Category: GOVERNMENT

CIVILIZATIONS’ FUTURE

“…Western Civilization” and its Christian and democratic foundation gives little comfort to those who are worried about societies’ future.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Foundations of Western Civilization” 

By: Great Books Series

Lecturer: Professor Thomas F.X. Noble

Thomas F. X. Noble (Professor at Notre Dame, Ph.D. from Michigan State University, President of the American Society of Church History, received the Charles Sheedy Prize for Excellence in Teaching in 2011.)

Noble offers a distinctive view of the foundation of Western Civilization in 48-lectures sponsored by the Great Books Series. There is little doubt about the importance of religion in the world. Noble explains how the Bible is a seminal work underpinning one of the two largest religions of the world, Christianity. Noble explains the Bible, just as the Quran in the east, provides a contract between a singular God and humanity. However, the dialectic of religion is that it binds people together as well as rips them apart. On the one hand, religious belief brings people together with belief in something greater than themselves. On the other, Christian and Islamic believers have maimed and murdered millions.

Noble explains Christianity began in the same area of the world as the Muslim religion, but several centuries earlier.

The spread of Christianity begins in the 1st century while Muslimism spread in the 7th. The ministry of Jesus Christ spread Christianity in 30-33 AD. Some would argue the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are extensions of the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish Torah and Hebrew Bible emphasize the oneness of God, which is consistent with Christian belief, but the difference is that Jesus was not considered a Messiah by Jews. Jesus was, at most, only a messenger of God to Jews, like Muhammed is considered to Muslims.

Noble notes the spread of Christianity began in the Middle East, centuries before Muhammad’s spread of Muslimism in Mesopotamia.

Noble suggests Christianity’s spread is associated with the advent of Zoroastrianism in Mesopotamia. The prophet Zoroaster believed in a monotheistic faith before the ministry of Jesus in Judea and before the record of Judaism in the Torah of 1400 BC, the later Holy Bible, New Testament, and Quran. The common factor in Judaism, Christianity, and Muslimism is belief in one Supreme Being. Of course, there are numerous differences in these religions after their “One God” similarity. The point is, they all originated in the Middle East according to Noble’s history.

The point Noble is making is that religion is an integral part of the foundation of civilization. Religion brought people together. At the same time, religion became a foundation for difference among people of similar and different cultures. Noble explains those differences helped and hindered the shape of western civilizations.

Religion is not the singular shaper of western civilization. Noble goes on to explain the early stages of democracy that began in Greece. Ironically, democracy was looked down upon by Greeks and much of their criticism holds true in modern times.

Greeks feared the tyranny of the majority and were concerned about the lack of expertise in governance and decision-making on the part of the general population. They saw the risk of demagogues. America and the western world have experienced all of these democratic risks. One could argue America is experiencing those risks in 2024.

As these risks play out in ancient Greece, they were mitigated by pragmatic Athenian leaders like Cleisthenes who respected special interests of his time in office. He introduced a lottery system that gave voice and some influence on policy to representatives of these special interests. The people being governed were recognized in public forums that allowed free expression. On the other hand, Cleisthenes instituted the principle of societal ostracism for aberrant behavior of people who advocated against what was perceived as the common good. Future leaders expanded political rights of Greek residents and created a council of special interests to have a direct role and influence in public policy. Public ostracism of Greek citizens for up to ten years was formalized to maintain government’ stability.

Rather than direct democracy, Rome established a representative system of democratic governance.

Noble moves on to the Roman Empire that adopted many of the principles that advanced Greek civil governance. However, rather than direct democracy, Rome established a representative system of democratic governance. Rome made wealth a more important criteria for serving as a representative of government. However, Rome did not use their citizen representatives to make law but only to give vent to their opinions about leadership’s decisions. Rome extended their empire by military conquest but when battles were won, they appointed governors of new territories that granted citizenship to the conquered. Military control is maintained by Rome for centuries, but a voice is given to the citizens of conquered territories. In a combination of military power, alliances with native rulers, and positive incentives, Rome assimilated foreign cultures into a vast empire.

The power and influence of Rome diminished in the 3rd century. Rome’s diminishing power comes from multiple directions. Noble explains the rise of disparate tribal groups challenged Roman authority. The growing influence of religion and diminished gravitas of its citizens accelerated Romes’s loss of power and influence.

However, it is clear the lessons of Greece’s and Rome’s democratic history are guides to the future of “…Western Civilization”.

One is drawn to a conclusion that America cannot abandon its military investment and strength or its economic support of foreign countries if it wishes to remain a hegemonic power in the world.

China recognizes the importance of investment in their military and its economic investment in other countries (e.g., Road and Belt program) to advance its influence and role in the world.

The difference is that China relies on centralized government control while America relies on the principle of “power to the people”. Dictatorships are inherently limited by military prowess and singular, autocratic leadership. In contrast, the ideals of democracy are humanly limitless. Today’s unknown seems to be religion. In theory, America’s founding fathers recognized religions’ powerful influence by legislating separation of church and state. Religion remains a great force in the world, let alone American society.

Religion brought societies together while splitting human society in ways that maimed and murdered millions of people.

Noble circles back to a more detailed history of religion. As the Roman Empire begins to collapse, dynasties were formed through the 3rd century AD.

