GOVERNMENT – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

TECH FASCISM

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Nerd Reich (Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy)

Author: Gil Duran

Narrated by: Vincent Price & 1 more

Gil Duran (Author, American journalist based in San Francisco.)

Duran has written a provocative book suggesting there is a cabal of tech entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and others who are engineering a potential master control system that will influence and eventually dominate society. He argues this system of control and influence is creating a “…Nerd Reich” in the sense of Hitler’s Third Reich that initiated WWII.

Leaders of a “Nerd Reich”?

The weakness of Duran’s argument is that most, if not all, human beings have self-interests that are different in ways that are great and small. Theil has strong opinions about what society gets wrong and seeks tech solutions to change societal belief. In contrast, Musk focuses on specific goals, like exploration of space, rocketry, and driverless cars. On the other hand, both show a desire to control humanity’s future like the biblical belief in God’s infallibility. Thiel pursues independent human thought by entrepreneurs not constrained by formal education. Musk pursues civilization-scale engineering based on technological education of the work force. The point is that these two entrepreneurs, like every human being, looks at life differently and emphasizes their personal biases in achieving their goals. Thiel looks for ways to change society by creating entrepreneurs while Musk looks to build things that do not exist with public/private education of workers. The point is that there is no entrepreneurial Tech cabal. There are Tech individuals looking for ways to change the world but in different ways.

Einstein is among a select group of extraordinary human beings.

Brilliant minds do not pursue the same goals. Revelation comes from different pursuits by those interested in different things. Some look for universal truths of science like Einstein while others look for truth about morality like Friedrich Nietzsche. Technologists will pursue both fields of study. They may agree on one avenue of exploration and not the other. There is no single cabal of interest by technologists, there are many different interest groups. Science and philosophical revelation generally come from an individual, not a consortium of people whether technologists, or scientists, or one person. Franklin Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler were leaders with immense power, but their power came from the people they led. The same is as true today as in the times of Roosevelt and Hitler. It is up to society to decide which path, which leader, we will follow.

Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.

The “Nerd Reich” is an exaggerated view of human revelation, discovery, creation, and execution. It does not give a complete picture but only a sliver of life, a period of temporary societal success or temporary failure. There will be and surely are tech cabals today, but that is and always will be the nature of human association or what is called society. Human beings associate with each other because of common interests and pursuits. Revelation always comes from the individual with hangers on that may have played a role in new discoveries, but social change comes from the “many”; not the “one”.

“Reich” is a harsh word to use in respect to people who have a common interest in technology.

Technology is a widely held interest of millions of citizens of every country in the world. However, it is only one discipline among many. Tech association within society is not a singular controller of action or outcome.

Truth or truthiness?

General human judgments are often based on “confirmation bias”. The nature of thought and belief of human beings is often based on evidence that others say is true without personally investigating the basis for their judgement. In addition, we tend to understand information based on things that are compatible with views we already believe. We also have selective memory and tend to forget contradictory evidence. We often fail to consider alternative explanations because of preconceived beliefs that comport with what is being stated as fact or fiction. Further, many are not willing to clearly look at the evidence that supports or denies drawn conclusions.

Reviewing the “Nerd Reich”, one must ask themselves what they have seen that suggests there is a “Nerd Reich”. Does Musk’s actions as an American government employee who fires Department heads and employees at the general direction of President Trump make him a member of the “Nerd Reich”. I think not, in view of his position of Trump’s Presidential appointment and Trump’s ordered direction. President Trump is not, by any stretch of imagination, a “Nerd…”. Trump is simply an autocrat who has risen to the level of his incompetence.

The world will have driverless cars, robotically produced merchandise, and cultures based on A.I.’ service to others in the future.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence is a concern of both politicians and the “Nerd…” generation. One doubts the American government will endorse or succumb to a “Nerd Reich” despite the threat of AI in the wrong hands. At least to those of us who believe AI is a tool of humanity, not a superior form of intelligence.

DEMOCRACY

Timothy Ryback’s history of Hitler’s rise in Germany is a reminder of how fragile democracy can be.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

53 Days (How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy)

By: Timothy W. Ryback

Narrated by: Jacques Roy

Timothy W. Ryback (Author, historian, director of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in The Hague, former lecturer on Concentration of History and Literature at Harvard.)

In writing “53 Days” Timothy Ryback identifies warning signs of democratic policy violations in Germany by Adolph Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler’s methodology is to attack institutions of government like the court system, the election process, government employment, and the media while blaming communist sympathizers trying to capture the government. The condition of the German economy is dire. Between 24 percent and 30 percent of Germany’s population were unemployed. Industrial output fell by 46%. A growing number of middle-class workers were losing their savings because of job losses. Faith in democracy collapses with citizens turning toward a belief in something different; i.e., either Communism or Nazism.

