GOVERNMENT – Page 15 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction)

The near assassination of Trump is a harbinger of a world unduly influenced by today’s technology and media influence.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Playing with Reality”

By: Kelly Clancy

Narrated By: Patty Nieman

Kelly Clancy (Author, graduate of MIT in physics with a Ph.D. in biophysics from U.C. Berkley.)

Kelly Clancy has a distinct point of view as a scientist. Her understanding of game theory and the mathematics of probability may steer reader/listeners away from her interesting book. “Playing with Reality” is less like playing and more like hard work, at least in the first chapters. Clancy begins by defining game theory and its permutations. Then she explains how it is a flawed tool for understanding human behavior. As one gets through the first chapters of her book, a reader/listener realizes Clancy is offering more than gaming theory history.

Clancy offers a detailed history of the growth of computer technology through the use of gaming programs designed to educate, entertain, and enrich private companies, public conglomerates, and individuals.

Clancy reveals the growth of chess playing gaming programs like Deep Thought, Big Blue, and Deep Blue to expose the battle line between human and artificial intelligence. Clancy is a skeptic of gaming technology–with a warning.

Clancy’s skepticism lies in mistaking game-theory’ studies as proof of predictive human behavior.

Clancy notes human behavior is not predictable for many reasons; one of which is human irrationality, and another is a human’s sense or understanding that he/she is being manipulated for prescribed responses. For example, in the first instance, a person may be irrationally afraid of all snakes even though there are no poisonous snakes in their State. In the second instance, a person who knows the theory of something like the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” can choose to modify their behavior and respond based on knowledge of previous experimental studies.

John von Neumann (1903-1957, Hungarian American mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, engineer and polymath.)

The troubling part (the warning) revealed by Clancy is that brilliant people like John von Neumann, an intellectual giant of the twentieth century, can have bad ideas. Clancy notes von Neuman considered preemptively nuking the Soviet Union because he reasoned it would (and it did) successfully create a nuclear bomb soon after America’s bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neuman presumably considered this a rational option based on game-theory thinking.

Today, one wonders what Russia’s leader is capable of with nuclear weapons if he considers them just another tool of war.

Clancy notes Putin, like the President of the United States, is legislatively authorized to unilaterally choose to use nuclear weapons to protect what they believe is a threat to their countries. The gaming industry and the growth of A.I. are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. There are not enough checks and balances to keep well intentioned Presidents or bad actors from making bad decisions.

Clancy shows how the computer gaming industry has obscured the tragic consequence of violence by returning murdered life in a game back to life so they can play the game again. The game is not real, but the lesson is that gun violence is ok because it is just a game that can be replayed. Computer gaming has become a gateway to violence in the world. Easy access to guns is a problem in America but guns are instruments of violence, not the cause of violence. Among the causes are, poor education, poverty, mental dysfunction, and gaming that distorts reality.

Political position and power are dangerous in the face of human irrationality, a not uncommon characteristic of intelligent, ill-informed, or uncaring political leaders. In this age of computer drones and face recognition, three American citizens, one Iranian citizen, and an Egyptian’ Al Quada leader were killed by drone strikes at the order of American Presidents.

These murders may or may not have been justified but they exemplify the danger of gaming, face recognition, and the future of artificial intelligence. Clancy tempers her assessment of gaming in the last chapters of her book, but some will come away from her positive comments with a sick feeling in their stomach.

The near assassination of former President Trump is a harbinger of a world unduly influenced by today’s technology and media influence.

GOVERNANCE

Machiavelli describes effective governance as brutal, manipulative, and amoral. St. Augustine infers good governance comes from belief in God and adhering to scripture.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“On Grand Strategy”

By: John Lewis Gaddis

Narrated By: Mike Chamberlain

John Lewis Gaddis (Author, historian, political scientist, professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University.)

In a September 21, 2021 article in “The New York Times” Beverly Gage resigned as the course leader for “…Grand Strategy” (where Gaddis is a professor), “…saying the university failed to stand up for academic freedom…” She is noted to have said ‘I am not teaching “…Grand Strategy” the way Henry Kissinger would.’

Beverly Gage, in her resignation from Yale is noted to have said ‘I am not teaching “…Grand Strategy” the way Henry Kissinger would.’

The book author, John Lewis Gaddis, implies every accomplished political leader has a Grand Strategy. Historians can always criticize another’s study of political leaders or their place in history but having a strategy is a paramount requirement whether one is an American President or course leader at Yale. So here is a puzzle about the Gage’s resignation and her critical comment about Yale’s Grand Strategy for a teacher’s academic freedom.