As these dynasties collapsed, Christianity spreads across former Roman controlled lands. The Byzantine Empire formed in 395 CE; Christianity grew through the 15th century to become the largest religion in the world. The Frankish dynasty established itself between 750 and 887 CE, with Charlemagne as its most renown leader. In 774 CE., Charlemagne created a papal state in central Italy. A Frankish dynasty was formed by the Carolingian family (756-887 CE) that managed to stabilize and spread Christian religion throughout Western Europe. The Carolingian family constructed churches and schools to teach Christianity. They created a Carolingian army to protect and expand belief in a Christian God. Noble’s lectures show religious belief in a Supreme Being roils the world. From reading/listening to other histories, governments founded on religious belief are destined to fail.

The remaining lectures summarize the history of the Rennaissance, the Reformation, and the split of the Christian church. Noble’s lectures reflect his erudition, multi-lingual expertise, and understanding of the people of those historical events. The underpinning notion is that religion and its permutations will continue to impact the future of the world, let alone “…Western Civilization”.

“…Western Civilization” and its Christian and democratic foundation gives little comfort to those who are worried about societies’ future.

HEGEMONY

Every nation in the world can learn from nation-state’ mistakes in history but none can right the wrongs of the past.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Empireworld” (How British Imperialism Shaped the Globe)

By: Sathnam Sanghera

Narrated by: Homer Todiwala

Sathnam Sanghera (Author, British journalist, born to Punjabi parents, graduate of Christ’s College, Cambridge with a degree in English Language and Literature.)

“Empireworld” offers a credible explanation of how the white race, which is a mere 16% of the world’s population, has dominated the world since the 17th century. That domination changed in the 21st century. It changed with the power and economic growth of the United States which is being challenged today by the Asian continent.

In earlier centuries, China, the Ottoman (modern day Turkey), and Mughal Empires (modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) were Asian rulers of the world

Prior to the 17th century, an empire’s influence is arguably more local because of transportation and communication limitations. What Sanghera infers is Great Britain’s growing power and influence surpassed others because of its domination of the sea and growing industrialization. The point is all of these 17th century nations were principally white with similar ambitions but only Great Britain influenced all foreign cultures of that period, with remnants extending into modern times.

France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and Portugal were major 17th century players, but Sanghera argues the imperialist drive of Great Britain surpassed its rivals.

Sanghera focuses on GB, not only because it was white but because it represented a national power’s intent to shape the world in its own image. The image Sanghera creates is not egalitarian, democratic, or sanguine. GB is characterized as dominating, autocratic, and driven by self-interest. He suggests eleemosynary efforts by GB to aid other countries was principally to guild their own lily, not to offer other countries self-determination or freedom. Indigenous populations are inferred to be expendable in Sanghera’s “Empireworld”.

“Empireworld” is a harsh judgement of Great Britain’s history of enslavement, indigenous displacement, colonization, and confiscation of other countries’ natural resources. Sanghera systematically builds a case for GB’s attempt to English-size the world. Parenthetically, this is the same view held by some nations about America.

Sanghera recalls the history of the slave trade, Great Britain’s colonization of India, Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, North America, and other countries of the world. He reminds listener/readers of the despoiling of the animal kingdom, confiscation of nation-state natural resources, enslavement of Africans, sexual discrimination, suppression of colonial sovereignty, displacement of indigenous peoples, and re-education or extermination of native countrymen who will not accept an English view of superiority and custom.

Sanghera tempers his harsh view of Great Britain in the conclusion of “Empireworld”. He does not deny G.B.’s history but acknowledges his countries’ measured efforts to right the wrongs of the past; which is of course not possible.

Sanghera cites G.B.’s belated effort to preserve animal and plant species, its acceptance of former colonies’ nation-state sovereignty, growing discussion about reparation for profiting from the slavery trade, endorsement of indigenous people’s rights, legislative action for sexual freedom, and support for improved health, education, and welfare of former colonial citizens. All are works in process, far from completion, but progressing. Sanghera’s history of Great Britain is the story of America. Though America avoided the colonial history of England, it has similar challenges.

Every nation in the world can learn from nation-state’ mistakes in history but none can right the wrongs of the past.

WHAT’S TO BE DONE

America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“A Map of Future Ruins” (On Borders and Belonging)

By: Lauren Markham

Narrated by: Gilli Messer

Lauren Markham (Author, reporter on issues about migration and human rights.)

Immigration is a hot subject around the world.

Lauren Markham writes a somewhat disjointed book about immigration to a Greek island between Turkey and Greece.

Lauren Markham offers a report of a fire in a Lesbos refugee camp in the small town of Moria on September 9, 2010. There were no deaths from the fire but the conditions of the encampment and the government’s response to the crises tell of unfair and inadequate treatment of refugees–reminiscent of other countries dealings with unwanted immigrants.

The camp was designed to hold 3,000 people but grew to nearly 13,000. Seventy percent of the migrants were from Afghanistan. A fire of unknown origin destroyed the immigrant’s shelter that gave notice to the world of the inadequate care offered refugees fleeing crime, poverty, and displacement in their home countries.

Turkey and Greece have a storied history of conflict that is reminiscent of the Afghanis flight from Afghanistan. Turkey’s most revered leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, ordered Greeks to leave Turkey in a mass exodus during his reign. Ethnic and religious differences between the Ottoman Empire and Greece came to a boil in 1923. Those differences are reminiscent of the escape of Afghanis from the restrictive life of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghanis chose a route from Afghanistan through Iran to Turkey to the Greek Island of Lesbos to escape the Taliban.

