Everything to hide, everything to lose, and “Nothing to Envy” summarizes Barbara Demick’s book about North Korea. That is the frightening prospect of North Korea’s policy regarding nuclear armament.
North Korea is dark because of a lack of infrastructure for power
Kim Jong-un’s rule of North Korea is founded on fear. Based on Demick’s characterization of the North Korean economy, Kim uses fear to control North Korean citizens. Kim presumes the same will work for control of North Korea’s position in the world. Trump deceives himself in believing he gets along better with meaner leaders.
President Trump understands the tool of fear but mistakenly believes Kim will change his behavior because of America’s superior wealth and power.
Because fear is the only tool Kim possesses to stabilize North Korea’s government, North Korea will not abandon its quest for more nuclear weapons.
Demick pictures life in North Korea based on interviews and stories told by refugees and defectors. There is an inherent bias in recollections of those who flee as opposed to those who stay. These stories, though different in details, are too alike to be lies.
Demick peels back the edge of a curtain that hides North Korea from the rest of the world. North Korean defector’s recollections are a re-telling of George Orwell’s fictional world of “1984”. North Korea is a reinvention of Joseph Stalin’s U.S.S.R.
Demick recounts the stories of Mrs. Song, Oak-hee, Mi-ran, and Jun-sang. Demick paints a picture of a gray country, wracked by hunger and controlled by a dictator and his army. Demick reveals a country that faces a grim future.
Nuclear warheads in the hands of North Korea are a threat to Asia and the far east.
Demick gives fear and anxiety a face with Mrs. Song’s story of her life as a rabid believer, self-deceiver, and follower of the “Dear Leader”, Kim Jong-il (Kim Jong-un’s father).
Mrs. Song and her children survive North Korea’s worst famine in history, but her husband dies. Mrs. Song’s daughter Oak-hee tricks her mother into visiting China and then lures her to South Korea. Oak-hee shows Mrs. Song that life in North Korea is a shadow of what life can be.
Demick’s second story is told by Jun-sang and Mi-ran, two other North Korean defectors. Jun-sang and Mi-ran introduce romance into this gray world. Their courtship in North Korea is sweetly pictured in clandestine walks on dark nights with sparkling bright stars in a lightless city. Jun-sang is an engineering student at a prestigious North Korean school. Mi-ran is the daughter of a naturalized North Korean farmer who lived in what became South Korea after the Korean War.
Jun-sang and Mi-ran talked of everything but what became the most important thing in their lives, the dishonesty of their government, the unfair treatment of its people, and their growing alienation.
Both defected at different times because they were afraid to reveal to each other their true feelings about life in their home country. Later, they meet in South Korea but as strangers that have grown into separate lives.
“Nothing to Envy” makes a listener believe North Korea’s government is destined to fail. Time and incident will cause its collapse.
President Trump only temporarily stopped displays of nuclear weaponization by North Korea. Obviously, Kim Jong-un is only acting in a play designed by Trump. It appears Trump’s play, as much of his administration, is out of his control.
Our President cannot say “you’re fired”. Kim Jong-un needs fear to govern his country. He believes fear is the only tool that will gain cooperation of the outside world.
Howard Zinn (American Historian, Author) November 19, 2009. Photo By: Rob Kim/Everett Collection
The pitfall of history is subjectivity. Howard Zinn offers a coda for history’s myopia. Harry Truman is alleged to have said “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”. Zinn shows how little Americans know about America’s failure to create a “…more perfect union” (a name given to a speech delivered by Senator Barack Obama on March 18, 2008).
No American institution is untarnished by Zinn’s rumination. Zinn challenges every aspect of American culture. The malpractice of American businesses, politicians, and society are exposed by Zinn. Neither Republicans, Democrats, or other party affiliates, escape responsibility for America’s abhorrent actions.
Unadorned historical facts show Indians indiscriminately isolated and murdered, Blacks treated as property and hung, immigrants vilified for being different, wars being waged on the innocent, women being treated unequally, and greed being praised as virtue–all in the face of professed American freedom and equality.
Zinn implies all Presidents; including Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama buy into an economic principle that the business of America is business. (He certainly could have included President Trump.)
With few exceptions, Zinn argues every President tacitly or overtly supports corporate America. The only Presidential exception Zinn notes is Eisenhower’s expressed concern about the military/industrial complex and its penchant for distorting American values.
Zinn recounts Andrew Jackson’s isolation and murder of Indians, Lincoln’s willingness to preserve the union at the cost of slavery, Andrew Johnson’s southern sympathies, Roosevelt’s incarceration of American Japanese, Harry Truman’s decision to nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Carter’s support for Iran’s military dictatorship, Reagan’s expansion of the military/industrial complex, Clinton’s cuts in taxes and welfare, the Bushes’ wars, and Obama’s rescue of the banking industry.
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Jimmie Carter
Ronald Reagan
H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George Bush
Barrack Obama
Zinn argues—both Republican and Democratic presidents endorse corporate control of America at the expense of citizen values written into the Constitution.
From discrimination against minorities to unequal pay for women, America has failed to follow the ideals of the Constitution of the United States.
Zinn implies there is never a justification for war; presumably even in the case of WWII.
Some Americans would agree that Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan wars were and are a waste of human lives.
This is a hard argument to dispute when seen in the context of a burgeoning gap between rich and poor, and man’s inhumanity to man. One might argue as some historians do, sovereignty of a country is an inalienable right, even when it is ignored or used as an excuse for war.
Zinn argues there is no moral or ethical justification for political repression, murder, slavery, sexual or racial discrimination. (That begs the question of a war’s justification in light of Nazi Germany’s intent to exterminate all Jews.)
But, Zinn argues the right of sovereign nations to choose their own government. Genocide is a potential consequence of such a hard rule when a minority only has a right to resist and/or revolt. That is in the news today in regard to Myanmar and the Rohingya.
Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar from the accusation of genocide.
What nation (based on its own cultural belief) has the right to invade another country that chooses to victimize its own citizens.
Zinn is not suggesting countries should become isolationists. He argues that to the extent that humanitarian relief may be offered by an outside country, it should be offered. Relief would not include transfer of weapons of war, but aid in goods and services meant to sustain life. Outside military intervention in a sovereign country seems destined only to lead to more loss of innocent life.
Taking Zinn’s observations to heart suggests there is no justification for war or violence against our fellow man. However, human nature is what it is. Humans choose what they choose; often out of the instinctual desire for money, power, and prestige, rather than any common good. Individual cultures are based on memes of the country in which they were born.
Invasion of a sovereign country is a slippery slope that only leads to more death and destruction. However, Zinn’s review of history seems to deny all reasons for war. There seem two modern exceptions to Zinn’s argument.
Nazi Concentration Camp WWII
WWII and the way H. W. Bush handled the invasion of Kuwait. These two exceptions are clearly related to one country’s violation of another’s sovereignty. In both cases, America’s Presidents enlisted cooperation from other countries, before taking any military action.
