is harming America. Americans need to come to grips with their history, mend its fences, and use its cultural diversity as a means for acceptance of difference and rebirth of its founder’s principles. Empathy is a relatively minor part of America’s institutional, economic, and moral decline.
Bret Baier highlights civic ideals, recalls history that reveals American continuity, and encourages listener/readers to be grateful for what they have, or achieved in American life. There remain many structural injustices that have not been overcome by past or current American Presidents.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Case for America (An Argument on Behalf of our Nation)
Author: Bret Baier
Narration by: Bret Baier
Bret Baier (Author, American journalist, political anchor for Fox News.)
Patriotism is devotion to one’s country with a willingness to uphold its principles. Bret Baier’s “The Case for America” is a teacher and conservative newscaster’s expression of his personal American patriotism. As a white American male, he recalls the national ideals created by the founding fathers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. He clearly identifies the national ideals of America’s founders and their historical sacrifice. To some who listen to his book, one feels he glosses over many of the historical truths of discrimination, slavery, and unequal treatment in America.
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in America.
American unity is not a moral imperative. American unity is a political project in the process of perfecting human equality and economic opportunity. It is far from achieving that goal, but America’s leadership and philosophy is as Martin Luther King advised, an “…arc bending toward justice.” Americans, like all human beings, are flawed but the founding fathers created a basis upon which equality of all citizens may be achieved.
Most Americans, regardless of their circumstance in life, support the ideals of freedom, respect for all human beings, and are willing to defend an American way of life. Americans vote for what they believe in, many are willing to take responsibility for civic involvement, and a free press informs the public of the state of American affairs. Baier’s history is measured to reinforce the positives of American history. However, his historical framing is selective in ways that underrepresent American inequality and the failure of institutions to protect all citizens equally.
American protest.
Baier argues unity is a moral duty rather than a political challenge. Divisions in America are unclearly defined. There are real conflicts of interest, immense power differences, and historical traumas that make unity less appealing. Those truths are minimalized or unspoken by Baier. They create today’s unresolvable divisions. Baier’s expression of patriotism is not enough to assuage many Americans’ discontent. The role of dissent in America has changed the course of its history. Baier fails to identify many of those dissents by emphasizing unity, stability, and institutional continuity. He seems to ignore the value of protest movements, whistleblowers, and radical reformers when they have been essential to American progress.
American Presidents.
Baier focuses on Presidential leadership, their decision-making process, and character rather than the complexity of American political life. To identify President Reagan in the league of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, or Truman is a betrayal of Baier’s political objectivity. Reagan like Biden are patriots of America but they aged to a level of incompetence in their terms of office. There are differences of opinion about American history. Not all believe, understand, or agree on what America stands for. Ideological, racial, economic, and informational differences are glossed over by Baier.
Nevertheless, Baier highlights civic ideals, recalls history that reveals American continuity, and encourages listener/readers to be grateful for what they have, or achieved in American life. Despite the errors of being human and growing old, all Presidents of America have contributed to the progress of Democracy’s ideals. There remain many structural injustices that have not been overcome by past or current American Presidents.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 