Markham shows the initial response of the Greeks was to aid the Afghanis in their flight but as the number of refugees grew, the burden became too great. The conditions of the encampment deteriorated, and the anger of the Greek government escalated. A fire of unknown origin began in the camp. Six Afghanis, two of which were minors under 18 years of age, were arrested and found guilty of setting the fire. Markham shows the evidence for conviction had nothing to do with truth but was manufactured by the Greek Court to find a verdict of guilt.

“Dallas, Texas, United States – May 1, 2010 a large group of demonstrators carry banners and wave flags during a pro-immigration march on May Day.”

The inference from Markam’s report is that America’s border state conflicts will, and undoubtedly have, resulted in unjust treatment of emigrants. The irony is that America needs emigrants to meet the needs of its economic future. America seems to be doing as poor a job of addressing immigration as the story of the Afghanis in Moria. America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.

THE MARSHALL PLAN

NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Marshall Plan” (Dawn of the Cold War)

By: Benn Steil

Narrated by: Arthur Morey

Benn Steil (Author, American economist, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Along with an excellent history of America’s “…Marshall Plan”, there is an underlying message about two fundamental forms of government, i.e., one is democratic, and the other is authoritarian. By democratic, the point is not to suggest an idyllic understanding of American Democracy or Russian Authoritarianism. America and Russia have experienced government leadership that has been both authoritarian and democratic in the last 248 years.

One can justifiably argue America’s authoritarianism was experienced during the four years of the Trump administration (2017-2021).

In contrast Russia’s democratic experience was with Mikhail Gorbachev between 1985 and 1991. Before and after Gorbachev, democratic experience in Russia has been limited and largely authoritarian. What history of “The Marshall Plan” shows is the superior value of American democracy’s checks and balances that limit the power of authoritarian leadership by preserving deliberations of the many as opposed to the one. Trump is not the first U.S. President that was an authoritarian.

George Catlett Marshall Jr. (1880-1959, American army officer and statesman, became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense during the Truman administration.)

History of “The Marshall Plan” shows the resilience of democratic versus authoritarian governance. Steil shows “The Marshall Plan” is created in a boiling cauldron of disagreement among branches of the American government. The conflicts between American political parties and departments of government hammered out a plan that improved the economies of both America and Europe after the war. America became the economic hegemon of the world as Russia’s economy collapsed in the early 60s.

MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping

One might argue the success of China came as a result of the more inclusive economic decision-making policies of Deng Xiaoping after Mao Zedong’s death. With Deng’s opening the economy to market-oriented reforms in 1978, worker efficiency and productivity created an economic boom in China. China’s danger today is the autocratic rule of Xi Jinping. His one-man rule nearly collapsed the economy during Covid 19. America certainly suffered from Covid, but Trump’s authoritarian character was mitigated by political resistance to unilateral Presidential decision-making.

Steil explains how Molotov delayed negotiations on “The Marshall Plan” with a clear understanding that only one person, Joseph Stalin, made decisions in Russia.

Steil notes “The Marshall Plan” is singularly disparaged and reviled by the Russian government. That disparagement is directed by one person, Joseph Stalin. There is no one to oppose the autocratic rule of Stalin’s leadership. Stalin’s opposition was either sent to the Gulag or murdered. A more balanced power structure in Russia could have taken advantage of “The Marshall Plan” but by singular fiat of one person (Stalin) implementation was impeded after WWII. The errors inherent in communism and authoritarian rule are being recreated by Putin in the 21st century.

What Steil shows is that many elected officials in America fought the principles of “The Marshall Plan”. However, the constant back and forth of government policy arguments in Congress aided European recovery after the war in a way that stabilized Europe and monumentally improved the economic growth of America.

Autocracies can certainly improve their economic growth at a pace that is superior to governments ruled by democratic ideals. However, autocracies have a much greater risk of following the wrong path because of their singular focus on one person’s decisions.

With an autocrat’s decision-making process, economic growth is either stultified or accelerated by one person’s decision. The give and take of democracies offer the benefit of different policy maker’s perspectives that may slow policy decisions but ultimately improve the odds of forward economic growth.

This argument is somewhat disingenuous in the sense that American natural resources were still to be tapped in the 20th century.

However, it is more than the availability of natural resources that made America economically successful. It is the give and take of a democratic process that protects America from the giant missteps that can come from autocratic rule. America has had some good to great rulers, but it has also had some ignorant, bigoted autocrats that offered minimal support for the ideals of freedom and equality. Checks and balances are the strength of American democracy. Presidents can make a difference, but they cannot destroy America’s future.

Ben Steil’s history of “The Marshall Plan” is not limited to an explanation of how important and difficult it is for America to pass important and consequential legislation.

The last chapters of Steil’s history of the Marshall Plan explains why Russia, China, and North Korea resent American encroachment on their spheres of influence. From the era of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong II, there has been a growing concern over the expansion of America’s sphere of influence. Steil explains how the Marshall Plan has morphed into a deepening concern about NATO expansion in Europe. As noted in an earlier, the Marshall Plan is created to aid recovery of countries that were impacted by WWII’s destruction. In reality it aided America to become the hegemon of the world. Because of the economic stimulus that revived the countries damaged by WWII, America created new markets for their industrial growth and international trade.

NATO is viewed as another vehicle for America’s economic growth and ideological threat to Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un’s control of their countries.

NATO is viewed as another invidious way for America to expand their influence and power. That seems an unfair evaluation of NATO. NATO is a military defense plan saying one country within NATO that is attacked by another country is an attack on all NATO countries. Every nation that has managed to become an independent country should be able to pursue there own interests.