One wonders what Ms. Gage meant in referring to Kissinger.

In any case, this is a review of John Lewis Gaddis’s book, “The Grand Strategy”. He begins with an animal analogy by suggesting good governance relies on being like a fox or a hedgehog when acting as a political leader. A fox characteristic is surreptitious and sly while the hedgehog is straightforward and aggressive. He argues governance that uses only one of these characteristics achieve singular objectives but balance between the two achieves the best results. The entire book is about the history of governments that have prospered or declined based on the presence or absence of balance.

In the beginning of “On Grand Strategy”, one becomes somewhat bored with Gaddis’s history of Athens’ and Sparta’s conflicts with Greece and its defeat of the Persian army (492 BCE and 449 BCE). However, mid-way through the book, one becomes engrossed in Gaddis’s evolutionary theory of nation-state’ governance.

In the Persian Army and its defeat by the Greeks and Spartans, Gaddis explains Xerxes neglected the common sense of moving his vast army across the Mediterranean, let alone feeding and supplying its needs. Xerxes was thinking like a hedgehog. Later, Gaddis explains Napoleon makes the same mistake as Xerxes by attacking Russia without considering the vast size of the country and logistic difficulties in feeding and supplying his army. Gaddis notes Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” chapters that explain how the battle of Borodino is a turning point in Napoleon’s hedgehog action.

Gaddis notes the need for political leaders to keep their eye on the prize. He gives the example of Civil War policies by Lincoln who sought end games for union of the States and emancipation.

When endorsing government policy or ordering military action, Gaddis suggests Lincoln was a leader who understood the need for common sense, i.e., always balancing what can be done with what could be done. Gaddis notes there are times when it appears Lincoln is contradicting himself when, in fact, he is being the fox rather than the hedgehog. For example, some argue Lincoln went back and forth on emancipation, but Gaddis infers he was being a fox because of the political heat surrounding the question and the government’s action.

SAINT AUGUSTINE (354-430, DIED AT AGE 75)

At this mid-point, Gaddis’s history becomes more interesting. He recalls the history of two important characters in modern theory of society, i.e. St. Augustine and Machiavelli. Of course, they lived centuries apart, but each represent critical beliefs that impact nation-state governance. In the 4th century, St. Augustine wrote two influential works, “Confessions” and “City of God” that outline why God was important to him and why everyone should become followers of Christianity to save themselves for the reward of eternity in heaven. Christianity begins to replace leadership beliefs based on the Great Caesars of civilization. Rome does lead the world for another 70 years, but Christianity and other religions redefine the relationship between citizens and their rulers. The centralization of Catholicism by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century diminished the power of secular governments. Life on earth became secondary to the possibility of eternal life in St. Augustine’s “City of God”.

Jumping to the 15th century, Machiavelli’s concept of “The Prince” exemplifies power of governance by secular leaders.

Machiavelli returns political leadership to life on earth in “The Prince”. It is not an abandonment of the “City of God” but a recognition of leadership as it is in this world. Machiavelli experiences the power of political leaders in this world by being imprisoned and tortured for alleged conspiracy to overthrow the Medici family in Italy. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” explains a political theory and leadership of rulers in the “city of man”. “The Prince” returns the idea of governance to the beneficence and cruelty of life here, i.e. not in heaven.

Queen Elizabeth I is Gaddis’ s next example of the changing nature of governance.

Contrary to her half-sister, Mary Queen of Scots who supported Catholicism, Elizabeth reestablished the Protestant Church of England. Elizabeth recognizes the fundamental importance of England’s citizens to her reign as Queen of England. Elizabeth practices the less punitive aspects of “The Prince” to build a foundation for love and respect from England’s protestant, if not Catholic, citizens. The city of God is replaced by the city of man in Elizabeth’s rule.

One can think of many examples that reinforce Gaddis’s theme in “The Grand Strategy” as practiced in America. The senior Bush carefully planned the ejection of Sadam Hussein from Kuwait by building international support for America’s action in the first Iraq war. America’s generals carefully planned the movement of a massive military force, including supply lines, to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The senior Bush did not make Xerxes mistakes. In contrast John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and H. W. Bush’s son, failed to use common sense in America’s mistakes in Vietnam and Iraq. It took a sly fox in the Nixon administration to get America out of Vietnam. This is not to suggest any of these actions were wholly good or bad, but a reflection on the balance between using fox or hedgehog thought and actions to achieve common sense results.