The Nazi party became the largest political force, though not a majority, in the 1932 election which gave legitimacy to the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Hitler preached power and refuses compromise. This nearly kills his appeal to the German majority but as Hitler exploits divisions among his rivals, their disorganization and infighting creates a vacuum that reduces resistance to the public’s interest in Hitler’s party. Most conservative leaders miscalculated the political appeal of Hitler. They took comfort in the appointment of President Hindenburg who expressed disdain for Hitler and his party platform. The tide soon turns with the suspicious Reichstag fire. (The suspicion is whether the fire is started by Nazis, the communists, or a lone arsonist unassociated with either party. The inference of the author is that it was a lone arsonist, but Hitler used the incident to inflame a political fire among fence sitters who sought governmental change.)

Power is impersonal, sometimes structural and emergent in ways that are non-intentional but significantly more powerful than one individual.

Surprisingly, Rybeck notes Hitler did not defeat democracy or the communist movement through a simple exercise of power but by using legal and constitutional procedures to overthrow a German democracy based on a distortion of democratic principles. Hitler’s rise, in Rybeck’s opinion, was not inevitable. However, many political leaders underestimated Hitler’s ability to undermine democracy by using democratic principles to undermine its efficacy. Rybeck believes democracy is a workable form of government rule in Germany’s time of economic strife, even in the 1930s. If constitutional safeguards, political parties, courts, and leaders upheld democratic norms, Rybeck believes real democracy could have restored the German economy. Of course, that is a road not taken because Hitler’s distortion of democratic norms gains control over the German government that turns into an autocracy. A listener/reader wonders whether America is at risk of being ruled by a clever tyrannical leader like Hitler.

In modern times, Trump’s rhetoric disingenuously appeals to blue-collar workers but with an underlying appeal to the rich who believe in “trickle down” economics.

The erosion of trust in elections is apparent in America from outsized influence of wealthy Americans and corporations that have agendas that are as likely to support as impede democratic ideals. Challenges to American Democracy have appeared from the influence of the politically and financially powerful in America. The independence of the judiciary and restrictions on news media access by the President are examples of challenges to the norms of American Democracy. Actions by today’s American President lean toward making America more autocratic than democratic. Trump’s vilification of the press, arbitrary firing of government employees, reliance on sycophancy as a measure of ability to manage government departments, undermining America’s election system, and the weakening of Constitutional checks and balances are examples of growing autocracy in America.

Ann Petry explains how decaying roots of a democratic government fertilize future generations of poverty-stricken families.

As one listens to Rybeck’s book, one sees parallels between Germany’s economy in the 1930s and rising economic insecurity in America. Like the society in Germany of the 1930s, America shows growing economic inequality, and declining trust in government departments from the arbitrary firing of competent employees. The rising political polarization of America is magnified by the election of an autocrat to govern an America that is founded on the principles of democracy. The wealth of people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Michael Dell and corporations like Google, AOL, Meta, Comcast, Walt Disney Company, Fox and other media conglomerates have inordinate power to influence public opinion; largely based on “what government policies benefit them”.

“One person, one vote” as the power of democracy is seriously challenged in today’s America. America’s economic situation is nothing as dire as Germany’s in the 1930s. American democratic institutions are firmly established by the Constitution. We are not recovering from a world war. However, a concern remains because of the rising gap between rich and poor in America.

The rising Gap between the rich and poor in America.

Politicians seem more focused on winning elections than defending democratic norms. Democratic ideals are being undermined by major influencers that have money and power in America. Independence of the courts needs to be reinforced. Elections must remain free and competitive without threats from a President that undermines the integrity of Americans right to vote. News media must retain its independence and a fundamental right of access to public government meetings. Federal government departments must have a level of independence with continuing education to professionalize their management skills. Constitutional limits must be respected by government representatives. Political parties and the elites of America need to constrain political leaders who violate the ideals of democracy.

Ryback’s history of Hitler’s rise in Germany is a reminder of how fragile democracy can be.

Patriarchs/Matriarchs

Men and women are different just as races and cultures are different. The key to human progress is equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race, or culture.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Patriarchs (The Origins of Inequality)

By: Angela Saini

Narrated by: Sohm Sohm Kapila

Angela Saini (Author, British science journalist, reporter for the BBC, written articles for The Guardian, New Scientist, and Wired UK.)

Angela Saini’s book challenges while clarifying the argument that male dominance is grounded in the history of human society. She illustrates how cultures varied in their belief and practice of sexual hierarchy but generally were more patriarchal than matriarchal. Archeological evidence suggests gender relations varied. The fact that such evidence is based on fragmentary archeological evidence and the vagueness of interpretation weaken arguments of either sexes’ superiority. Nevertheless, Saini’s research shows most societies have patriarchal tendencies rather than either equal or matriarchal societies. Her history is well documented, but it is a bit tiresome. Because of her research, and the length of her book, one gets the feeling she narrows her thinking to evidence that only supports a preconceived opinion.