It is a
dangerous world, but the danger is in human beings and their quest for personal
gain; i.e. their greed for money, power, and prestige. America needs to look at itself and its
reliance on corporate excess. The gap
between rich and poor must be addressed in all nations; not the least of which,
the United States. Zinn reminds America
of how flawed we are in “A People’s History of the United States”.
Like Malcolm Little (aka Malcolm X), Martin Luther King, and Barrack Obama, Douglass faces down poverty and demonstrates the equality of all human beings.
Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough
(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Fredrick Douglass
Narrated by: Prentice Onayemi
Written by: David W. Blight
DAVID BLIGHT (AUTHOR, PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY)
David Blight offers a nuanced biography of Frederick Douglass, a great 19th century American leader. Blight shows Douglass to rival the intelligence and charisma of the best known 20th and 21st century black Americans. Like Malcolm Little (aka Malcolm X), Martin Luther King, and Barrack Obama, Douglass faces down poverty and demonstrates the equality of all human beings. Malcolm Little, King, and Obama never face the lash of slavery, but Blight shows how Douglass pushes aside physical and cultural cruelty to demand freedom and equality of all.
JOHN BROWN (AMERICAN ABOLITIONIST 1800-1859) Brown is neither lionized or vindicated by Blight but is shown as a turning point in Douglass’s life; a turning from moral suasion to action by people of color against slavery.
Ethan Hawke as John Brown.
Though shown to begin in peace, Blight shows how Douglass grows to understand peace will not come from words alone but must come from action. Douglass came to revere the anti-slavery violence of John Brown. Courageously, Douglass attacks the institution of slavery before, during, and after the American Civil War. Douglass becomes the conscience of white and black America.
Blight explains how Douglass came to revere Abraham Lincoln; not in Lincoln’s beginnings, but in Lincoln’s life of struggle for the true meaning of the American Constitution.
After Lincoln’s assassination, Douglass is shown to decry President Johnson’s abandonment of reconstruction in the south. Douglass offers unstinting support for Ulysses Grant’s election because of his commitment to the abolitionist cause.
Blight shows Douglass, like all human beings, is imperfect. He has blind spots when speaking of freedom and equality. Douglass discounts America’s decimation of native Americans and denial of women’s rights by arguing neither compares to slavery, subjugation, and murder of blacks.
The irony of Douglass’s imperfect argument is in native Americans who are murdered and restricted to reservations that are indiscriminately encroached upon by free and enfranchised Americans.
Indian families are regularly isolated, displaced, and murdered at the whim of white men in power.
In women’s rights, Douglass discounts the same inequality trap that captures black Americans; i.e. the disenfranchisement trap. Women have no power. Women without power, just as any separated classification of humanity, are looked at as less equal by some measure. How many women are treated by men as property in the history of civilization? How many women are abused, and/or raped by men without consequence? How many women are unable to find work or are not paid the same wage for the same job? The bible is one of many records of discrimination faced by women.
FAMOUS WOMEN IN HISTORY (History, as well as this pictorial, shows many women are as intellectually strong and mentally tough as men; e.g. Cleopatra, Sojourner Truth, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Malala Yousafzai, and others.)
Blight fairly describes Douglass’s blind spots while clearly identifying his remarkable insight and intelligence. Douglass’s many speaking engagements, published books, and newspaper articles graphically and forthrightly explain the plight of black Americans in the 19th century. Blight explains how Douglass manages to survive slavery, educate himself, forgive (but not forget) his oppressors, and become one of the greatest Americans of his time.
SLAVES LYNCHED IN 19TH CENTURY AMERICA
It is sad to know so many of Douglass’s observations remain true in the 21st century. Much of white America still fears the rise of black freedom and equality. “All men are created equal…” is preached but remains un-practiced in today’s America.
RODNEY KING (APPEARANCE 3 DAYS AFTER CAR-CHASE BEATING 3.6.92–KING DIES IN JUNE 2012 @ 47 YEARS OF AGE
The lessons of history show that people are not to be feared; they are to be offered equal opportunity to become all they can be. By nature, human beings are equally free and capable of being incredibly good and disastrously evil. It is the purpose of government to protect the rights of each from the other when evil takes hold of the governed. A moral life requires equal treatment of all. That is the essence of what Blight is writing about in the story of Frederick Douglass’s life.
Dostoevsky said, “There are things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind.”
However, H. W. Bush seems unafraid in his interviews with Jon Meacham. Meacham’s biography refers often to H. W. Bush’s diary. H. W.’s diary appears written by a decent man who knows himself and chooses to divulge all he knows.
“Destiny and Power” is about H. W. Bush’s journey to the American Presidency and power in the executive branch of government. It begins with a brief history of the Bush/Walker families that reaches back to the beginnings of America. Both sides of H. W. Bush’s ancestors achieve the American dream through hard work, determination, and initiative. The success of the Bush/Walker families sets the stage for H. W. Bush’s public service; his Yale education, his relationship to the wealthy, his service to his country, and his tenure as President of the United States.
“Destiny and Power” reveals a candid picture of the 41st President of the United States. It is a story of family love, respect, and duty. It explores a family lineage blessed with wealth, good education, and expectation. H. W. Bush is a decent man who acknowledges his limitations in pursuit of good works.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH MILITARY SERVICE WWII Meacham notes that H. W. Bush seems a go-along to get-along kind of guy; i.e. a non-confrontational person who is well liked by his associates and subordinates. After Pearl Harbor, H. W. enters the service at the age of 18 to become a pilot. When completing a bombing run, H. W. and his crew are downed at sea. As a downed bomber pilot, H. W mourns his fellow crewmen and wonders if there was anything he could have done differently to save their lives.
This life experience marks H. W. It illustrates H. W.’s sense of responsibility and how he cares for others. It reminds him of the horrors of war and the hurt felt by those left behind. It is a mark that guides his decision to begin the first Gulf war and insert American troops in Kuwait.
Meacham reveals how H. W. solicits friendship with everyone he meets. This facility for friendship is a key to his success in becoming a Texas oil man. His early success in the oil business appears based on who he knows and how well he cultivates wealthy associates’ interest in risking investment in land-lease oil exploration in Texas. H. W.’s friendliness leads him to politics. Meacham notes that friendliness did not immediately vault H. W. to political success but it paves his way to public service.T
H. W. is driven to succeed. In a widening circle of contacts, H. W. is welcomed into the Republican Party and becomes Chairman of the Party for Harris County, Texas. He runs for the Senate and is defeated by Texas Democrat Ralph Yarborough.
Later, in 1966, H. W. is elected to the House of Representatives and becomes acquainted with Richard Nixon.
President Nixon appoints H. W. to the United Nations as Ambassador for the United States. His social skill suited the United Nations Ambassador position perfectly.
As the Watergate scandal overtakes the Nixon Administration, H. W. supports Nixon up to the point of undeniable truth of Nixon’s cover-up. As the Republican National Committee Chairman, H. W. asks Nixon to resign.
When Gerald Ford became President, H. W. is asked to be America’s envoy to China.