The iron curtain is rusting but its characteristic strength remains a barrier to international cooperation.

The rusting of the iron curtain comes from the tears of societies ruled by authoritarians. The authoritarians are leaders who believe their way of life is threatened. NATO is viewed as a trojan horse at the front gates of non-aligned countries.

One decries Putin’s slaughter of Ukrainians in an unjust war. Life of innocents have no value to today’s Russian leadership that believes their power and way of life is threatened.

The real-politic of authoritarian’s desire for stability and power outweigh the value of human life. The same is seen in the plight of Palestinians who are not part of the October 7th’ terrorists’ killings and kidnappings but are in the way of Israel’s retaliation against Hamas.

In my amateur opinion, China, Russia, North Korean, or other authoritarian governments have a right to rule their countries as they wish. Their citizens are the key to every leader’s longevity. NATO is an effort to offer freedom of choice to established independent countries but if the citizens of a country support their leaders, there is little NATO, or any alliance can do, except to support the sovereignty of all nations.

NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.

Steil argues George Kennan is right in suggesting NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”. Kennan believed it would inflame nationalist beliefs and reinvigorate the Cold War. And so, it has–as evidenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s expressed intention and action toward Taiwan, and North Korea’s armaments support of Russia.

IMPERIAL ELITE

Kaplan’s last chapters make a powerful statement about what America should do to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Earning the Rockies” (How Geography Shapes America’s Role in the World)

By: Robert D. Kaplan

Narrated by: William Dufris

Robert Kaplan (American Author, freelance journalist and foreign correspondent.)

The first chapters of Robert Kaplan’s “Earning the Rockies” are a travel memoir about America’s growth from 13 colonies to 50 states, but the last two chapters are a considered view of America’s turbulent history and what its role should be in the world.

Kaplan explains he comes from a working-class family born in New York City.

Kaplan was raised on the East Coast. His father was a local truck driver. However, his son became a world traveler who served in the Israeli Army and worked as a freelance writer for major publications. His travels and professional reporting experience undoubtedly influence his opinions about America’s role in the world.

Kaplan’s book begins with memories of his beloved father who talked to him about many things, one of which is a belief that “Earning the Rockies” requires one to work to make a living before traveling across the country.

Kaplan writes an apocryphal story of traveling from the east to west coast of America. In reflecting on his journey, he recalls the history of America’s growth as a nation state. He writes of white settler’s displacement of Indian tribes, a journey to the northwest by leaders of the Mormon church, and America’s growth and assembly of 50 states.

In his travels, Kaplan recalls:

1) America’s territorial growth with the Louisiana purchase,

2) confrontation with Mexico to expand America’s southwestern border,

3) Civil War for union rather than separation, and

4) Mormon and other pioneer travels on the Oregon Trail to see and settle the Northwest.

America becomes an economic giant, protected from foreign interference by two oceans.

In the creation of this American geographic giant, many territorial, political, and economic conflicts were resolved. Kaplan’s suggests America’s economic growth is based on force and compromise, the keys to America’s future in the world.

Kaplan’s American heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush. He adds the extraordinary insight of Ambassador George Kennan in his analysis of Russia. Kaplan notes other great leaders, but these four Presidents and one diplomat are examples of how American leaders use force and compromise to enhance the power and prestige of democracy in the world.

Kaplan explains prudent use of force and compromise is how the west was won and how America became an economic hegemon, a power and influence in the world.

Union of America’s States was perpetuated with force, while compromise continues to ameliorate the wrongs done to Indians and Blacks in America. Those wrongs will never be removed but compromise inures to the benefit of future generations.

Kaplan argues there is an imperial elite in America, similar to what were the elite and influential intellectuals of ancient Greece.

Many of these elites graduated from Harvard or other ivy league schools. (There is an “echo chamber” risk when too many leaders are educated in the same ivy league school.) Along with this imperial elite, he suggests America’s sea power is as important today as it was for the Greeks in antiquity. Sea power widened the influence of Greece just as it widens the influence of America today.

China is working toward a similar goal with its expansion of aircraft carrier and warship production.

Prudent use of power and compromise will expand the influence of every country that has hegemonic ambition. The operative word is “prudent”, i.e., navigating life with a thoughtful eye toward the future. Of course, there is a difference between China’s and America’s political prudence, but each is able to draw on resources that can change the course of history. The question becomes which has a system of government that can prudently use force and compromise to achieve peace and prosperity?

China’s and Russia’s education system leans toward communism which has not had the same level of success as capitalism.

America’s imperial elite is largely educated in American’ ivy league schools. Kaplan suggests, to the extent that these elitists grasp the importance of using force and compromise through democratic capitalism, the world has a chance for peace and prosperity.

Kaplan notes there is less geographic advantage for America today because of technological interconnectedness.

However, interconnectedness cuts both ways. Force and compromise have wider influence with technological interconnectedness. Whether today’s imperial elitists are prudent in their use of force and compromise is most important. Kaplan strongly suggests America should build the Navy to be a symbol of force and presence around the world. However, leadership of the many as opposed to the one as in in China, Russia, or any autocracy seems equally important.

Kaplan’s last chapters make a powerful statement about what America should do to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

“Drucker” is an interesting book about an important 20th century professor and storied business consultant.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Drucker” (The Man who Invented the Corporate Society)

By: John J. Tarrant

Published in 1980–No picture available of the author, John J. Tarrant.