Male or female superiority is not the issue. Equality of opportunity is the gold standard of an equitable human society.

Saini notes cultures in northeast India, an area of China, and the North American’ Iroquois and Shoshone seem to show patriarchy takes a backseat to women’s preeminent role in society. She also notes evidence of bonobo primates that are female that show dominance of their species despite strength differences between the genders. This is credible research that suggests gender strength is not the determinate factor in superiority.

Saini goes on to show strength differences between the sexes is growingly less important with the advance of society.

Women were found as capable of tending to the farm as men during the agricultural revolution; particularly as mechanization became the hallmark of production. In general, Saini’s book fails to recognize belief in superiority is not the cause of gender discrimination. Power structures in communities and nations whether capitalist or communist are not determined by gender differences. Male or female superiority is not a matter of gender equality, but opportunity inequality. Even though male superiority is obviously false, opportunity inequality shows most societies make it appear true.

It is absurd to think that 49.7% of the world population may be treated less equally than men.

Male and female are complementary sexes that are different in their own ways. Both sexes have the capability of being either workers or leaders or whatever a nation needs as long as each has an equal opportunity to be what they choose to be.

Equality of opportunity, whether it is about race or gender, is the gold standard of human equality and achievement. Historians who identify the ills of society based on gender miss the fundamental point of life which is, as the U.S. Army’ slogan once said, “Be All That You Can Be”. Social organizations that get in the way of that goal diminishes human value and interferes with human progress. Men and women are different just as races and cultures are different. The key to human progress is equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race, or culture.

CHINA’S POWER

“Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” shows that wealth, belief in something greater than oneself, and human relationship are the powers behind revolution.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister (Three Women at the Heart of Twentieth-Century China.)

By: Jung Change

Narrated by: Catherine Ho

Jung Change (Author, Chinese-born British writer whose autobiography is banned in the Peoples Republic of China.)

“Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” is an historically important book about major political struggles that have shaped modern China. It is a story of three sisters who were closely connected to early twentieth century China when it was teetering between being a Republic, independent of the West, and later a communist autocracy. Though China is not yet, by definition, a republic, twentieth century China seems destined to follow Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the People”. 1) Nationalism-being independent and sovereign. 2) Democracy with Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Yuan Control branches 3) A government that attends to people’s livelihood concern including land reform, regulation of capital, and improved living standards for all.

Sun Yat-sen notes the Qing Empire’s decline and emphasizes a need for China’s sovereignty and unity as a singular nation. He insists on independence from the influence of the West. He demands reduction of foreign influence in China from unequal treaties between the West and China. He seeks political unity by reinforcing Chinese national identity. His goal is to establish China as a constitutional democracy in stages beginning with initial military rule but evolving through political tutelage of the people about democracy. His goals are delayed (if not defeated) by the class revolution led by Mao Zedong. China’s historical transition is viewed through the history of three sisters, one which is married to Sun Yat-sen, a second who marries Chiang Kai-shek, and a third older sister who holds the wealth behind the influences of their marriages.

The three sisters of the Soong family.

The oldest of the three sisters creates wealth through personal effort and a marriage to H. H. Kung, one of the wealthiest financiers and businessmen in China. All three sisters are educated in the United States. Their father was a Methodist Christian minister educated in America. The oldest sister (Big Sister), Soong Ai-ling became one of China’s wealthiest women. “Red Sister” married Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Chinese Republic who served as a high-ranking member of early 20th century rule of China. “Little Sister” married Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Nationalist China.

Soong Ai-ling (Graduated for Wesleyan College, became a secretary for Sun Yat-sen.)

CHIANG KAI-SHEK (China’s ruler from 1928-1948)

Jung Change’s story unfortunately obscures the momentous differences between Chiang Kai-shek’s and Mao Zedong’s rule of China with a somewhat ponderous history of the marriages of two of three daughters born in the Soong family. All three sisters are raised as Methodists in America. Chiang Kai-shek ruled China from 1928 to 1948 and governed Taiwan until 1975. His rule is guided by the political beliefs of Sun Yat-sen.

Chiang Kai-shek ruled China as a nationalist one-party state under the Kuomintang (KMT) while Mao ruled China under the Chinese Communist Party. Mao also used the KMT to enforce his rule as leader of the CCP. The contrast between these two rulers is poorly organized in the writing of “Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister”. The author’s history obscures, if not diminishes, the book’s historical importance. It reveals many interesting and surprising facts about early and mid-century China, but the author’s focus is too fragmented.

Sun Yat-sen (Chinese physician, revolutionary and political philosopher who founded the Kuomintang and set the table for what became Taiwan.)

Chiang Kai-shek adopts Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the People” in his rule of China. The Kuomintang enforces the principle of unity of China with the presumed intent to democratize the government in the future as was envisioned by Sun Yat-sen. Democratization would take time to educate citizens on the principals of political representation. The KMT would exercise military rule until the principals of representation could be understood by China’s citizens. Even when Chiang is exiled in Taiwan, the KMT is in control of its citizens until Chiang’s death. Chiang dies from pneumonia and other ailments in 1975. Taiwan did evolve, as Sun predicted, into a democracy similar to America’s after Chiang’s death. Taiwan endorsed fully competitive elections in 1992 and had its first direct presidential election in 1996. This seems a fulfillment of Sun Yat-sen’s longer-term goal in the “Three Principles of the People”. Sun Yat-sen died from liver cancer in 1925. He was 58 years old.

Rules of nation-state leadership and representation had to be taught to the citizens in Sun’s view of China’s future.

The two sisters of the wealthy Soong family are shown to have had an important impact on the philosophy of rule in China. Sun Yat-sen’s ambition and beliefs gained credibility by being married to a daughter of the wealthy Soong family. Soong Ching-ling is celebrated as the “Mother of Modern China”. She becomes the bridge between Sun Yat-sen’s political beliefs and what became Communist China when Mao Zedong rose to power. Sun Yat-sen’s wife stayed in mainland China and supported the new Communist government.

Soong Mei-ling (First Lady of the Republic of China, wife of Chiang Kai-shek.)

As the wife of Chiang Kai-shek, Soong Mei-ling became the ambassador of China to the West. Because of her fluency in the English language, she helped America understand Chinese government’s relationship to the West. She secures American sympathy during China’s war against Japan and acts as an intermediary between Chinese and American leaders with her intimate understanding of both cultures.

Soong Ching-ling (Chinese politician and activist wife of Sun Yat-sen.)

In contrast to Soong Ching-ling, Soong Mei-ling leaves mainland China to follow her husband to Taiwan. After her husband’s death in 1975, she returns to the United States and dies in New York at the age of 105. In the end, the three sisters were closely allied with China but ended up on opposite sides of the 2oth century’s greatest ideological divide. Soong Ching-ling (Sun Yat-sen’s widow) became a firm believer in Communist China. Soong Mei-ling sided with her husband and became a leading figure in Nationalist Taiwan, while Soong Ai-ling, the oldest and wealthiest of the three, chose to leave China and return to the United States.

It is surprising to find that three Chinese sisters with American Christian backgrounds had prominent roles in China’s twentieth century leadership. “Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” shows that wealth, belief in something greater than oneself, and human relationship are the powers behind revolution.

SOCIETAL CHANGE

H.G. Well’s interesting message is that human beings may not be able to save themselves from a technologically superior foreign invasion, but established societies and culture are more enduring than technological superiority. Wells is suggesting an invasion by a technologically superior force does not eradicate a society but changes it.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The War of the Worlds”

Author: H. G. Wells

Narration by: Christopher Hurt

H. G. Wells (1866-1946, English novelist, journalist, sociologist, and historian.)

“The War of the Worlds” is an odd book. Published in 1898 when the British Empire was near the height of its global power and prestige. It shakes the foundations of world hegemonic ambition. Listening to the book in the 21st century, it has relevance but in today’s hearing it seems too long and melodramatic. Giant fighting machines, heat rays, black smoke chemical weapons, city panic, and refugee flight are too familiar in today’s world. The shock value of a Martian invasion is lost. However, in the reality of a horrific war by Russia on the Ukrainian people, America’s bombing of Iran’s citizens, and Iran’s brutalization and torture of its people make “The War of the Worlds” as important and relevant today as when it was written.

H.G. Well’s Martian Invasion

Most of Wells’ book appears to say an invasion by technologically superior Martians will dominate the earth. What Wells shows is that technological superiority is not enough to conquer the world. As the British army and its weaponry fail to defeat the Martians, Earth’s natural pathogens and environment is shown to seriously challenge Martian’ survival. Technological superiority is not enough to win a war. A combination of nature’s pathogens and human resistance are challenges that suggest, despite technological superiority, singular societies ultimately prevail. History shows that eternal domination of an independent distinct society is unlikely to prevail. A distinct society may change from the influence of an invasion, but it does not disappear, it adapts. Glasnost is evidence of that truth when the former nations that were part of the U.S.S.R. reestablish themselves as independent societies that do not entirely abandon the influence of Russian domination. Native tribes that lived in what became the United States retain much of their social identity despite America’s English occupiers.

DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION

One remains skeptical of Landemore’s solution, but America and other purported democracies need to wake up to unequal representation in government rule.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Politics Without Politicians (The Case for Citizen Rule)

Author: Hélène Landemore

Narration by: Hélène Landemore

Hélène Landemore, (French professor of political science at Yale University. Received a PhD from Harvard with a thesis on the idea of collective intelligence.)

Hélène Landemore has a radical idea to replace professional politicians like those leading America, Great Britain, and her home country of France by a random selection of citizens to become their government’s legislators. Landemore is obviously an accomplished and well-educated person, but her idea of reform is a problem of scale and the faults of human nature. The complexity of managing any form of nation-state’ government requires more than inexperienced leaders whether elected or arbitrarily chosen. Her weak example is the ancient government of Athens. The size of Athen’s population was miniscule in comparison to today’s democratic countries. Athens is hardly a reasonable comparison to 21st century democracies. However, Landemore notes a fundamental truth about modern democracies.

The fundamental truth of Landemore’s political idea is better representation of the population needs to be created for democracy to survive and prosper.

Governance certainly requires more than deliberation. However, the solution cannot be arbitrary selection of representatives. There have to be fundamental qualifications for those who can represent their economic constituencies. They cannot have a criminal record, and their qualifications must conform to the characteristics of the constituency which they represent.

Capability and accountability become murkier with elected representatives that are inexperienced.

As popularly elected managers of people and bureaucracies, one’s ability to be re-elected may be the best measure of qualification for office. The length of a representative’s term would be limited based on equal representation and an age limit based on an annual mental competency assessment by a board of physicians beginning at age 65. One may argue voter representation would improve over time with popular re-election by those who continue to vote for the person they have chosen to represent their needs, subject to the age 65 competency assessments. This is a controversial issue but with the availability of social security in America, this seems a responsible way of assuring competent constituent representation.

Increasingly, Landemore argues democracies are being ruled by representatives that do not understand the reality of living in either America, Great Britain, or France.

One should keep in mind that ambition is not always bad because people like Lincoln, FDR, Mandela, and Havel were driven personalities. However, poor representative elections of the mostly financially secure and privileged undermines equal representation. Professional politicians elected by wealthy supporters encourage corruption, self-serving legislation, and detachment from the general population. But critics argue that in large societies some form of political specialization is unavoidable, just as medicine requires doctors and law requires lawyers. The question may not be whether politics can exist without politicians, but how politicians can be more representative of all; i.e., including the rich, poor and those who have chosen to be or are inadequately educated.

Presidents can be corrupt, self-serving, and detached. In theory, checks and balances by a wider swarth of Congressional representatives would counter polices of a corrupt President.

Scaling of a more representative body would be the greatest challenge to democracies like America, Great Britain, and France. Potential elected representatives who know or can learn how to assemble interested participants in governance must represent their constituency. The big “ask” of these new representatives is that they also work to gain some understanding of foreign policy, government military action, budgets, international trade, and pandemic management. Legitimacy of a constituency representative would be tied to elections that are central to the demographic interests they represent. One way for America to become more representative is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The limit of 435 members was created in 1929 when the population was 1/3rd of what it is today.

Fairer representation of all is the preeminent goal of democratic governance. Trump is the antithesis of that goal.

One remains skeptical of Landemore’s solution, but America and other purported democracies need to wake up to unequal representation in government rule. The strongest single objection to Landemore’s political idea is in a method of election and government policy creation that offers fairer representation of all nation-states’ citizens. Her fundamental truth is that today’s professional politicians fail to represent the diversity of democracies’ citizens.

CORRUPTION

It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strengths of democracy.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Regime Change (Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump)

Author: Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan

Narration by: Robert Petkoff

Jonathan Swan (Australian and American investigative journalist at NYT, reporter who won the Emmy Award for Best Edited Interview for Axios.)

If only a small percentage of Swan’s and Haberman’s history is objective, Trump’s presidency shows the weaknesses of American democracy. America’s president supervises executive departments, directs cabinet secretaries, orders the firing of employees, sets executive branch priorities, and issues lawful orders to federal agencies. Every American President’s power to hire executive branch employees has the ability to create a managerial ruling class that concentrates wealth and power in a like-minded group with direct reports to the President. Trump, with the character traits of a martinet, allows no disagreement and demands loyalty above all. He hires a cadre of rich Americans to lead the executive branch with total loyalty to one person’s beliefs and actions.

President? Trump.

The President of the United States has direct power over military operations with the right to deploy military force at will. Trump demonstrates that power with the bombing and intended domination of Iran. Trump’s intent is to eliminate Iran’s leadership and its nuclear bomb ambitions; i.e., objectives that fail on many levels. Congress only has the power to declare war, fund the military, and regulate armed forces. Trump did not declare war. He legally uses the military to attack an independent nation; murder alleged drug traffickers without trial and institute an American immigrant deportation policy without either American congressional or judicial endorsement just because, as President of the United States, he can.

January 6, 2021, Trump’s patriots?

The President’s power to pardon leads to the release of hundreds of Americans who had been jailed for attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Over two thousand rioters attacked Capitol Police, damaged the chambers of Congress, and threatened elected officials like the House Speaker and Trump’s chosen Vice President who would not endorse Trump’s belief that his reelection had been fraudulently stolen.

“Regime Change” is a difficult book to be objective about because of a personal distaste for Donald Trump. Much of what Swan and Haberman write reinforces a view of corruption by bullying of a President who is undoubtedly as controversial to some Americans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and FDR were in their times. The difference is that Trump is a proven liar whose public statements are proven false by independent fact-checking organizations. An objective judge of Trump’s presidency will only be fairly revealed by historians in future years. Though “Regime Change” seems well documented, the emotion of current times and the rage of citizens who elected this scofflaw will refuse to believe the truth.

Trump’s cabinet updated April 2, 2026

With a second term control of Trump’s election, he handpicks executive department employees and cabinet secretaries principally based on loyalty. Trump proceeds to issue lawful orders to federal agencies as a part of his administrative power. The President’s power to create executive orders requires no legislative oversight. That power is only constrained by constitutional and statutory authority over which a President has no control. That constraint requires time to be enforced, and Trump chooses to do as he wishes until restrained by either congressional or judicial action, neither of which are happening because of time or Constitutional right.

Trump exposes structural weaknesses in American Democratic government.

It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strength of democracy.

HUAWEI

There is an ongoing hybridization of American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

House of Huawei (The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company)

Author: Eva Dou

Narration by: Nancy Wu

Eva Dou (Author, American journalist who reports on technology for The Washington Post.)

“House of Huawei” is a complex history of the growth and development of what became a Chinese multinational technology company that builds smartphones, laptops, smartwatches, and most importantly, telecom infrastructure for cloud services around the world. It is China’s version of Amazon that becomes a massive seller of tech equipment, internet use, and communication.

Ren Zhengfei (Chinese entrepreneur and engineer, founder of Huawei Technologies.)

There are many names of Huawei business leaders that are largely unknown to most Americans. Ren Zhengfei is the founder and most important person in Dou’s story. He is born in 1944 to schoolteacher parents during the Cultural Revolution. He served in the Chinese armies engineering corps that shaped his management style. He worked through famine, political purges, and the strict discipline of military service. He became the founder of Huawei in 1987.

Deng Xiaoping (China’s Chairman of the Central Advisory Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, 1982-1987)

The advance of Deng Xioping opens a capitalist door to the world for Huawei. Beginning in 1978 through 1989 Deng reforms the communist party and encourages a limited form of capitalism in China. When Xi takes over, Huawei becomes more directly subject to communist party oversight. As a company, Huawei is pulled closer to China’s government control. The Huawei network is classified as a national-security asset. Though Huawei may or may not have sought closer association with the CCP, it became entangled with state strategy.

Xi makes Huawei a national champion of innovation and semiconductor technology. It becomes a symbol of China’s technology ambitions while being a target of U.S. sanctions. Dou shows Huawei becomes a battleground for tech strategy between China and the Untied States

Sun Yafang (Chinese engineer and Chairwoman of Huawei, 1999-2018.)

Sun Yafang is a former chairwoman of Huawei. Her ties to Chinese intelligence services are viewed as a recurring controversy with Huawei’s involvement with America. Her relationship with China’s state power structure creates concern on the part of the U.S. with Huawei’s data collection as a part of Huawei’s practices in America.

Meng Wanzhou (aka Cathy Meng or Sabrina Meng, Deputy Chairwoman and CFO of Huawei.)

Ren’s daughter, Meng Wanzhou, becomes the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei. Wanzhou became known to the world when she is detained in Canada in 2018 at the request of the United States. Her arrest ironically leads to more familiarity with Huawei and its expansion in the world. The primary concern the author reveals is how dependent Huawei may be on the Chinese government for information about America’s technology services.

The fundamental concern of America, Germany, and Japan is Huawei’s use of data collection in their countries.

In the end, these countries decide to ban or restrict the use of Huawei’s equipment because of their ties to the Chinese Communist Party, government, and military. Beginning in 2019 the U.S. banned some of Huawei’s services and global chip supplies. By 2026, Huawei is banned from American federal networks, and telecom infrastructure services. Germany and Japan take similar actions between 2018 and 2026.

Dou explains Huawei’s history exposes deep contradictions with China’s government-directed economic growth.