After serving for one year, Ford asks Bush to take the position of CIA Director.
One year later, Ford is defeated by President Carter and H. W. returns to the private sector with plans to run for President.
Bush’s cultivated Republican Party friendships compel Reagan to ask Bush to be his Vice President.
RONALD REAGAN (40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) Meacham notes that running for President is something H. W. has prepared for through the course of his life but 1980 is the era of Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s public speaking skill clearly surpasses the oratorical skill of H. W. Bush. However, Bush’s appeal to a more liberal part of the Republican Party makes him an ideal running mate for the highly conservative Reagan. Reagan is reluctant to make the offer because of H. W.’s “Voodoo Economics” comment during their primary contest but Bush’s affable personality eventually endears Reagan to his running mate.
By the end of Meacham’s biography one sees Bush as a decent man who wishes to do the right thing. One might conclude that H. W. Bush is unduly influenced by the desire to be liked. This desire makes H. W. avoid confrontation, a characteristic of which Meacham offers many examples; e. g. Bush’s reluctance to confront the public with his decision to raise taxes; his ambivalence about using the bully pulpit to attack political opponents. H. W. Bush’s inner compass seems to wobble in the face of his desire for comity. However, when one puts H. W. in the context of history, Bush’s inner compass seems as true north as any of America’s Presidents.
On the one hand, comity may be what is missing in the extremes of the political climate of the 21st century; on the other hand, “read my lips” has little political efficacy.
On the one hand, comity may be what is missing in the extremes of the political climate of the 21st century; on the other hand, a wobbling inner compass leads to intellectually untested certainty. One may argue H. W. Bush’s avoidance of confrontation leads to decisions not tested by debate. All that is left is experience burnished by one person’s judgment. Avoidance of personal confrontation may lessen perspective but comity is an underrated commodity in today’s political climate.
A surprising note by Meacham is H. W.’s second guessing on Saddam Hussein. H. W. did not confront Saddam Hussein to demand unconditional surrender after his forced ejection from Kuwait. In retrospect, a demand for unconditional surrender seems superfluous. Arguably, H. W.’s courageous decision to inject the American military into Kuwait changed the course of history. One inclines to believe H. W. will go down in history as the antithesis of Nazi appeasers in WWII.
GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. The most titillating part of Meacham’s biography of H. W. is a father’s judgment of his son’s Presidency. One tends to believe H. W. views George W. more as a beloved son than as President of the United States. George W., like all human beings, makes his own mistakes.
H. W. argues that his son is poorly served by his Vice President and Secretary of Defense. H. W. suggests Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are the principal reason for the mistake of Iraq. (One must ask oneself, who hired Cheney and Rumsfeld? In a translation of Plato’s “Republic”, there is a phrase about leadership that suggests “Birds of a feather flock together”.)
George W. is his own man. He differs from his father in numerous ways. One may remember George W. standing on an aircraft carrier and saying “Mission Accomplished!” after the defeat of the Republican Guard in Iraq. Meacham’s biography suggests that kind of hubris-tic comment would never be made by H. W. Bush. History will show defeat of the Republican Guard accomplished very little. Defeat of the Republican Guard is only the beginning of many American mistakes in Iraq.
H. W. Bush may not go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of the United States but he is among the most decent.
Kotkin’s first volume about Stalin’s rise to power offers lessons to modern American and Chinese governments. China seems on one path; America another.
STEPHEN KOTKIN (AMERICAN AUTHOR, HISTORIAN, ACADEMIC)
Stephen Kotkin offers a remarkable and comprehensive view of Russia’s 1917 Revolution in “Stalin, Volume I”. Kotkin succinctly describes how power in the hands of one may advance a nation’s wealth, but at a cost that exceeds its benefit.
Kotkin’s first volume about Stalin’s rise to power offers lessons to modern American and Chinese governments. China seems on one path; America another.
The formation of “checks and balances” sustains America’s economic growth, even in the face of leadership change. In contrast, a “rule of one” has moved China’s economic wealth to new heights, but “rule of one” threatens its future success; particularly if it follows Stalin’s, and now Putin’s mistaken path.
In historical context, Kotkin profiles the three most important characters of the Russian revolution; e.g. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Leon Trotsky. Kotkin documents the personalities and circumstances of the pre-U.S.S.R.’ economy; i.e. an economy based on the disparity between wealth and poverty, federalization and centralization, political idealism and pragmatism.
MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.)
Three leaders in the Chinese revolution were Mao Zedong , Zhou Enlai, and Deng Xiaoping. Zhou Enlai is the moderate of the three in trying to preserve traditional Chinese customs. Mao is by some measures an idealist who attempts to expand the theory of communism. His idealism creates a bureaucracy that nearly derails China’s economy. “The Gang of Four” radicalized Mao’s idealism into a more Stalinist view of communism. “The Gang of Four”s radicalization of Chinese communism is eventually reversed with the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, but not until after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
DENG XIAOPING (CHINA’S CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMISSION 1982-1987)
After Tiananmen Square, Deng recognizes the power of public dissent. Rather than increasing suppression, Deng opens the Chinese economy to a degree of self-determination. Deng does not abandon communist ideology. However, he recognizes the importance of economic growth and how less doctrinal communist policy would unleash the power of people as demonstrated at Tienanmen Square.
Deng dies in 1987 and the government of China is reshuffled. Deng’s eventual successor, President Xi, emphasizes the idealism of communism that threatens return to a Stalinist-like terror in China; i.e. a terror enhanced by technological invasion of privacy, and “big brother” control.
XI JINPING (GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AND PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
President Xi returns to Mao’s authoritarian belief in enforced collectivism with the idea of expanding China’s new-found wealth through government subsidization of industry. Xi renews emphasis on rule by the Communist party, headed by himself.
The growing disparity between rich and poor in both China and America is widely seen in the internet, and with increased international travel. China’s rapid rise in economic wealth is unevenly spread, just as it is in the United States. The difference is in how that economic disparity is addressed.
In America, private dissent is an inherent part of its history which lauds individualism, self-determination, and freedom (within the boundary of “rule of law”). But, these characteristics denigrate American citizens who are unable or unwilling to reap the rewards of individualism, self-determination, and freedom. These are the Americans sleeping on America’s streets and living in their cars.
America’s system of governance allows a rift between the rich and poor because it is based on a system of “checks and balances”. America’s system demands debate, and more broadly considered human consequence, before government action is taken.
LIVING ON THE STREET IN AMERICA
In China, the homeless are compelled to work at jobs created by the government. China’s system of governance is driven from the top, with limited debate, and more singularly determined public consequence. Government action is autocratically determined.
BEIJING-In China, dissent is discouraged and freedom is highly restricted, but homelessness is addressed with housing for the poor at subsidized prices.
In ancient China, singular autocratic rule offered a mixed blessing. Some of the world’s wealthiest and most cultured governments were created in China. These ancient dynasties successfully expanded their economies to make China a world leader in science and industry. At the same time, with few checks and balances, the history of China’s “rule of one” resulted in periodic social and economic collapse.