Peter Drucker was a world-renowned business and government management consultant in the mid-twentieth century. John J. Tarrant’s personal memoir is about Peter Drucker’s business and government management beliefs. A lack of approval or acknowledgement of Tarrant’s book by Drucker reinforces one’s belief in Tarrant’s objectivity.

With my personal experience as a neophyte business manager in the 1970s, Peter Drucker was a business consultant we studied in management development classes.

There were several group meetings with other managers in the company for which I worked. In those meetings we discussed Drucker’s views on business management and practice. Drucker had a profound effect on me and how I managed my part of the business.

A fundamental point made by Drucker is that a business’ manager must focus on strengths, not weaknesses of people reporting to him or her.

The principle of that focus is that every manager is charged with setting goals while recognizing he/she needs to build around personal weaknesses with direct report’ employee’s strengths. The point is that a manager and/or employee in an organization is unlikely to know all there is to know to achieve a company’s goals. Drucker argues the purpose of business is to sustain itself by achieving determined objectives. It is not about profit but about sustaining a business’s future. That principle applies to government departments as long as they continue to serve the needs of the public. When businesses or government departments fail to preserve their future or purpose, they deserve dissolution.

What Tarrant notes in his memoir is that Drucker believes government departments do not have the same incentives as businesses and tend to become self-perpetuating when their original purpose is achieved. Businesses disappear or go bankrupt because they do not generate enough revenue to sustain their future. Drucker suggests government departments rarely disappear. They become self-perpetuating. They are protected by public taxes, not the principle of free market revenue. Tarrant infers Drucker believes government departments should be dissolved when their goals are achieved.

Tarrant categorizes Drucker as a conservative but not in a 21st century Republican sense but in a belief that government tends to waste public taxes because their goals tend to evolve from service to the public to employment-preservation. Government departments should not exist as an employment haven without public purpose.

Tarrant notes Drucker voted as a Democrat. As an Austrian born American, Tarrant notes, he only voted for a Republican President twice in his lifetime. Drucker is alleged to regret having voted Republican the two times he did. One was for Nixon and the second I can’t remember. This is not to suggest Drucker was partisan because his focus was on management, not politics. “Drucker” is an interesting book about an important 20th century professor and storied business consultant.

UNIONIZATION

Nolan clearly illustrates how important political power is in balancing corporate owner/managers’ disproportionate incomes and privileges with labor.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Hammer” (Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor)

By: Hamilton Nolan

Narrated by: Franklin Pierson

Hamilton Nolan (Author and free-lance Journalist)

“The Hammer” is a paean to unionization. Unions lost much of their political power in the early 1970s. Political power of labor was diminished by State governments, poor labor union management, and a diminishing number of labor union members. Nolan’s argument is workers have to reestablish political power to change their unfair and inequitable relationship with business.

The widening gap between rich and poor is traced to the era of President Reagan when the first deep cuts in corporate taxes occur.

Reagan fought unionization by firing air traffic controllers that sought better wages. Reagan’s supporters believed government social programs were out of control and their cost diminished the power of free enterprise. Much of the American public either agreed or were apathetic. However, as the gap between rich and poor accelerated, Americans began to complain about inequality. With extraordinary income increases for business owners and CEOs, and repressed wages for workers, the need for unionized political power became self-evident. Nolan introduces his book about unionization with a brief biography of Sara Nelson.

Sara Nelson (AFA president of the Association of Flight Attendants.)

Nolan writes about Sara Nelson who became a union member when she worked for United Airlines as a stewardess. Nelson was born and lived in Corvallis, Oregon. She applies for a job with United Airlines in St. Louis. She gets the job but her first paycheck is late. She couldn’t pay her rent. A check is given to her by a union employee to tide her over until her first check is delivered. From that day forward, according to Nolan, Nelson became a supporter of unions. Eventually Nelson becomes the president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA).

Liz Shuler (President of the AFL-CIO since 8/5/21.)

Ironically, the first woman President of the AFL-CIO is also from Oregon. Liz Shuler received a bachelor’s degree in journalism from U of O in Eugene, Oregon. She became a union activist after college and worked to organize clerical workers at Portland General Electric. She is elected as the President of the AFL-CIO in 2021 after serving as the first woman Secretary-Treasurer of the organization.

Nolan’s book addresses State conflicts with unionizers and family-income for low-income workers. The first states he addresses are South Carolina and California. Nolan notes South Carolina has become a haven for businesses wishing to avoid unions. South Carolina’ State laws discourage unionization which appeals to businesses wishing to relocate. Nolan notes South Carolina attracts businesses looking to improve profits by reducing labor costs. The consequence of business’s lower labor cost is to reduce South Carolina workers’ standard of living. South Carolina’s workers are among the lowest (19th out of 50 States) paid workers in the U.S. Nolan implies South Carolina’s income inequality is a consequence of the State’s policy of discouraging unionization.

California has the fourth largest income inequality in the U.S.

Nolan notes the cascading negative of unfair compensation for domestic labor. Though California now allows childcare servers to be unionized, their unionization efforts are discouraged by government regulation, as well as the fragmentation of its poorly compensated workers. The consequence of State government regulation keeps wages low and discourages entrepreneurs from starting childcare’ businesses. A compounding negative is created when users of childcare’ service, women in particular, are unable to work in regular work-day jobs. Workers are compelled to stay home to take care of their children, reducing family income and further impoverishing low-income childcare’ workers. It becomes a vicious cycle, hurting entrepreneurs trying to start a childcare service, employees wishing to increase family income, and employers needing more workers.