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997, Russian-British social and political theorist, philosopher, and historian of ideas.)

Gaddis takes reader/listeners through WWI and WWII from America’s perspective. On several occasions, Gaddis refers to Isaiah Berlin and his intellectual contributions to political theory and history. Berlin was born in Russia and educated in Great Britain. He spoke several languages and was particularly fluent in Russian, French, German, and Italian. He believed in individual freedom but explained conflicting values coexist and that there is no single universal truth in life. This reminds one of Machiavelli and makes one wonder if Berlin, who is alleged to have a strong sense of Jewish identify, was an atheist.

Gaddis suggests America has had a series of foxes and hedgehogs that have become American Presidents. Some have been intellectuals, others not. Considering President Wilson was a racist hedgehog while Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were at times foxes and hedgehogs, America survived and prospered through three disastrous wars. Gaddis’s point is that America’s best Presidents have been both foxes and hedgehogs, while most have been one or the other. It may be that America survives because, with the brief exception of Franklin Roosevelt, none have served more than two terms. One President may be a hedgehog while the next President is a fox.

Machiavelli describes effective governance as brutal, manipulative, and amoral. St. Augustine infers good governance comes from belief in God. Gaddis’s history of governance explains why and how both qualities are evident and have served America well.

DEMOCRACY OR ELSE

“…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Democracy or Else” How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps

By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

Narrated By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

(Left to Right) Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

The suggestion that “Democracy or Else” comes from “…10 Easy Steps” on “How to Save America…” is an oversimplification of life and politics. Saving America takes hardened objective opinion, personal commitment, appreciation of the difficulty of being a political leader, and most importantly, the wisdom of Jesus Christ. Few, if any humans fit the bill. Voting is the only thing that everyone who believes in American Democratic leadership will agree upon in the author’s “…10 Easy Steps”. The steps are not easy. The authors appear to have committed some time and effort to fulfill some part of the 10 steps.

Many (not most) Americans may be willing to vote but working on a campaign for a candidate who wishes to be elected to public office will always be low on their list of commitments.

Human beings, let alone Americans, are an unruly lot. Making a living, waiting for a hand-out, hating or loving others, and experience of life come first in the minds of most, if not all, human beings. The nuts and bolts of what it takes to become an elected representative in Democracy are way down on the list of humans’ self-interest. American Democracy, like all known forms of government, have winners and losers. Democracy has the best odds for serving the self-interest of its citizens but remains far from the idealistic goals of the U.S. Constitution.

American Presidents have been good and bad throughout history. Only a few have earned the history of “good or great” for America. The checks and balances of American government, the ideals of the Constitution, capitalism, and expanded voting rights have saved American Democracy from tyranny. Anyone who has read this blog, knows there is an opinion about the next President’s election but “…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.

AMERICA’S DECISION

It is up to Americans to vote or not vote. The choice today is between two old men. American Democracy will not fail because of either man’s election.

America’s Presidential debate on June 27th, 2024, was a painful reminder of advancing age. Whether to choose Donald Trump or Joseph Biden to be the next President of the United States is a “Hobson’s Choice”. Americans are compelled to vote for one of these two men or stay home and do nothing. Doing nothing means other Americans will decide who will represent Democracy to the world for the next four years.

Getting old is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, living long may offer wisdom, experience, and relationship connections. On the other, living long engenders health issues, physical frailty, and diminished mental acuity. Underlying these mixed blessings are the way a person has lived their life, the decisions they have made, the way they have treated others, and the inner moral compass they have followed.

It is up to Americans to vote or not vote for a President of the United States. The choice today is between two old men. Either will have the help of the three branches of the American government to do their job. American Democracy will not fail because of either man’s election to the office of President of the United States.

TRAGEDY’S LESSON

The sharpened point of Slade’s story is that, like the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald and El Faro, it takes great tragedy before change takes place.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Into the Raging Sea” Thirty-Three Mariners, One Megastorm, and the Sinking of the El Faro

By: Rachel Slade

Narrated By: Erin Bennett

Rachel Slade (Author, winner of the Maine Literary Award for non-fiction.)

Rachel Slade begins her book with the last words of a mariner calling for help from a sinking ship in the grip of a Hurricane. The ship is the El Faro. The author writes her story based on the El Faro’s written log during a severe storm somewhere between Florida and Puerto Rico. The storm was Hurricane Joaquin, a category 4 Hurricane that had recorded wave heights of 10 meters (over 32 feet). Winds ranged from 130 to 156 mph with rough seas, roiled by rogue waves. Rogue waves are twice the size of surrounding waves and appear unexpectedly.