In some ways, China’s ancient civilization’s rise and fall is reminiscent of the rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. after 1917. Kotkin describes the turmoil surrounding Russia in 1917. The beginning of WWI and Germany’s invasion exaggerate the paradox of power in Russia. Modern European, Asian, North American, Middle Eastern, and African countries are experiencing some of the same economic, and political disruption.
On the one hand, the peasant is a proud Russian; on the other hand, he is a slave of the landed gentry; indentured to preserve the wealth of others at the cost of his/her life.
In 1917, the Czar and wealthy aristocracy depend on a population of the poor to defend the government. Russian peasants are faced with defending a government system that recognizes them as serfs, agricultural laborers indentured to wealthy landowners. (A similar system existed in China prior to 1949.)
In 1949, Mao recognizes the same inequity and judiciously separates landlords from their vast estates and re-distributes it to tenant farmers who worked for them. Ownership restructuring improved agricultural production until Mao tried to make small collectives into large collectives with Communist party oversight. Formation of a Chinese Communist Party bureaucracy distorted actual production and de-motivated farmers that did the real work of farming. The result of production over-estimation caused a nation-wide famine.
KARL MARX (BORN TRIER, GERMANY 1818-DIED LONDON, ENGLAND 1883)
Kotkin notes Russian social and economic inequity is a breeding ground for a Leninist/Marxist revolution. Marx’s dialectic view of the wealth of nations suggests that governments will change based on the growing recognition of the value of labor; i.e. beginning with agrarian feudalism, growing through industrialized capitalism, and socialism; reaching to a state of equilibrium in communism (a needs-based and communal sharing of wealth). Marx suggests all nations will go through this dialectic process.
Lenin bastardizes Marx’s dialectic idealization. Lenin believes the process can be accelerated through revolution and centralized control of the means of production. This idea is adopted by Mao Zedong in China in 1949 with early success. However, Mao expands the collectivist policy with “The Great Leap Forward” in 1958. Mao’s broader collectivist policy collapses the Chinese economy in 1962. Thousands of Chinese die from starvation as communist overseers exaggerate food production quotas.
Collectivist expansion is an oversimplification of Kotkin’s explanation of Vladimir Lenin’s form of communism but it shows the risk of “rule of one” governance. Even Lenin is conflicted about how Russia will grow into a communist society.
Lenin recognizes the social and economic distance that Russian peasants must travel to gain an appreciation of a new form of government.
Much of the Russian population, like the Chinese in 1949, were illiterate and living at a subsistence level; bounded by a non-mechanized agrarian economy. Lenin vacillates between growth through education and growth through autocratic command. Kotkin suggests that Lenin gravitates toward centralized command because of the need to consolidate power within the revolution.
What Lenin needed in 1917 were followers that could get things done. Before being felled by brain disease and stroke, Lenin relies on the abilities of men like Joseph Stalin. Mao relies on his revolutionary Red Guard. Kotkin argues that Stalin became close to Lenin as a result of his organizational skill and his penchant for getting things done without regard to societal norms. For Mao, close associates like Deng Xiaoping, were his enforcers. Stalin becomes the most powerful enforcer in Lenin’s revolution. Deng eventually becomes the leader of Communist China.
Though Stalin wields great enforcement powers, Kotkin infers Trotsky is the intellectual successor to Lenin. Stalin and Trotsky are shown to be at odds on the fundamental direction of the Bolshevik party, the successor party of Russian communism. However, the exigency of getting things done, as opposed to understanding the goals of creating a Leninist/Marxist government, were paramount goals for consolidating power after the revolution. Kotkin explains how Stalin became a defender of Leninist doctrine while Trotsky became an antagonist and eventual apostate because of Stalin’s manipulation of events.
MAO AND STALIN IN 1949
China waits and observes Stalin’s method for rapid industrialization of Russia. Kotkin explains that Stalin gains an intimate understanding of Lenin’s doctrines while Trotsky chooses to compete with Lenin’s philosophical positions. The threat of factionalism accompanies Trotsky’s doctrinal departures.
The irony of the differences between Stalin and Trotsky are crystallized by Kotkin. Stalin’s intelligence is underestimated by both Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin carefully catalogs and memorizes Lenin’s communist beliefs. In contrast, Trotsky chooses his own communist doctrinal path based, in part, on Lenin’s writing. Here, another similarity is drawn with the near religious following of Mao’s Red Book with aphorisms about governing oneself and China.
Kotkin suggests Lenin views Trotsky as a more likely successor than Stalin as leader of the country. Lenin appreciates Stalin’s organizational ability but views Stalin’s temperament as too volatile for long-term government control. In 1922, Lenin is said to have dictated a “testament” saying that Stalin should be removed from his position as General Secretary. Lenin’s “testament” critiqued the ruling triumvirate of the party (Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev) and others like Bukharin, Trotsky and Pyatakov but the pointed suggestion of removal for Stalin is subverted.
After Lenin dies, the triumvirate chooses to ignore Lenin’s “testament” for Stalin’s removal. After all, Stalin is a doer; i.e. he gets things done. Just as Stalin suppresses opposition to his interpretation of Lenin, China suppresses opposition to the Communist Party’s doctrines. Doctrinal differences are successfully suppressed in China until the the failure of “The Great Leap Forward” in the 1950’s. The consequence of “The Great Leap Forward”s failure is the cultural revolution in the 1960’s.
In America’s history the economy slugs along with setbacks and successes. Though 1929 sees the collapse of the American economy, it recovers with government intervention, the advent of WWII, and the push and pull of a decision-making process designed by the framers of the Constitution. That push and pull is from leadership that is influenced by the checks and balances of three branches of government. That same process saves the American economy in 2008. The power and economy of America has grown to become the strongest in the world.
Kotkin’s research suggests young Stalin is something different from what is portrayed in earlier histories. Stalin grows close to Lenin because he is the acting arm of Lenin’s centralized command. Lenin relies on Stalin to get things done. He is Lenin’s executor. At the same time, Lenin turns to Trotsky as an economic adviser to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of what needs to be done to stabilize the revolution. Trotsky believes in the importance of centralized control of the economy.
Both Lenin and Stalin believed in communism but the first acts on a vision of the future; the second acts on the “now”.
China’s Deng and Xi seem to reverse Lenin’s and Stalin’s reasoning. Rather than Deng being like Lenin, he acts on China in the “now”.
Xi seems more like Lenin and looks at China’s future based on the ideals of communism. However, from an American perspective, all autocrats common failing is belief in “rule of one”. The rising dictatorship of Putin is doomed to fail but there is no guarantee that his replacement will either be soon or less repressive.
Glasnost and perestroika fail to overcome that belief.
Kotkin puts an end to any speculation about Lenin being poisoned by Stalin. Kotkin argues that Lenin died of natural causes, strokes from a brain disease. What Kotkin reveals is the internecine war that is waged between Stalin and Trotsky while Lenin is dying. The strokes steadily debilitate Lenin and suspicious written pronouncements are made that may or may not have originated with Lenin. Lenin’s secretary is his wife. Some evidence suggests a missive from Lenin saying Stalin should not be his successor, noting Trotsky as a better choice. Kotkin suggests such a missive is unlikely. Lenin seems to have had his doubts about both men.