Nolan expands his argument by noting how service industries in Las Vegas, the State of Florida, New Orleans, and Mississippi are benefited by unionization.

Vacation and gambling meccas like Las Vegas, Florida, New Orleans and Mississippi need service industry employees. These vacation and gambling meccas depend on service quality for visiting tourists. Lack of representation for service employees diminishes employee’ standards of living which indirectly damages the reputation of the entertainment and vacation industry.

In Las Vegas, where Nolan lived for twenty years, the service industry is protected by the Culinary Union.

Nolan notes how strong the Culinary Union has become in Las Vegas and disparages casino owners like the Fertitta’s who have fought unionization. Numerous examples are given to show how union actions have improved the lives of Casino workers, many of which are immigrants from other countries.

Nolan’s argument for the value of unionization is compelling but his encomium for the union movement ignores America’s immigration crises.

The vast need for immigration reform is not being forcefully addressed by unions. Compensation inequity is a noble fight carried out by unionization, but it needs to broaden its role in immigration. Unions need to use their power and influence to change immigration policies to equitably treat a labor force that is sorely needed in America. Unions need to help educate and house legal immigrants, so they do not become a part of America’s growing homelessness. Additionally, unions could use their recruiting expertise to get Americans off the street by providing job training services and gainful employment.

Public perception of unions could be monumentally improved with a program to recruit and indoctrinate the homeless with training for jobs in the 21st century.

There is so much that unions could do to far exceed the minimalist goal noted in Liz Shuler’s plan to add a million union members over the next 10 years. Nolan pitches for Sara Nelson as a more dynamic leader for the union movement. Maybe Nelson would be better than Shuler, but growth, value, and public perception of union members could be monumentally improved with a program to recruit and indoctrinate the homeless with training and jobs for the 21st century.

Whomever the leaders of unionization may be in the future, Nolan clearly illustrates how important political power is in balancing corporate owner/managers’ disproportionate incomes and privileges with labor.

OCCUPATION

“Apeirogon” is a little too repetitive for this reviewer, but it is cleverly written and shows why political and military occupation is a fool’s leadership style.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Apeirogon” (A Novel)

By: Colum McCann

Narrated by: Colum McCann

Colum McCann (Author, Irish writer living in New York.)

At first the idea of an Irish author writing a book about Israel seems incongruous. After the first few paragraphs, one realizes Colum McCann grasps a truth about religious conflict that is far better than most because of Ireland’s “Troubles” between the 1960s and 1990s.

“Apeirogon” is timely novel in regard to Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack in Gaza. A little history helps one understand the complexity and terrible consequence of the slaughter of innocents.

An estimated 30,228 people have been killed in Gaza, 12,000 of which are thought to be Hamas combatants.

Gaza dates back to Egyptian times, populated by Canaanites who share an ancestral connection to Israelites. Gaza later became part of the Assyrian Empire in 730 BC. Assyrians intermixed with Canaanites, Israelites, Philistines and undoubtedly Palestinians. History shows historical connection between ancient Assyrians and Palestinians just as there were with Israelites. However, Israelites were forcibly relocated to Assyria from the Kingdom of Israel. Because the Israelites were descendants of the Canaanites, they predated Palestinian settlement in Gaza. Ethnic precedent and the want of land area is a part of what complicates the idea of a separate Palestinian state. Where is a homeland for a Palestinian state going to come from?

McCann chose a perfect title for his novel. An apeirogon is a geometric shape that has an infinite number of sides; just like the many sides of Israeli/Palestinian arguments for a homeland. Column McCann cleverly explores these arguments in his novel. He creates a series of Israeli/Palestinian incidents that show how each ethnic culture believes and acts in their perceived self-interests. Every chapter is titled as a series of numbers that begin with the number 1, jumps from 500 to the number 1001; then jumps back to 500 and descends to number 1 to end his story. Revelation comes in 1001. Occupation is an evil that cannot stand.

America’s civil war carries some parallels to what is happening in Israel and Gaza.

What is revelatory about McCann’s novel is its similarities to America’s civil war that ended the lives of too many Americans. Today’s conflict in Gaza is instigated by Hamas just as the Civil War was instigated by southern slave holders. America eventually forgave southern slave holders, but Black Americans continue to suffer from institutional racism. Can a one state solution as demanded by Israel’s conservatives serve Palestinians any better than white America has served Black Americans? America’s civil war ended in 1865-1866, some 158 years later, Black Americans are still discriminated against. Can Palestinians wait more than 158 years to have equal rights in an Israeli nation?

McCann’s novel repeats, too many times, the unfairness of Israel’s occupation of Gaza. Hamas has its rebellious leaders like America had John Brown who killed one Marine, wounded another, and killed six civilians. Neither Brown nor the Hamas leaders can justify their murders though both argue with righteous conviction. The United States could have split between abolitionist and non-abolitionist states, or they could move toward reconciliation. Obviously, the U.S. government prevailed with reconciliation. It seems imperative for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the same road as Abraham Lincoln. Hamas is a splinter group like that led by America’s John Brown. Their objective is as horribly misguided as Brown’s. Hamas’s hostage taking and murder of Jewish settlers is as reprehensible as Brown’s murders of a Marine and six civilians.

ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

As difficult as it may be, a two-state solution seems unlikely. What American history suggests is as difficult as America has found reconciliation to be for white America’s murder and unjust treatment of Black Americans. That reconciliation remains a work in progress. However, only union offers a way toward peace. America is not there yet but it is making progress.

Two political factions, bound by both religion and ethnicity, must learn to live with each other for peace to be achieved.

There is no other land for Palestinians. Israel may have the older of the two cultures, and both Israelites and Palestinians have a much longer history of religious and ethnic difference than America. America is founded on religious freedom and equality, though not perfect in either principle. In contrast, religion is a primary determinant in Palestinian and Israeli cultures while equality seems a less prominent concern. Peace will not come without hardship, but a beginning is dependent on Israel’s abandonment of occupation. It will be one country’s leaders’ imperative to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens. The struggle will be long as is shown by America’s history but what realistic alternative is there for the Israeli and Palestinian people? What neighboring country is likely to give up their land to create a two state solution?

“Apeirogon” is a little too repetitive for this reviewer, but it is cleverly written and shows why political and military occupation is a fool’s leadership style. Israel, like white America, needs to do better in reconciling ethnic differences.

CAPITALIST’ LESSONS

Capitalism is not a partisan issue but a social imperative for both Republicans and Democrats to work together to benefit all Americans.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Capitalism in America” (A History)

By: Alan Greenspan, Adrian Wooldridge

Narrated by: Ray Porter

As one would expect, “Capitalism in America” begins with the British economist, Adam Smith, who defined capitalism in 1776 with “An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”.

Alan Greenspan (on the left) is an American economist who was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987-2006. Adrin Wooldridge (on the right) is a British economist and journalist who wrote for “The Economist”. Wooldridge has a doctorate in philosophy and has co-written several books with Richard Micklethwait, the editor-and-chief of Bloomberg News. One might argue Greenspan has a conservative bias but Wooldridge’s experience as a British journalist gives one a sense of balance in this informative and well-written history of American capitalism.

Smith’s concept of capitalism advocated leaving economic decisions to market forces, tempered by individual economic decision makers. What Greenspan and Wooldridge infer is that decision-makers’ discretion and interference are what roils capitalism’s history.

“Capitalism in America” reveals tumultuous times for the American economy but with positive forward momentum. The public in all countries have experienced hard times from market forces. Some countries, like Israel, India, and the U.K. have experimented with socialism as an alternative to capitalism. Communist countries like Russia and China flirt with capitalism and one may argue–benefited from its market results. The author’s history shows capitalism as the primary reason for America’s economic growth and success. However, that’s getting ahead of their story.

The authors begin at beginning with the story of Jefferson’s desire to emphasize agriculture as the primary driver of economic growth in America. In contrast, Alexander Hamilton believes the industrial revolution demands a broader view of economic policy. The key to tapping into the industrial revolution required capital which Hamilton clearly recognizes. Hamilton recommends the creation of a national bank. Hamilton is inspired by Great Britain’s Bank of England. It offered private capital and paper credit to businesses and entrepreneurs.

Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, presented a “Report on a National Bank” to President Washinton and the House of representatives in 1790. This report notes that Congress, with its authority to collect taxes, could fund the bank and lend money to the government to pay foreign creditors, public services, and private businesses to grow the economy. Jefferson opposed the idea, but Hamilton’s broad interpretation of the Constitution allowed his idea of a national bank to be created. In 1791 the First Bank of the United States is established in Philadelphia and remained chartered for 20 years. This became a giant step for America’s economic growth.

Several future Presidents opposed an American national bank. Of course, Jefferson was one because of his belief in an agrarian future for America. Jefferson’s friend and future President, Madison (the 4th President of the U.S.) opposed the idea of a national bank, and Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the U.S.) used his power as President to oppose the “Second Bank of the United States” in 1833.

The authors note the successful industrialists of the 19th century capitalized on Hamiltonian creation of an American banking system. They became known as the robber barons of America. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan used capital to produce oil, expand rail transportation, make steel, and provide bank capital to grow the economy.

And then, WWI drew America into events that roil the course of its economic history.

An American economic boom occurs in the first two years of the war with America choosing neutrality. Exports surged from $2.4 billion to $6.2 billion in 1917. Everything from cotton, to wheat, to automobiles, to food, to machines were exported during those years. After joining the war, 3 million Americans were mobilized. When the war was over, the world and the American economy faltered. Recession (1918-1921) hit the world after the war, though America showed it had become a major world power.

As America recovered from WWI, their prowess as a producer of goods and services led to the roaring 20s and a runaway stock market that eventually crashed at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1939).

The authors note President Roosevelt is a great salesman who provides relief to many Americans with government employment programs during the depression. However, the authors note Roosevelt’s inept management delays America’s recovery by instituting price controls that distort market forces. Overt price control is a recurring mistake of national economies. The authors are not saying that price control is a singular cause of America’s continuing economic crisis, but it makes market recovery more difficult and longer to achieve.

The authors explain reparations for WWI’s winners helped set the table for WWII.

Germany’s inability to pay reparations, the growth of Antisemitism, and German inflation led to the rise of Hitler. Though not addressed by the authors, Japan felt threatened by American, Chinese, and Russian influence in Asia that led to Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into WWII.

The point is made that America’s depression before the war is not cured by Roosevelt’s economic intervention. The advent of war mobilized American industry.

The authors suggest market interference delayed recovery from the Great Depression. On the other hand, Roosevelt gave hope to the country with his speeches and employment programs. Citizens underlying faith in America’s ability to overcome hardship, and their response to Pearl Harbor reinvigorated the economy. Industries were retooled to meet the demands of war.