Slade methodically sets a table for the El Faro on a “…Raging Sea”.

Slade writes about a mariner’s desperate call for help. In its beginning, the story lags but the author offers cultural insight to the life of merchant marines, the equipment they operate, and the business of international trade. Her story explains how important and dangerous the life of a merchant marine can be, why it is important, and how mariners are dependent on equipment they use, their shipmates’ qualifications, and business owners’ drive for success.

Every person makes decisions about what they are going to do to make their way in life.

Becoming a merchant marine, like every decision in life, is based on personal circumstances, ambitions, and choices. Slade describes the El Faro mariners as adventurous and interested in seeing the world and being paid for what they do. Some are educated, others not, but all learn what they need to do to be part of a mariners’ crew.

There are schools for mariners at all levels of education but like any job, one can start at the bottom as a laborer that learns by doing. What the story of the El Faro shows is that like in any chosen job in life, some become expert at what they do, others try and fail, try again or move on. What Slade infers is that the El Faro sinks because of its crew but also because of others, both on and off the sea. As John Donne wrote in 1624, “no man (or woman) is an island”–emphasizing the interconnectedness of society.

The owners of the El Faro were in the business of internation trade to make money.

The crew of the El Faro wanted to be paid but to some it was adventure and/or escape from a humdrum of life. Undoubtedly, mariners were motivated for different reasons. Some wished to see the world, be recognized for good work, wished to crew on bigger and better vessels, or be promoted to higher position. Motivation and ambition are different for everyone. What is lost to history are details. Slade tries to reveal some of the details about the El Faro’ crew, its owners, the ship, and the business of international trade. Why did the El Faro sink? Who and what was lost? What is it like to be in a hurricane at sea? Is somewhat at fault?

Slade’s story gains momentum as sinking of the El Faro seems imminent.

The aftermath is a careful and detailed explanation of rescues at sea, why the El Faro sank, what rescue efforts were made, how families of the lost were affected, and what changes were demanded in the industry. The loss of 33 mariners, the entire crew of the El Faro, is a horrible tragedy for the families who lost their loved ones. The causes of the tragedy range from crew mistakes to ship design to corporate malfeasance. The common thread is human nature.

What this review suggests is that the fundamental issue in every form of government and society is balance between public and private good.

One will draw their own conclusions from Slade’s history of the loss of the El Faro. In a capitalist society, balance is dependent on prudent regulation. Prudence is meant to mean the use of human reason to balance the needs of the public with private interests. That balance is complicated by human nature that drives private interests to focus on money, power, and prestige rather than public need.

Slade shows regulation of international trade often conflicts with private interests that object to regulation and improvements in ship design.

Conflict between public good and private interest is not a new discovery. Neither is the sinking of the El Faro. The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975 led to changes in international shipping. Business owners were required to provide survival suits for mariners in their employ, depth finders, positioning systems, improved ship design, and inspections by the Coast Guard became mandatory. These were regulations that increased costs of shipping that rippled through the economy and initially penalized private interests. The public benefits because mariners are safer, and families are less threatened by loss. The public also suffers because transported goods become more expensive. Balance eventually occurs as private interests are compelled to pay more for labor which is part of the public.

Capitalism works because it is a process that balances public need with private interests. Capitalism’s weakness is that the process takes time to balance public needs with private interests.

The sharpened point of Slade’s story is that, like the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald and El Faro, it takes great tragedy before change takes place.

KKK

American Democracy is a work in progress and remains at risk of failure.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“A Fever in the Heartland”

By: Timothy Egan

Narrated By: Timothy Egan

Timothy Egan (American Author, journalist, former columnist for the New York Times, won the National Book Award, the Carnegie Medal, and a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.)

Timothy Egan’s “A Fever in the Heartland” is about the Ku Klux Klan and its growth in Indiana, the American Midwest, and Oregon in the early 1920s. Soon after the Civil War and death of Abraham Lincoln, a group of former Confederate veterans formed a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee.

The Ku Klux Klan grew into an underground movement that peaked in the 1920s with white American membership estimated at over 4 million.