Succession in modern China seems less filled with intrigue than communist Russia but the opaqueness of China’s politics makes the rise of Xi a mystery to most political pundits. What seems clear is that China’s rise and fall has always been in the hands of the “…one”.
PRESIDENT XI’S ONE BELT, ONE ROAD PLAN FOR CHINA’S FUTURE
History will be the arbiter for President Xi’s success or failure with a road and belt plan for China’s economic future. The same may be said for President Trump’s focus on the virtue of selfishness for America’s economic future. The fundamental difference between America and China is Xi has no “checks and balances”; American Presidents have the Supreme Court, Congress, and a 4-year-election-cycle to assuage arbitrary government action.
AYN RAND (1905-1982, AUTHOR WHO FIRMLY BELIEVED IN THE VIRTUE OF SELF-INTEREST AND UNREGULATED CAPITALISM.)
In Russia, Trotsky is characterized as an intellectual while Stalin is a pragmatist. In China, Deng is characterized as a pragmatist while Xi seems a doctrinal theorist.
In history, Trotsky is highly opinionated and arrogant. Stalin is street smart and highly Machiavellian. Trotsky thinks right and wrong while Stalin thinks in terms of what works. In China, Deng is Stalin and Xi is Trotsky. In America, Trump is Stalin and his opposition is Trotsky-like do-nothings.
Trump lost the election in 2020 because–from an American perspective, all autocrats common failing is belief in “rule of one”.
Stalin is reputed to be temperamental while Trotsky is aloof. Though Trotsky insists on centralized control, Stalin argues for federalization. Stalin paradoxically argues for federalization because he knows Russian satellite countries want independence, but he will act in the short-term for centralization to get things done. And of course, Stalin clearly adopts centralized economic planning for the U.S.S.R.; i.e., another of Kotkin’s paradoxes of power.
Ironically, though Putin is now showing himself to be as ruthless as Stalin, he is unable to exercise the same level of dictatorial control. Unrest is not quelled in the face of the Russian people’s assessment of Putin’s justification for the Ukrainian war.
There is much more in Kotkin’s powerful first volume about Stalin and the Russian revolution. Germany’s role in the revolution is a case in point. The writing is crisp and informative. The narration is excellent. After listening to “…Volume I”, one looks forward to Kokin’s next which is published this year.
The past is present in Kotkin’s excellent biography of Joseph Stalin.
This is a disturbing book because it brings a wolf to the door. The wolf may blow your house down whether it is made of brick or straw.
Herman Cain (Previous Presidential candidate, Tea Party Activist who believes in returning to a gold standard for the American dollar. Most recently, President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to have Cain appointed to the Federal Reserve Board.)
President Trump’s harangue about the independence of the Federal Reserve is old news. Packing the Federal Reserve has been done before. The selection of Herman Cain reflects on an Executive branch that lives in the past.
James Rickards infers the sky is falling because we are in a war that cannot be won without returning the American dollar to a gold standard. The argument is that returning to a gold standard will create a level playing field for currency that will stabilize the economy and break down barriers to free trade; i.e. not free trade exactly but regulated trade. Somehow, currency backed up by gold will be more stable than the full faith and credit of a government—really?
What is roiling the market today is a trade war; not currency manipulation.
Gold was over $1600 per ounce when Rickards was published. It ranged between $1529 and $1800 per ounce since this was published. Without a fixed standard, Rickards argues national economic security is at risk. Rickards argues that America has fought two currency wars in its history and is now in the middle of its third war, using weapons that cannot defend America in a currency war.
America is part of a world market; not a singular self-sufficient economic island.
Trade wars between nations is twentieth century thinking. World interconnection through travel, media, and education demand constructive cooperation between nation-state economies. It is economic improvement of all nations that makes each nation stronger. As national economies improve, free trade flourishes. It is a waste of human life to engage in restrictive trade policies or artificial standards of value like gold.
BEN BERNANKE (CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 2006-2014)
Rickards believes Bernanke, in 2012-13, misreads a primary cause of the depression. Rickards believes Bernanke is steering the U.S.’ economy into a ditch. He argues that “quantitative easing” is a road to hyper-inflation and economic calamity because it artificially stimulates the economy with newly printed money that has no intrinsic value.
Rickards goes on to suggest the Euro crises are examples of currency instability and the unpredictability of many battles being fought in the currency wars. His assessment is that political interests of China and Germany are the only glue that keeps countries like Greece from economic collapse.
Rickards is an attorney and an economist. That makes him capable of structuring an argument about the economy with more credibility than a bumbling blogger. However, to this bumbler, Rickards’ arguments are specious.
First, other economists disagree with Rickard’s considered argument about the gold standard, Ben Bernanke for one. Second, what evidence is there that one country’s decision to return to a gold standard will reduce economic conflict among nations? Finally, history shows Rickards to be wrong in terms of America being steered into a ditch. One can reasonably argue that Bernanke’s, Geithner’s, and Paulson’s actions kept America out of a ditch.
In contrast, it appears President Trump may be steering the American economy into an economic ditch.
Countries are run by different government philosophies, different national interests, and rely on different economic resources—how will creating a gold standard for currency in one country or all countries reduce conflicting self-interests? The currency war will not be changed with a return to the gold standard, i.e., currency wars will continue and evolve based on whatever standard is used for currency to determine value.
The gold standard is not a magic bean that can be exchanged for a milk cow. There is no bean stock to golden egg land.
Geo-political thinking and self-interest do not change because of a gold pegged American dollar. Currency conflicts will not disappear, i.e., they will re-set to commodity wars, or maybe bitcoin wars. America is as capable as any post-industrial nation to compete on that basis.
Rickards observes the trillion-dollar American Treasury bill hoard held by China and sees the sword of Damocles raised to slice America’s neck. Why would Jack want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? America is “Mr. and Mrs. Consumer” on steroids.
AMERICA’S BULLY
Currency wars are real, but America has fought them before with results that have made it the bully of the world. Maybe America needs to learn how to be a little humbler rather than gamble on a currency play or trade war that has as much chance of causing as curing world economic collapse.
Consumption is threatening humanity. Human resource should be deployed to improve living standards of all people, but economies that strictly focus on consumption are killing the golden goose.
Work on the environment is truly an improvement that “lifts all boats”. Better waste management, clean water, clean air, and education are investments with infinite returns. Wars of any kind between nations is twentieth century thinking.
RICHARD POWERS (AUTHOR, AMERICAN PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH)
Humanity’s years of life are but a blink of an eye. Richard Powers, like Cervantes’ Don Quixote, tilts at a windmill that neither generates power, grinds corn, or pumps water.
You love Powers way with words but come away from “The Overstory” feeling like Quixote’s relatives–mourning his loss of sanity but rejoicing in his belief of love and life.
Humans think themselves the center of the universe. To we puny creatures, no life is more important than human life. Powers argues otherwise.
Humans are not the center of the universe. Humans are part of an ecosystem; a system millions of years older. A conclusion drawn by “The Overstory” is that the earth’s ecosystem will live millions of years after humans are gone.
Powers tells a story that offers slim hope for humanity. A congregation of misfits grow to understand the frailty of humanity and its essential need to support nature. “The Overstory” begins in seemingly random stories of disparate characters who become part of a group of revolutionaries. In some parts of the country, they are called “tree huggers”.
Powers forcefully develops the argument that trees are the foundation and future of life. Every tree tells natures’ story of birth, life, death, and rebirth. Every character in Powers’ story either supports forest preservation through protest or example.
Powers’ story is about the preservation of all life.
In Power’s story, a protest results in an accidental death. It is a story of a husband and wife who symbolize the importance of a singular tree that cannot speak in a language that people can understand.
ECO-TERRORIST INCIDENT IN CALIFORNIA 2006
The protest is by a disparate group of eco-terrorists who sabotage a lumber harvesting company’s property. One of the rebels dies from a firebomb meant to stop the harvest. The consequence is the death of one, and the guilt carried by surviving rebels. Those who survive, get on with their lives. Many years after the incident, two of the participants are caught. One chooses to implicate another to receive a lighter (7 year) sentence. The other is sentenced to two seventy-year life sentences.
Powers’ symbolic example of human ecological ignorance is a highly successful corporate lawyer who has a stroke and cannot communicate with his wife. He deeply loves his wife, but she insists on being free of any ownership by another, whether from love or physical possession.
The lawyer reminds one of trees that live but cannot communicate with humans. His wife chooses to stay with him in his tree-like existence and begins to realize how he sees and understands without being able to clearly communicate. She is free and begins to comprehend what freedom means when she looks out the window and interprets what her husband sees.
If there is revelation in Power’s story, it is not human centered. The only slender hope Powers offers is for the language of trees to be understood by humanity. The disparaging term “tree huggers” implies there is no hope.
In travels around the world, one sees our world in crises. Indigenous Chinese drink bottled water. An India’ guide notes his country is on the brink of ecological catastrophe. Why worry–our American President says global warming is a hoax. It seems unlikely the world will wake up before it is too late.
THE LANGUAGE OF TREES
Trees may have a language, but technology is unlikely to provide any translation that humanity will accept. One hopes Powers’ imaginative story is a Cervantes’ tale; not a prophecy.
FAREED ZAKARIA (AMERICAN AUTHOR, EDITOR, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR)
Fareed Zakaria published “The Future of Freedom” in 2003; a lot has happened since then. This Indian born American, a Yale and Harvard educated government policy wonk, has written a fascinating treatise on a glaring weakness of democracy that continues to resonate in 2021.
The recent storm in Texas caused massive failure in the energy and water services of the state. The disaster fills the headlines in today’s papers.
TEXAS POWER GRID FAILURE.
TEXAS WATER SHORTAGE.
The line between Nanny State and Freedom has been clearly drawn in two WSJ’ articles addressing the “…Texas Power Grid…” failure. On the one hand, the Republican governor says private industry failed by being free to make their own decision about hardening the power grid against extreme weather events. The governor argues government should intervene in the private sector energy business to insure against future catastrophic failure.
The inference of the Governor’s argument is that profit motive is not enough to incentivize Texas energy producers to invest in backup systems for catastrophic weather events. After all, those energy producers that hardened their production and distribution systems would make more profit because they would be able to continue service to the public. The governor’s implication is that government should either incentivize or demand private sector backup investment. He implies self-interest and profit are not enough to make an unfettered private sector invest in hardening. To some, this is a “nanny state” argument.
In contrast, in the WSJ’ editorial page (on the same day), Holman Jenkins writes “A cold snap that touches all of Texas with subfreezing temperatures is a once-a-century event.” The implicit meaning of his argument is that disasters will always occur; get over it, and stay out of private sector business. To like-minded Americans that argument is a part of being free.
The world is in the midst of the Covid19 pandemic; struggling with death, government dysfunction, climate disruption, and economic hardship. In American democracy the difficulty is in knowing where to draw the line between Nanny State, and Freedom.
Zakaria notes that an unexpected consequence of sunshine, sunset, and open meetings laws change the way elected officials represent their constituency. Zakaria implies the “swamp” in Washington D.C. is created by an incorrect interpretation of the Republic outlined in the American Constitution.
Zakaria argues lobbying and population poling have replaced individual conscience in the American electorate. His argument is that the consequence of lost individual judgment is confused, and conflicted legislation. Zakaria suggests frequent political grid lock is exacerbated by lobbyists who do not represent the public at large. He argues population poling (surveys of constituent interests), and industrial lobbyists distort public interest.
Americans have become indoctrinated to be more interested in “keeping up with the Jones-es” than being individuals.
Zakaria’s argument reinforces a belief outlined by David Riesman in “The Lonely Crowd” in 1950. Riesman, a Harvard educated sociologist, conducted a study that suggests Americans are becoming more “other directed” rather than “inner directed”. His point is that Americans are more concerned about what other people think than what individuals think for themselves.
Elected officials are “Mad Men & women” manufacturing public interests created by lobbyists. Elected officials sell lobbyist’ ideas as though they are their own opinions.
Zakaria implies surveys of the public are designed and conducted by lobbyists and special interests who hire pollsters with motives to advance private interests rather than public good. The lobbyist appeal is “other directed”. Zakaria infers it is not what the “I” (elected representative) thinks, it is what the “other” (lobbyist or special interest) sells. Public interest is unrepresented. It is distorted by private interest being sold by falsely characterized political representatives–the men and women who hold political office.
Zakaria suggests a “Mad Men” advertising process invades 20th and 21st century American politics.
Elected officials are not “inner directed” and representing what they think is right but what others think is right. Poling becomes a primary source for decisions. Elected officials are influenced by interest groups, not by any clear reflection of their constituency or the American public.
In Zakaria’s reality, it is not possible to capsulize opinion of the American public. Zakaria is saying original framers of the Constitution focused on a Republic that separated church and state and focused on freedom of choice based on the conscience of elected officials. Elected officials were meant to vote for what they, as representatives of a State and nation, believed. Fareed Zakaria argues too many elected officials do not vote what they believe but vote what special interests and media trolls promote.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION FOCUSED ON A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The truth, consequence, and viciousness of this cycle of public-interest-deceit is: 1) there is no way of accurately knowing what the public believes and 2) being re-elected becomes more important than voting for what one believes is right. Zakaria suggests the framers of the constitution expected elected representatives to vote their individual conscience based on being popularly elected. He argues that lobbyists and a minority of Americans falsely define public interest and unduly influence representative’ decisions.
EXCEPT FOR LOBBYIST’S AND SPECIAL INTERESTS
This slippery slope is made slipperier by lobbyists who are interested in perpetuating their high paying jobs. Lobbyists push for 1 year laws with sunset provisions so they can be “helpful lobbyists” next year to get similar legislation passed. Zakaria infers sunset laws have little to do with public interest.
The goal of lobbyists and their employers is to push elected officials to vote for legislation that benefits their private interests. Zakaria’s point is that elected officials do not base legislative decisions on their conscience as representatives of their public constituency. Representatives create legislation and vote based on what lobbyists convince them is in the public interest. Zakaria suggests in today’s American government “public” interest is narrowly defined by lobbyist, and a minority that pays for government access and something to gain.
The election of Trump is a reflection of a government that looks at freedom as a transactional paradigm for American Democracy. What is good for Texas private industry is good for its people.
A part of Zakaria’s argument is that American Democracy is increasingly dis-respected by many outside countries, but more importantly, it seems dis-respected by a growing number of voters in its own population. (One could argue that is why America elected a non-politician to head its government.)
Zakaria is not saying democracy is not the best form of government in the world, but today’s democracy fails to operate as a Republic. He believes it is in danger of dissolving into a chaos of unpredictability and dysfunction. And so it did, on January 6, 2021.
Zakaria implies freedom is diminished by political representatives that fail to vote their conscience. Public interest is a fiction manufactured by lobbyists working for special interests.
TED KAZYNSKI (UNA-BOMBER, MATHEMATICIAN EDUCATED AT HARVARD AND UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SERVING LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE)
The uni-bomber, Ted Kaczynski is said to have read The Secret Agent as a coda for his decision to murder and maim innocents. Kaczynski’s craziness and the atrocity of 9/11 are most often referred to in modern reviews of The Secret Agent.
The Secret Agent is about a middle-aged, over weight secret service agent named Adolph Verloc. Verloc lives in England and is a spy for an un-named country. Verloc is called into his employer country’s Embassy to tell him that he is going to be fired unless he provides some actionable service for his pay. Verloc is upset with the news because he is dependent on the income received from the foreign country.
Verloc lives with his wife, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law; none of which know that he is a spy. The brother-in-law is mentally challenged but idolizes Verloc. Despite Verloc’s ownership of a small business, his family depends on his income as a spy. Verloc is a cypher, a character that must mean more than he seems. He seems less than smart. He is selfish. He cares for others but only in proportion to what they can do for him. He has infiltrated an anarchist organization as a principal officer but seems frozen in place. As the story progresses, Conrad never dispels the feeling that this character is too dumb to be a spy.
TED KAZYNSKI (A QUINTESSENTIAL NIHILIST)
The anarchist organization members are made up of nihilistic agents; in particular, a con man named Ossipon and a bomb maker called The Professor. Verloc asks The Professor to make a bomb for him based on a plan suggested by the Embassy that Verloc visited earlier. The plan is to blow up the Greenwich Observatory near London. Verloc chooses to use his mentally challenged brother-in-law to carry the bomb. Once again a reader/listener is confronted with the feeling that Verloc is too dumb to be a spy.
What is to be made of re-publication of and public interest in The Secret Agent? After all, it was published over 100 years ago. Is it a satire that reveals the absurdity of secret service organizations? Is it a primer for terrorist wannabes? Is it a rejection of capitalism? Is it about the vacuity of me-ism (life is all about me)? Does it reveal the secrets of a terrorist’s philosophy? Is it about the aftermath of a terrorist event? It seems the book is partly about all of the above.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger
It’s relevance today reminds one of the poisoning in 2018 of a defecting Russian spy and his daughter in London. Sergei Skirpal and his daughter are poisoned by a Novichok nerve agent in their home. The bottle in which the Novichok is stored was discarded and picked up by two innocent bystanders who think it is a perfume bottle. Dawn Sturgis, a 45 year old woman, dies in the hospital.
Putin denies ordering the poisoning and suggests the evidence for his denial is that the bunglers who handled the poisoning could not have worked for the Russian spy agency because they are professionals.
The Secret Agent is only marginally interesting because of Horovitch’s narration. However, in light of Putin’s 2018 denial and the murder of Adnan Khashoggi, foreign agent’ bungling is more than an ironic joke.
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE CROWN PRINCE OF SAUDI ARABIA (MEETING TO DISCUSS THE MURDER OF ADNAN KHASHOGGI IN 2018)
Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.
Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough
(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House
By: Peter Baker
Narrated by Mark Deakins
PETER BAKER (AUTHOR, EMPLOYED BY NYTIMES, FORMER REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST)
Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.
The pain of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq remain raw for many Americans. Baker’s exploration of George Walker Bush’s administration offers historical information but perspective requires more time.
Baker’s book will not change minds about the success or failure of George W. Bush’s administration. It offers details to supporters and detractors of Bush’s tenure as 43rd President.
GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., SON OF 41ST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)
DICK CHENEY (46TH V.P. OF U.S., FORMER U.S. SECY. OF DEFENSE)
Supporters will admire Bush’s tenacious spirit. Detractors will decry Bush’s obstinate belief in “experts”. Supporters will admire Cheney’s toughness in the face of unexpected problems. Detractors will vilify Cheney for not foreseeing consequences.
Baker shows Bush’s tenacity in following the lead of people hired to do a job. However, Baker infers Bush does not provide enough vetting or oversight of “experts” he hires. When vetting is done, Bush is shown to minimize serious concern about candidate’s faults. When “experts” are hired, Bush prizes loyalty over results in sticking with the chosen.
TRUMP & ROBERT REDFIELD, AN AMERICAN VIROLOGIST AND DIRECTOR OF CDC
There is also a loyalty demand with today’s American President, but it seems one-sided. Mr. Trump expects loyalty from subordinates but undermines associates who report to him. In contrast, George W. stood by Cheney through the worst years of the Iraq war.
Administration turnover is high in Trump’s administration. Too often, Trump chooses image over substance.
JAMES MATTIS (FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE)
For Trump, believing in one’s own judgement and being in charge take precedence over collaborative decision-making. The most recent evidence of this willful characteristic of President Trump is the resignation of General Mattis.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DEPARTURES
Baker shows Cheney as a tough-minded, defense oriented protector of American freedom. At the same time Baker reflects on Cheney’s five heart attacks, lack of respect for differing opinions, and single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for complicated problems. Baker suggests multiple heart attacks may have affected Cheney’s view of life. He suggests Cheney’s actions may have been compromised by medical conditions affecting his health. There are some (mostly Democrats) who question the state of Trump’s personal health and his actions.
Parenthetically, one might argue Trump views himself as protector of capitalist freedom. An apropos example is Trump’s single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for America’s trade deficit.
Baker leaves little doubt about President “W’s” role as decider. The same may be said of Trump, but their leadership success or failure will be based on history; not on today’s view of their actions and results.
LEADERSHIP SUCCESS OR FAILURE IS BASED ON HISTORY; NOT CURRENT CONCEPTION.
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice on October 26, 2020.
Barrett describes herself as a strict constructionist, not a legislator. History will determine the quality of Barrett’s appointment. As a Supreme Court justice, one must recognize it is up to Congress to clarify what they mean when they pass legislation.
Barrett’s appointment is today’s reality. Her decisions, just as Trump’s, Obama’s, and W’s actions, have tomorrows’ consequences. The appointment of Barrett needs the perspective of history; not the praise or condemnation of the present.
Barrett, like all high government leaders, brings her own life history of successes and failures. Cheney left a long public life to become CEO of Halliburton, a multi nation oil field services company. Returning to government opens Cheney to conflict of interest questions.
Baker notes that former associates of pre-VP Cheney feel he changed. Pre-VP Cheney was conservative but more open to others opinions and easier to get along with. (Some argue that Trump is not open to other’s opinions.) Pre-VP Cheney served in the Nixon, Ford, and George H. W. Bush administrations. He also served as a 5 time elected representative of the State of Wyoming.
Halliburton receives multi-million dollar contracts from the American government for support in Iraq. Cheney argues that no other American company had equal resource capability. Trump chooses to surround himself with people like Jared Kushner, Wilbur Ross, and Carl Icahn who have Cheney-like commercial conflicts of interest; not to mention hotel and real estate interests of President Trump himself.
JARED KUSHNER, WILBUR ROSS, CARL ICAHN, AND TRUMP’S SONS AND DAUGHTER–EXAMPLES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFLUENCE OF INTEREST
Baker raises the specter of heart attacks and Halliburton experience affecting Cheney’s personality, demeanor, and actions as Vice President of the United States. The author, like every human being, cannot know what he does not know. The same is true for Mr. Trump. Trump is healthy and highly intelligent because he says he is. As Socrates is believed to have said–“I know something that I know nothing.
Trump was a showman before he became President. Some suggest he remains a showman today. In today’s view, mage is substance to Mr. Trump.
Cheney was who he was before and after he became V.P. of the United States. Of course, age and experience changes everyone; only time and history will confirm or deny today’s opinions of the George W.’s and Trump’s administrations. Many details of Bush and Cheney’s lives are reported in Baker’s book. The data compilation offers color, if not insight, to Bush and Cheney’s characters. Today’s comments and actions of President Trump are equally colorful (in the worst sense of the term) but insight to his administration remains for history to determine.
Baker’s choice of details endears readers to Bush more than Cheney. Bush interactions with the public after 9/11; his bravado in flying to Iraq to meet with troops, and Baker’s description of Bush’s love for his dying 15-year-old Springer Spaniel, tug at a reader’s heart. Details of Cheney’s emotional life are limited to descriptive interactions with family. Baker describes Cheney’s experience with the twin tower terror, heart attacks, and affection for anyone other than family as fatalistically analyzed incidents.
Baker links Bush and Cheney’s early life experiences. He exposes different consequences of their linked experience. Both men are shown to be smart but Bush’s rebelliousness seems parentally sheltered while Cheney’s rebelliousness seems experience driven. Bush graduates from Yale and Harvard while Cheney flunks Yale, returns to work as a power lineman; returns to Yale, flunks again, and eventually graduates with BA and MA political science degrees from University of Wyoming.
BUSH AND TRUMP SHARE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF A LIFE OF PRIVILEGE
Bush’s silver spooned life is contrasted with Cheney’s stainless steel life. Bush’s parental-rebellion is contrasted with Cheney’s “who gives a damn”’ wilding. Because Bush and Cheney both attended Yale, they had some common experience but Bush graduated; Cheney did not. This detail reinforces the argument that Bush may have respected Cheney but felt more qualified to be the decider; not only by virtue of position but by virtue of accomplishment. Baker infers that possibility, particularly in the second term of Bush’s administration.
Cheney offers his resignation before the second election campaign. The decision to invade Iraq is perceived to be hugely influenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. The mistaken intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is a potential re-election killer. Bush considers Cheney’s resignation but chooses not to accept.
Baker suggests that Bush moves away from Cheney toward the end of his first four years in office. Baker reports that some Cheney’ colleagues felt resignation was a Machiavellian-Cheney’ gesture to keep his position; others suggest it was a fall-on-his-sword move to protect the leader; a needed act to get Bush re-elected.
Internal conflicts in “W’s” administration show politics at its best and worst. When Bush pushes for a revision in the Medicare prescription plan for senior citizens, he is stonewalled by his own party on a vote for approval. Baker suggests passage was dead in the water until Bush tacitly agrees, with an Arizona Republican congressman (Trent Franks), to fight any attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that supports women’s rights to abortion. The Medicare prescription plan barely passes, after the meeting.
Bush’s judgment is called into question when he tries to get Harriet Miers appointed to the Supreme Court. Bush believes Miers is qualified without fully vetting her background and education. Ms. Miers, though a lawyer, is shown to be ignorant of basic legal interpretations of practiced law. President Trump has had his share of judgement questions in his foolish twitter comments.
A QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP JUDGEMENT
Baker explores hard feelings between Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Condoleeszza Rice. Rumsfeld mentored Cheney but was dismissed by President Bush in his second term; in part, because of Abu Ghraib but largely because of pentagon and secret service chafing under Rumsfeld management style. Rice succeeds Colin Powell as Secretary of State in the second administration.
Bush felt Powell was not a team player and that he used the media to get around disagreements with Rumsfeld’s military defense decisions. Rice steers the State Department back to diplomacy from being an adjunct of defense. President Trump’s Attorney General is called out as “not a team player” but not for the same reason as Powell.
BOTH BUSH AND TRUMP ENDORSED TORTURE IN INTERROGATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.
Baker reflects on the “torture” memorandum approval by John Yoo, Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, during “W’s” first administration. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were approved for the CIA by Bush with Yoo’s tortured legal reasoning. Dick Cheney insists torture saved lives after 9/11. Trump endorses water boarding as a justified torture of political prisoners.
Bush’s second term also replaces John Ashcroft with Alberto Gonzales as U. S. Attorney General. Baker infers the change is due to Ashcroft’s refusal to reverse a Justice Department ruling on a part of the Patriot Act regarding privacy. On the other hand, it could have been Ashcroft’s health. With Ashcroft’s refusal to sign Bush’s reaffirmation of the law, Bush chose to overrule Ashcroft and the Justice Department by Executive Order.
Baker shows how and why Americans have become so closely divided over Bush’s war on terror; his belief in democracy as a guarantee of freedom, and the inference that privacy is a privilege, not a right.
Though it is too soon to write an unbiased history of “W’s” time in office, Baker reports some interesting details about the George W. Bush’ years. Both Bush and Cheney survive the days of fire but Cheney appears more scarred than Bush at the end of Baker’s tale. America seems more divided today; not only in regard to the war on terror, but in more ways than realized during George W. Bush’s administration.
In Trump’s administration, the country seems as divided as it was in the Bush/Cheney years. But, of course, views of the Bush and Trump administration are without the perspective of history. History has hugely changed perceptions of Presidents Grant, Wilson, Eisenhower Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon since their deaths.
Some Presidents were considered better; some worse, when they were leaders. One wonders how the 22nd century will look at the George W. and Trump years.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 