The authors argue mistakes in America’s capitalist history have been made by both Democratic and Republican Presidents who interfered with naturally occurring market forces. From Roosevelt to Nixon to Reagan to Obama to Trump, Presidents who institute price controls and/or tariffs interfere with free trade. America’s capitalist economy suffers from those actions. This is not to argue all legislation and federal action on the economy constitutes capitalist interference. Fundamental human rights that ensure freedom to vote, speak one’s mind, practice one’s own religion, work in industries one chooses, while seeking peaceful resolution of differences, are interferences that sustain capitalism.

Freedom to compete is the hallmark of capitalism.

When natural market forces are interfered with by business leaders and public legislators, capitalism suffers. An inference one may draw from the authors is that legislated programs that aid Americans who are unable or unwilling to participate in the capitalist economy are an interference with capitalism. That raises legislated issues of emigration, social security, health insurance, education, defense, transportation, veteran’s benefits, housing, environmental protection, occupational safety, and other public benefit programs. This is where there is continuing disagreement among Americans. These are not party issues because both Republican and Democratic leaders have both positive and negative arguments for and against these policies.

There is the law of unintended consequences that plague government policies. Some argue Reagan reinvigorated the American capitalist economy by reducing taxes, cutting government programs, reducing government employment, and busting union strikes. He did those things and government debt skyrocketed to a level greater than ever in the history of America. The gap between rich and poor was set on a path that beggared the poor and enriched business managers without comparable enrichment of labor. Like Roosevelt, Reagan sold ideas that had unintended consequences that were not in the long-term interest of Americans.

How can one measure the success of capitalism versus other economic systems? The author’s history of capitalism offers no answer but reveals what has benefitted and damaged American society since 1776. They illustrate failure of capitalism is in the hands of American leaders. Capitalism’s improvement is not a partisan issue but a social imperative for both Republicans and Democrats to work together to benefit all Americans.

CAPITALISM’S DEATH?

Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“TECHNO-FEUDALISM” (What Killed Capitalism)

By: Yanis Varoufakis

Narrated by: Yanis Varoufakis

Yanis Varoufakis (Author, Greek economist and politician, Minister of Finance of Greece for 7 months in 2015, launched Diem25, the “Democracy in Europe Movement 2025” in February 2016.)

Yanis Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” argues the advance of technology is killing capitalism. Varoufakis’s argument is that democratic capitalism is either dying or dead. He suggests a survival plan in the last chapter of his book. This misguided book reminds one of Mark Twain’s response to news of his illness, i.e., “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.

Varoufakis argues the advance of technology and its intrusion into private lives of citizens will destroy freedom of the individual and result in a government ruled by authoritarian, undemocratic, feudal oligarchs.

Varoufakis infers technology is the cause of the rise of new robber barons that have struck it rich in the internet era. He largely disparages the great wealth accumulation by the founders of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other tech leaders in the 21st century. His argument is based on belief that these new robber barons became rich without the hard work of laborers like those during the industrial revolution. The error in his argument is that labor is adjusting from work with one’s hands to work with one’s mind.

Freedom is the keystone of democracy.

Freedom and democracy have been limited and abused over the centuries but have ultimately led to the wealthiest countries in the world. When freedom is overregulated by democratic leadership, economic progress is diminished. Democracy has historically mitigated mistakes of overregulation with human nature’s desire for freedom. There is no reason to believe human nature will change.

In one sense, Varoufakis’s argument is correct. There is a greater risk of loss of freedom with the advance of technology, i.e., particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence. The evidence of that risk is seen in China and North Korea’s surveillance capabilities today.

Authoritarian leadership has always been a risk to society.

As inferred by Varoufakis, authoritarian risk is greater in the 21st century because of surveillance technology and the predictive power of artificial intelligence. Surveillance does not change the nature of humankind. Democratic government only becomes more important. The juggernaut of technology will not be stopped, and our lives will be more intimately understood by strangers than ever before. That truth only means democracy, freedom of choice, and equal opportunity are made more consciously recognized as important.

The fact that the 21st century has new robber barons, business leaders with great wealth and power, is nothing new.

All forms of government have winners and losers. What democracy does is level the playing field. It is a raucous governing system that leaves some out of success, but it beats any known alternative for broader human opportunity. Democracy will always be a work in progress. America needs better health care for all citizens. America needs improvement in equal rights and opportunity for all citizens. No Americans should be homeless or hungry. Few countries, if any, have adequate health care, equal rights, and opportunities for all its citizens. Most realize, America must do better.

The resurgence of labor unions in America is a good sign for American peace and prosperity.

Varoufakis suggests democracy can be saved by bringing it down to an individual level within companies that generate wealth for the country. In one sense, he is right but his idea of giving one vote to every employee in determining wages, and the direction of a company are a step too far. Labor is a critical part of yesterday’s, today’s, and tomorrow’s economic prosperity. Owners and managers of companies need to include union representation in their corporate decisions. Neither labor nor management have all the answers, but all have money, commitment, and labor in the game. Each should have their say. That is a part of Democracy’s success in the world.

The intimate knowledge of personal behavior is a valid concern in the modern world. In the hands of authoritarians, the risks of surveillance technology are multiplied. In democracy, risks are not eliminated but can be judiciously regulated. Democracy has the best chance of determining how a surveillance economy needs to be handled. Democracy will continue to make mistakes, but historically, its successes outweigh its failures.

Citizens should worry about what others know about their personal lives, but the advance of technology will not be stopped. Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy. Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” is more wrong than right, but he makes one think about our future.