Egan’s history is about the rise and fall of David Curtis “Steve” Stephenson who became the Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan in 1923. Stephenson endorsed and promoted public hate toward immigrants and minorities. He became a proven liar who lied about his past and his actions as a leader. Egan’s history of Stephenson is an American political’ warning. Egan shows how character and honesty are as important in today’s politics as they were in the 1920s.

Egan’s choice of David Curtis Stephenson as a KKK’ leader illustrates how “A Fever in the Heartland” can grow to threaten American Democracy.

Stephenson is a man who smoothly lies his way to the top of a weak KKK’ chapter in Indiana by pandering to anti-immigration and anti-minority sentiments in the country. (The same sentiment seen in today’s America.) Stephenson became a rich man by recruiting the public into the KKK with a $10 fee for a white hooded garment ($4 for the garment, with $6 in his pocket) for membership to an exclusive group of American white men who would terrorize and murder non-whites, non-protestants, and immigrants. The KKK used secrecy to hide membership in this exclusive white American group.

The KKK hid their private reputations while (as an organization) publicly funding American celebrations and charities to feed its membership.

With membership dues and a persuasive personality, Stephenson (within 3 years) became a powerful and influential KKK’ leader. Stephenson convinced members of the KKK to become elected officials to gain control of government and public offices in Indiana. KKK’ members subsidized and promoted the election of like-minded white Americans. With control of government agencies, public services like the police and judiciary, the KKK controlled much of what happened in the State of Indiana. The wealth and influence of Indiana’s KKK planned a Presidential run in the late 1920s. The Indiana leader of the Republican Party was a member of the KKK and kowtowed to Stephenson as Grand Dragon of Indiana’s KKK.

Egan explains Stephenson was a persuasive carpetbagger who moved to Indiana from Texas while inferring he was an Indianan to become the Grand Dragon of Indiana’s KKK’ chapter.

Stephenson lied about his education and past but with success in increasing membership, he gained support of the National KKK’ organization. The truth of his background is that he abandoned his first wife and child when he left the lone star state. He was remarried to a second wife who leaves him. Stephenson beat his second wife who returned only to be beaten a second time when she attempted reconciliation. Egan noted Stephenson was a heavy drinker and abusive molester of women who worked for him. Stephenson was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder of Madge Oberholtzer, who was the creator and manager of a lending library.

Madge Oberholtzer (Stephenson is ultimately convicted of second-degree murder of Madge Oberholtzer for brutalization and rape.)

In the middle of the night, with the help of fellow Klansman, Madge Oberholtzer was kidnapped by Klansman working for Stephenson to take a train to Chicago. On the train, Stephenson rips Oberholtzer’ clothes off and rapes her. He used his teeth to bite her breast and parts of her body.

After being returned to Indianapolis, Overholtzer went to a drug store to buy bichloride of mercury, a slow acting poison. She chose to take the poison to end her life.

The taller man in this picture is Ephraim Inman, the defense attorney for Stephenson. He is standing next to Will Remy the prosecuting attorney, dubbed the “boy prosecutor” who successfully convicted Stephenson for 2nd degree murder.

Will Remy told the crowded courtroom that Stephenson “destroyed Madge’s body, tried to destroy her soul” and over the course of the trial tried to “befoul her character.” Overholtzer’s left breast and a bleeding right cheek were bitten by Stephenson when she was raped. Remy argues Stepheson’s teeth were a murder weapon. Attorney Asa Smith, a Overholtzer-family’ friend prepared a dying declaration for Madge Oberholzer that was placed into evidence. Judge Sparks admitted the declaration and allowed Remy to read it to the jurors. (Sparks was not a Klansman.)

Stephenson considered himself, not only above the law, but as the law in Indiana. (That is a familiar refrain in the 21st century.) Stephenson was convicted for second degree murder. It was second degree murder because the cause of death was Madge Oberholzer’s decision to take her own life.

The Klan still exists in America.

James Alex Fields Jr. plowed into a crowd of demonstrators in Charlottsville, Va in 2017. He killed one of the protestors.

Fields admitted to being a member of the KKK. Though the Klan remained a political power in Indiana for some years after Stephenson’s trial and conviction, its Indiana’ power and influence was diminished. The national position of the Klan has declined in America as is believed in modern times, but it still exists.

Speaking about the white nationalist groups rallying against the removal of a Confederate statue, former President Trump said, “You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

As Egan’s history of Grand Dragon Stephenson illustrates, American Democracy is a work in progress and remains at risk of failure. Honesty of elected officials and “there being no person or elected official above the law” remain important for America to remain a Democracy.

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)

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: