Mahmoud Khalil (Algerian-Palestinian activist, former graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.)
Mahmoud Khalil tells his story of being arrested by ICE for demonstrating at Colombia University in New York, only weeks before his graduation. Khalil is part of a demonstration against the Gaza war and what is identified by Amnesty International in 2024 as a Palestinian genocide. He is detained without being accused of a crime and sent to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana (approximately 1300 miles south). By coincidence or intent, the Trump administration cancelled approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University before Khalil’s arrest.
President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)President Roosevelt (1933-1945)President Richard Nixon (1969-1974)President Donald Trump (2017-2021, 2025-?)
Kahlil’s book is a reminder of Presidential actions of former Presidents from both parties that have used their power to reinforce their government policies. Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Willson, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and now, Donald Trump, are prime examples. Nevertheless, it is appalling to see the power of a President to arrest and illegally transport and/or deport foreign immigrants who are in this country to become productive workers or to attain an advanced education.
Are Americans more or less free in the 21st century?
America is founded on the principles of “free speech”, and “due process of law”, both of which are violated in the story of Khalil’s treatment by the American government. He is never charged with a crime but is arrested, and detained over 1300 miles from his home, a pregnant wife, and their newborn baby. The treatment of illegal immigrants by ICE is disgusting but Khalil’s experience shows it makes no difference when you look like a foreigner. America’s growing reputation as a bigoted country is confirmed. Khalil’s story shows if you look Black or foreign, your chances for success in America are diminished.
“No Land to Stand On” reflects on America as a country that has a long way to go to become a land of free speech and equal rights.
The power of an incompetent President is only mitigated by legislative and judicial powers, and the limits of their term in office. One hopes the next two years are better than the last two.
“The Cost of Care’ recommends insurance companies, medical services, and government administrations focus on creating a policy of “Medicare-for-all” that treats all elder and/or ill American citizens equally.
The Cost of Care (How Four Nurses Put Patients First in a Profit-Driven System)
Author: Theresa Brown
Narrated by: Donna Jay Fulks
Theresa Brown (PhD, BSN, Rn, Author, American clinical nurse.)
“The Cost of Care” is a somewhat frustrating book to review because it notes human faults that seem to dumb-down the profession of medical care in the United States. Like all products and services in America, cost is rising. Of course, a difference is that medical service is often a necessity rather than a choice. However, like all service organizations, some are managed well; others not.
Childbirth.
The first half of Brown’s book deals with childbirth and the costs and care for young families that choose to have children. Surprisingly, she finds Midwife birthing centers provide better care for pregnant mothers than most hospitals. She highlights Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Portland, Oregon Midwife centers. She notes the counseling and care from “Midwife” birthing centers are less expensive, equally effective, and more comforting for both mothers and newborn than major hospitals. Brown criticizes hospital treatment of pregnancy as emotionally sterile, less patient centered, and less likely to offer the best care for mothers and the newborn. This is an observation by Brown who is educated and licensed as a registered nurse.
A major criticism is Brown’s recognition of what one might call hospital clericalization of health care.
There is a sense of medical treatment becoming a mechanical job by caregivers, including doctors and nursing professionals who show little empathy or expressed concern for their patients. Many who have been treated by doctors, nurses, or hospital admissions employees will recognize some of her criticism. Large organizations, like hospitals, are highly regulated by the States in which they exist. Standardization of service in hospitals is required to mitigate possible mistakes in medical treatment. However, Brown notes that standardization works against the care, comfort, and safe infant delivery offered by mid-wife operations.
The right to choose.
However, what the author ignores is the volitional control a patient or pregnant mother has in choosing a physician. Human beings, whether doctors, nurses, midwifes, or pregnant mothers vary in their attitudes, habits, and beliefs. Both patients and those who provide medical services are human. The best any person can do as a physician, nurse, midwife, or patient is influenced by their education and the life they have lived. A pregnant woman’s choice of service is up to her. Brown argues mid-wife’ deliveries show lower C-section rates, fewer induced births and episiotomies, and higher rates of vaginal births with infant outcomes that are equal or better than hospitals.
Brown suggests care for expectant mothers is diminished by hospitalization.
Few service organizations and their employees perfectly serve the public. If one is not satisfied with a particular physician or medical service, a patient’s options are to choose a different service, live with or self-cure their malady, or try to find another medical treatment service. If the medical facility is the only one in town and has rude or unresponsive employees, a patient’s options are to complain about the medical service to supervisors or owners of the facility. Complaints may or may not change anything but failure to register a complaint will only reinforce poor services of the company.
Aged American citizens.
Brown goes on to discuss medical services for aged American citizens. The majority of Americans cannot afford full-service retirement communities that cover all natural aging maladies of those over 65. Qualification for complete care retirement communities often exceed a net worth requirement of $1,500,000 while most aged Americans’ have net worths of less than $250,000. This economic reality makes ageing in place a necessity rather than a choice for most Americans.
Brown ends “The Cost of Care” with a practical, though ideologically idealized, idea of how to improve medical care in America. She argues for caregivers, particularly nurses, be trained to base their care on human relationship. Brown suggests focusing on a health care change in America. She argues for health care to be reorganized. Her book recommends insurance companies, medical services, and government administrations focus on creating a policy of “Medicare-for-all” that treats all elder and/or ill American citizens equally.
End Times Fascism (And the Fight for the Living World)
Author: Naoimi Klein, Astra Taylor
Narrated by: Astra Taylor, Naomi Klein
Naomi Klein (Canadian author, social activist, and filmmaker.)Astra Taylor (Canadian American, documentary film maker, writer, activist, and musician.)
Has American government become fascist? Is America being led by a Benito Mussolini and becoming more like Nazi Germany than a democratic nation?
The characteristic of a fascist nation is authoritarianism, ultranationalism, cultism, and opposition suppression designed to mobilize myth and emotion. Trump is an authoritarian. He believes America is the superior of all nations. He surrounds himself with sycophants who endorse his belief and fear his criticism. However, an estimated 59 to 61 percent of American citizens disapprove of Trump’s leadership. That opposition provides a belief that America is not and will not ever be like Mussolini’s or Hitler’s fascist regimes.
Klein and Taylor clearly mark the fascist actions and belief of America’s current president, but their arguments become tiresome and increasingly disrespectful of the power of democratic government and beliefs of an American majority. Their argument is diminished by being too judgmental, ignoring the feelings of most Americans, underestimating the power of America’s form of democracy, and oversimplifying the disgusting policies of an aged and incompetent President.
This is not a book that objectively assesses the truth of our times as seriously dangerous as they are for America and its allies. The picture drawn by these authors is a hyperbolically negative judgement of today’s American democracy. The book is returned to the library without being completed.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” shows that wealth, belief in something greater than oneself, and human relationship are the powers behind revolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)Maggie Haberman (American journalist, political analyst for CNN, White House correspondent for the NYT, published a best seller, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump” in 2022.)
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.