The authoritarian and state-directed economic and political structure of China is a challenging contradiction to the idealism of communism. China’s communism is compelled to change ideologically from Marxism-Leninism to a state-directed form of capitalism. Huawei becomes a telecom giant euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics. In truth, Huawei is structured to be more capitalist than communist with interventionist potential by the state if it conflicts with centralized control of the party.

Communist captitalism.

Dou explains how Party committees are created within Huawei’s management system. These committees exercise ideological control over Huawei’s executives. Huawei’s objectives are required to conform to national priorities. The development of 5G and telecom infrastructure becomes a national, not private asset of the company. This generates fear in the U.S. about security liabilities and foreign influence of China on U.S.’ and allied countries’ political and/or economic affairs. Dou notes China’s leadership insists on enforcing its security laws, data practices, and CCP’s rules of the road for Huawei’s operations.

Huawei discipline.

Dou notes that Xi’s anti-corruption campaign pressures Huawei to tighten internal governance. Executives of Huawei were disciplined for being too extravagant. The CCP organized ideological training for company employees to more fully align them with the Party. China’s government interference in Huawei’s management leads to U.S. sanctions and an arrest of Meng Wanzhou’s in Canada. The United States has effectively banned Huawei telecom and surveillance equipment. Federal agencies cannot use Huawei devices. American internet companies in the U.S. that receive federal funds must remove Huawei equipment. Though Huawei phones and laptops are not banned in the U.S., they are not sold by major U.S. carriers or retailers. The UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, and Canada have taken similar actions against Huawei services. Huawei product like laptops and mobile phones are not universally banned but many Western countries have barred telecom infrastructure because of national security concerns.

What is striking about Dou’s book is the history of Huawei shows both confluence and separation between Communism and Capitalism.

Both use the capitalist tools of competition, private enterprise, and global markets. Both are involved in the private sector and provide preferential treatment, political protection, and financing. Nationalism is a greater force than Marxism for both China and the U.S. American corporate discipline is similar to communist party discipline. Further, economic and political strategies of America and China have similarities. However, the two cultures conflict with each other over globalization and levels of interference or control of private companies. America leans toward transparency, partnership, open markets, and international trust. China opts for secrecy, political reliability, ideological conformity, and oversight to ensure national security. Furthermore, America thrives on risk-taking, experimentation, a free market and decentralized decision making while China emphasizes political correctness, Party control, ideological discipline, and insistence on corruption elimination.

In sum, it seems there is an ongoing hybridization of both American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?

WARNING

“The Fire Next Time” signals a political and prophetic warning to America. The continued existence of Baldwin’s observations about racial inequality are compounded by the rising gap between rich and poor and gender inequality in the 21st century.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fire Next Time

Author: James Baldwin

Narration by: Lawrence Fishburne

JAMES BALDWIN (1924-1987 AMERICAN NOVELIST, SOCIAL CRITIC)

“The Fire Next Time” is written when James Baldwin is only 38 years old. He lives for 25 more years before his death in 1987. His book about life as a Black American is an emotional journey into the struggle of Black Americans that exposes the venality of white suppression and inequality in American history. The intensity of his writing is a brutal exposure of the consequence of discrimination that overwhelms a reader or listener. In many ways, his book is professorial but his view of life as a minority in white America is appalling.

“Learning from the Germans” tells of how post WWII Germany dealt with the history of the holocaust more forthrightly than America has dealt with racism and its evil.

Baldwin exposes the hypocrisy of American democracy, the moral bankruptcy of racial hierarchy, and the failure of American institutions to live up to the values expressed in the American Constitution. The founders argue “all men are created equal” while history shows human equality has never been achieved in America. Baldwin clearly explains America’s failures but is decidedly vague on how those failures can be corrected. He clearly disagrees with the Nation of Islam’s belief in Black self-determination through separation of the races but is ambiguous about organized movements to correct discrimination.

Racist rally in America.

Baldwin explains how white liberals are too complacent, conservatives too cruel, Black separatists to fatalistic, and American institutions too dishonest to forthrightly deal with human inequality. His foundational belief is that a fight for civil rights, and continued arguments for equality are essential requirements for America to achieve the goals that are stated and implied by the Constitution.

“The Fire Next Time” signals a warning to America.

“The Fire Next Time” signals a political and prophetic warning. The continued existence of Baldwin’s observations about racial inequality are compounded by the rising gap between rich and poor and gender inequality in the 21st century. If America refuses to confront inequality, there will be a national reckoning that will be violent and unavoidable.

RUSSIA’S LEADERS

To Mark Galeotti, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with war, lost lives, and victims (some of which are Russian Ukrainians) who choose to live in Ukraine.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A Short History of Russia (How the World’s Largest Country Invented Itself, from the Pagans to Putin)

Author: Mark Galeotti

Narration by: Mark Galeatti

Mark Galeotti (Author, British historian, writer, honorary professor at UCL’s School of East European Studies.)

“A Short History of Russia” notes that Russia has historically felt insecure about its identity as a part of the European community. Galeotti notes Russia has no natural borders and no single ethnic core. Reaching back in history, the author notes the royal history of Russia’s Tsars (men and women who have descended from royalty). The 1917 Russian revolution turned Russia’s monarchy into a communist autocracy that leads to the eventual ascension of Putin. Putin becomes leader of a reconstituted Russia that reminds one of Russia’s Tsars. Galeatti argues Putin’s Russia considers itself part of the European continent despite its Mongol history that profoundly reshaped Russia’s political culture.

Mongols are an East Asian ethnic group which originated in Mongolia and China.

Galeotti argues Russia has always aspired to be a major influence and power in Europe. Their history of centralized authority and territorial expansion is characteristic of Russia’s desire to be a dominant part of European culture. Despite Russia’s cultural intent to be part of Europe, it drives to have its own identity as a continental influencer rather than conforming culture. The rise of communism, and much later, Putin is founded on Russia’s history of hierarchal leadership and cultural belief.

Tsarist Russia.

Galeotti paints a picture of Tsarist Russia that becomes a model for the rise of autocratic communism. Russian Tsars emphasized centralized control of the country. The Tsars were suspicious of citizen influence or control of the country. They set the table for rule from above because of the lack of any civil organization. Russia had a cultural background for the creation of an autocratic state. The effect of that background set the table for Stalin and today’s Vladmir Putin. Stalin establishes his rule through the use of a secret service to assure loyalty to its leader, Joseph Stalin. Stalin uses that secret service to eliminate rivals to his power. In the interregnum between Stalin and Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev attempts to reform the communist party to an openness for change through his personal effort and a home-fore initiative from party leaders, workers, and managers. Gorbachev fails for many reasons; not the least of which is the terrorist and murderous experience of Stalin’s leadership. But, Gorbachov’s is also because of his failure to gain party support and the consequent departure of many states that chose to leave the U.S.S.R.

Mikhail Gorbachev (Pres. of the Soviet Union 1990-1991, General Secy. of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991.)

Gorbachev takes control of the Russian government with the intent of restructuring weaknesses that had grown in the directionless vacuum created by the death of Stalin. Boris Yeltsin interferes with Gorbachev’s effort when he becomes President of the Russian Federation in 1991. Yelsin complicated Gorbachev’s reform by looking to a young KGB officer named Vladimir Putin to join the administration. Yeltsin’s alcoholism compounded growing disorganization of the Russian government. Gorbachev loses control of the communist party and the balance of personal interests between factions of the U.S.S.R., in part, because of Yeltsin’s interference and mismanagement.

Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

Chernobyl becomes a symbol of what is going wrong with centralized government control. Putin’s steely determination reminds Russians of a leader who could stabilize what remained of the Russian empire after the Baltic states and Ukraine left the Union. The ideas of perestroika and glasnost interfered with the U.S.S.R.’s imperialist system of government. However, public discontent with Gorbchev’s rule renewed public interest in Tsarist style control of government like that which is implied, if not recommended by former KBG agent, Vladimir Putin.

Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007, President of Russia 1990-1991.)

Galeotti believes Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost recommendations reveal deep structural weaknesses that are magnified by Boris Yeltsin’s incompetence. However, Galeotti argues Putin is not a master strategist nor a villain. Putin is characterized as an opportunist who takes control of Russia in ways that were experienced during Tsarist and later Stalinist rule. He reinstitutes personal networks of government control by rewarding those who comply with his rule while hollowing out leaders and institutions that interfere with his power. Putin makes himself a modern Tsar by governing with a circle of loyalists. Loyalty to Putin is the cornerstone of his governance. Putin manipulates the fragility of Russian bureaucracies meant to improve the lives of Russian citizens while endorsing the greed of the wealthy. Control and loyalty become more important than effectiveness or efficiency. Loyalty to Putin is the mark of value in his administration.

Putin clearly takes the side of autocratic rulers because of his belief in control of circumstances and belief in loyalty to those in charge.

Putin in Syria supports its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who flees to Russia when deposed.

Bashar al-Assad (Rose to power in Syria in 2000 having inherited his position as Syria’s ruler from his father. As a fellow autocrat, he is fully supported by Putin.)

Galeotti notes Putin is not omnipotent but is a leader whom Russians are familiar with from past history. Centralization of power has been a hallmark of Russia’s growth with a desire for Russia to be identified as a powerful and important part of Europe. To the author, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with Putin’s aggression, the Ukrainian war, war’s lost lives, and its victims (many of which are Russian Ukrainians).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: