Category: POLITICS

DEMOCRACY

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

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

53 Days (How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy)

By: Timothy W. Ryback

Narrated by: Jacques Roy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rising Gap between the rich and poor in America.

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

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

Patriarchs/Matriarchs

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

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Patriarchs (The Origins of Inequality)

By: Angela Saini

Narrated by: Sohm Sohm Kapila

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNITY

Steinbeck’s stories show what makes capitalist America a melting pot of the world.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Cannery Row (A Novel)

By: John Steinbeck

Narrated by: Jarry Farden

John Steinbeck (1902-1968, author, Nobel prize winner who wrote 25 novels.)

John Steinbeck’s ability to vivify the lives of the middle and lower classes make stories like “Cannery Row” clear and poignant visions of America. Though published in 1945, “Cannery Row” focuses on a segment of working-class people in Monterey, California, a community about 120 miles south of San Francisco. It is located in an industrial waterfront area lined with boat docks and fish canneries.

Cannery Row as it was in the 1940s.

Image of Monterey's Old Fisherman's Wharf | 2052168

As a community of people who are mostly manual laborers with immigrants and a few professionals, Steinbeck paints a picture of America that resonates with the 21st century; i.e., at least before the current government administration. The sardine industry, like ocean harvesting today, is teetering on collapse in the late 1940s because of overfishing and environmental change. However, Steinbeck shows the human truth of how an industry grows out of the value of immigrants and the middle class in capitalist America. He offers a historical snapshot of the importance of both immigrant and born-in-America citizens that demonstrate the best of what capitalism offers working families.

Working in America.

Working families in the era of midcentury America came from all over the world. Steinbeck paints a picture of a Chinese immigrant who measures the worth of human beings and makes the best of what they offer by recognizing “no” is often the wrong answer to those who try to take advantage of others. This Chinese American opens a grocery store and measures his success by working within the limits of Americans’ ability to pay for what they need to survive. He offers credit, with limits, to his customers and works with them to maintain his livelihood and invest in other properties when opportunities present themselves. He is approached by homeless laborers about living in a warehouse property that has been vacant for some time. He has purchased the property as an investment. They offer no payment for the shelter, but he reasons if he says no, they will take what they are not given, damage his building, and ruin its potential value. On the other hand, if he says yes, they will occupy the building, be customers of his store, improve his income, and take care of his property that will increase in value over time.

Community leaders.

A highlight of Steinbeck’s insightful story is a doctor who is the center of the community’s stability who exemplifies the best of what American life offers. The doctor is a highly respected, vociferous reader of books and a music lover, who cares for the health of those who live in Cannery row. Whether a woman who is working in a house of prostitution, a delinquent who breaks the law, or a fisherman who brings his crew to stir up a fight, the doctor is the glue that holds the community together.

America is and always should be a melting pot if one takes Steinbeck’s view of America as relevant.

Steinbeck’s stories show what makes capitalist America a melting pot of the world. Whether an immigrant, working person, delinquent juvenile, or community leader, every human being has value. Life in America is not easy, but it is worth everything that a sense of community can offer.

DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION

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

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Politics Without Politicians (The Case for Citizen Rule)

Author: Hélène Landemore

Narration by: Hélène Landemore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUAWEI

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

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

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

Author: Eva Dou

Narration by: Nancy Wu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist captitalism.

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

Huawei discipline.

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

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

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

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

WARNING

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

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fire Next Time

Author: James Baldwin

Narration by: Lawrence Fishburne

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

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

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

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

Racist rally in America.

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

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

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

RUSSIA’S LEADERS

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

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

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

Author: Mark Galeotti

Narration by: Mark Galeatti

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

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

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

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

Tsarist Russia.

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

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

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

Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRACY’S STRENGTH

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fourth Turning is Here (What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End) 

Author: Neil Howe

Narration by: Neil Howe

Neil Howe (American author, historian, economist, and consultant.)

Neil Howe argues the United States is in the middle of a crisis. He views political polarization is as great today as it was during the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression. He suggests society has broken into two “mega-identities” that is evident in the news of the day. He sees a red and blue American society with a distinct part of society being rural/suburban, evangelical or traditionalist, nationalist, anti-elite, and distrustful of institutions. The other side is urban/metropolitan, secular and pluralist, cosmopolitan, and pro-institution with a trust in expertise. (In fairness to the author, this reviewer did not listen to Howe’s entire book.)

Generational beliefs.

Howe goes on to suggest there is a generational quality to these two camps. Boomers are those born between 1943 and 1960 (my generation). Generation X born from 1961-1981, Millennials (1982-2004), and Generation Z (2005-to the present). The problem with this broad categorization of Americans is that one can see themselves in each generations view of American government and society. Americans are both Red and Blue, believe strongly in the equality of human beings, are skeptical of absolutes, and believe in common good and the importance of government. Americans are relatively free human beings who will ultimately make the right decision to preserve the health and well-being of democratic society.

Is immigration an American crisis or a discouraged opportunity?

Howe argues today’s America is at a once-in-a-century crisis. He suggests American governance has become too polarized and that institutions of government are decaying in ways that are diminishing the economic prosperity and influence of democracy in the world. Polarization is not new to America. One who has reached a Boomer’s age remembers political polarization from the excesses of America during Vietnam. The mistakes and lies of the Johnson administration are not unlike the lies of Donald Trump. Democrat’s support of Johnson’s Great Society created too many programs like urban renewal and anti-poverty that remind one of Republican’s support of Trump’s overzealous deregulation of environmental protection, finance of projects to aggrandize his reputation, and welfare policies that penalize the poor. Both Johnson and Trump show poor management of their major policy initiatives. The social and political consequence of their mismanagement has damaged America’s economy and influence in the world. Both Johnson and Trump represent what can go wrong in a democracy but is eventually corrected by elections of future leaders founded on the principles of the Constitution.

Johnson’s Great Society.

There are differences and similarities between Johnson and Trump. The obvious difference is the parties to which they belong. Johnson creates bureaucratic sprawl and economic waste by expanding government services while Trump creates bureaucratic ineptitude through fragmentation from arbitrary firing of government employees. Both Presidents believe they are benefiting American society while they made decisions that damaged the economy and diminished the value of democratic governance. The extent of their damage during these two Presidents did and will take time to repair but the structure of America’s government assures democracy’s recovery.

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government.

Lincoln is elected to take the giant step needed to put America back on the path of human equality and opportunity. Franklin Roosevelt saved America from economic collapse. Just as Lincoln is not survived by a President who reinforces equality of Americans, the same will likely be true for the next President after Trump. But, as Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

A WRITER’S JUDGEMENT

“There is Simply Too Much to Think About” is a time-consuming read with a depth of understanding about writing that gives one “…Too Much to Think About” because of its author’s humbling intelligence. The fundamental point Bellow makes is that art is as important as science for the advance of society.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

There Is Simply too Much to Think About (Collected Nonfiction) 

Author: Saul Bellow

Narration by: Malcolm Hillgartner

Saul Bellow (Author, Canadian-American novelist who has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, and the Pulitzer Prize.)

This is a daunting book by an accomplished novelist who explains what makes reading fiction and nonfiction worth one’s time and attention. The range of subjects Bellow covers is immense. He not only writes about literature but politics, philosophy, Jewish identity, American culture, history, and other subjects that overwhelm a reader/listener. Bellow suggests good nonfiction and fiction are about characters who write about life that makes them important enough to have meaning to readers and purpose for writers. A writer creates an understanding of characters in the context of a society in which they live. A good writer’s attention is given to the contradictions and complexity of living life. What Bellow means by nonfiction writers is those who witness life unfolding and relate that understanding from a perspective which may or may not resonate or at least be understood by a reader.

Though Bellow mentions few female authors, he shows strong opinions about famous male authors.

Bellow offers a tour of twentieth century writers he believes are examples of good nonfiction writers. He notes Ralph Ellison, Phillip Roth, and J.D. Salinger as examples of great nonfiction writers. At the same time, Bellow explains how deeply his life feeds into his writing. He reveals his own strengths and weaknesses. He acknowledges being drawn into trendy ideas of others that gloss over truth and mislead readers with contradictions. Like all human beings, Bellow can be misled by second-hand assertions about historic events and characters that lack verifiable truth. The result may be misrepresentation and sometimes cruel judgements about private lives and the history of humanity. Written misrepresentations reveal as much about the writer as the subject.

Ralph Ellison (Author of “Invisible Man”)

Bellow offers some warnings to readers of both good and bad writers. He suggests a reader should be careful about reading too much into writer’s characters or experience in a story. One thinks of Ellison’s “Invisible Man” and how it reshaped many readers understanding of race and identity. Ellison is not writing a protest novel. It is about social invisibility, Black identity, politics, and the meaning of life. Phillip Roth’s Colman Silk is accused of racism and forced to retire but he is not a racist. He is obviously falsely accused because he is secretly African American passing as white. Truth of a story is revealed in detail created by good writing.

Though not having personally read Bellow’s books, he notes that his writing is largely based on episodes from his own life.

Being born in a Montreal Jewish slum and raised as an immigrant in Chicago he experiences discrimination as a baby born in a Montreal slum and as an immigrant on Chicago streets. The working-class environment of Chicago streets gave Bellow a level of freedom and exposure to life as just another young boy finding his way in life. He could measure himself against more diverse life experiences in Chicago without losing his Jewish identity. As an immigrant, it added to his identity and broadened his understanding of life as a human being. He became streetwise in responding to the world.

The experience of life.

Bellow clearly illustrates a personal belief and understanding about life. He is an obvious master of American language. His intellect and curiosity are overwhelming. There is an emotional and moral seriousness that is sometimes funny and at others quite confrontational. He masterfully turns lived experience into art. There is a level of overconfidence in his judgement and personal contradictions crop up in his writing. On the one hand he distrusts ideology but writes a highly ideological view of writing. He defends the importance of art but criticizes culture. He lauds intellectual independence while insisting on his own beliefs. He is a bit combative toward academics, critics, and seems somewhat dismissive or impatient with those who struggle with his opinions. The title of Bellow’s book says it all–“There is Simply Too Much to Think About”.

Bellow believes the arts are the essential ingredient of what Martin Luther King’s quote depends upon.

Bellow is very judgmental about the writers he reviews in his “…Much to Think About” book. His greatest praise goes to Ralph Ellison, Phillip Roth, James Joyce, and Franz Kafka. His sharpest criticism is of Updike, Hemmingway, T.S. Eliot, Salinger, and James Baldwin. Updike is called too polished, Hemingway too emotionally shallow, Eliot too culturally conservative, Salinger too mystical, and Baldwin too damaged by ethnic prejudice. Despite his criticism, Bellow finds their works have power and meaning implying they are worth reading. Most who recognize or have read some or all of these authors will likely find them worth the time and effort to read them and come to their own conclusions.

“There is Simply Too Much to Think About” is a time-consuming read with a depth of understanding about writing that gives one “…Too Much to Think About” because of its author’s humbling intelligence. The fundamental point Bellow makes is that art is as important as science for the advance of society.

THE MIDDLE WAY

As every American, particularly white people of conscience know, ethnic minorities are faced with hardship, violence, and social discrimination until ruling majorities realize that all human beings are entitled to equality of opportunity in the society in which they live.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Voice for the Voiceless (Over Seven Decades of Struggle with China for My Land and My People.) 

Author: Dalai Lama

Narration by: Edoardo Ballerini

Dalai Lama (Author, born in 1935 is presently 91 years old. He is the spirtual head of Tibetan Buddhism.)

“Voice for the Voiceless” is the wish of every minority in the world. State supremacy over the individual in communism sharply contrasts with democracy in degrees of un-freedom revealed by what a citizen can be and do. Competition and descent, suppression of minority voices, control of information, collective identity, and human rights are insisted upon by communist leadership according to “Voice of the Voiceless” by the Dalai Lama.

American government checks and balances.

In a democratic government, there are multiple societally expressed interests like legal protection for dissent, creation of non-government organizations, guarantee of free speech, and institutional checks and balance on the power of its leaders. It is not that America or any democracy is perfect in its makeup but in the China that the Dalai Lama describes, communism is designed to prevent any form of opposition to its leadership. In the Dalai Lama’s view, no compassion exists in China’s government.

The infamous and unidentified “tank man” who stood in the way of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The most prominent historical evidence of a lack of government compassion is shown by the Tiananmen Square massacre during the Deng administration. The Dalai Lama’s opinion is reinforced by a Chinese guide who closes the doors of a private meeting room in which several Americans are informed of China’s reaction to the Tiananmen massacre. Chinese students and citizens who demonstrated at Tiananmen Square were asking for communist party reform, a reasonable level of leadership accountability, and elimination of corrupt Chinese government leaders.

In today’s China, President Xi consistently supports authoritarian rulers’ right to rule without interference from outside interests.

The Dalai Lama writes “Voice for the Voiceless” to challenge China’s political system which denies rule of Tibet by the Dalai Lama as its head of state. His demand reminds one of histories of displacement of native tribal leaders in America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Recognizing the fates of proud native leaders in America, the Dalai Lama (who has been exiled to India since the 1950s) is asking the communist government to allow him to be the leader of his “tribe” in Tibet. In America, more than two hundred years passed before genuine recognition and opportunity were seriously offered America’s natives. It has taken nearly 200 years for America to offer equal opportunity for tribal natives to pursue their interests as recognized ethnic minorities. What the Dali Lama wishes for Tibetan people in China is in many ways the experience of minorities in a democracy, let alone a communist autocracy.

Mary Annette Pember offers a firsthand, intergenerational perspective of America’s effort to assimilate native inhabitants of America.

Natives of America grew together as common ancestors that could choose life in a system of government that came to understand the importance of tribal self-determination. Natives of America had land rights, and a concept of cultural difference; accompanied by jurisdictional authority to pursue economic development as a distinct ethnic minority. The Dalai Lama clearly shows Tibetan people have a similar ethnic origin and desire for freedom and self-determination. Only time and ethnic solidarity offer hope for them to realize their goals.

Barbara Demick gives listeners a picture of Tibet with a darkness that rivals the narrative she creates for North Korea in “Nothing to Envy”. 

Communist China is not America. However, the Dalai Lama appears to want a level of independence to protect a Tibetan way of life for Buddhists to preserve their cultural identity and language without violent resistance by the Chinese system of government. This is a reminder of native American’s struggle in democratic America. The Dalai Lama seems only to wish for human and religious freedom, not nation-state hegemonic control. He notes Tibetans have no institutional power, no representation in the Chinese government, and no legal way to challenge state’ government policies.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976) Father of the Peoples Republic of China)

The Dali Lama’s book surprisingly notes the initial relationship with Chinese communism that proposed a “Seventeen-Point Agreement” which offered a framework for Tibet to have the recognition requested by the Tibetan culture. However, the tenor of the “…Agreement” is violated with Tibet being occupied by Mao’s government. Mao orders his administration to keep the Dalai Lama from fleeing and pressured Tibetan leaders to negotiate subservience to the Chinese Communist Party. Mao’s goal is to unify Tibet with China, not provide Tibetan autonomy within the structure of Chinese suzerainty. There was to be no self-determination of Tibetans, no interest in preserving Tibetan institutions, no role for the Dalai Lama, and no Tibetan’ autonomy. Mao demanded integration, not reconciliation.

The book “Being Peace” is a layman’s introduction to Buddhist belief.

As the Dalai Lama grew to understand what Mao and future leaders of the CCP really wanted, he chose to leave Tibet in the late 1950s. He exiled himself to India, the origin of Buddhism’s creation. Buddhism teaches liberation from suffering through compassion, wisdom, and meditation. These were not a part of the Communist ideals of Mao or his successors. The core belief of communism is that truth comes from the party whereas Buddhist believe truth is from inner realization. Every Buddhist is a sentient being that has compassion for individual suffering while a CCP member subordinates their feelings to the needs of the state and national unity. All religions are a potential threat to state control which is the basis and practice of communism and, to a lesser extent, all forms of government.

The Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet is the historic residence of the Dalai Lamas.

The Dalai Lama represents a threat to communism because he is a global moral figure, a symbol of Tibetan identity, and a spiritual authority independent of the state. Buddhist belief in inner freedom, compassion, and spiritual autonomy directly conflict with the ideals of communism because of its belief in the collective rather than the individual. An interesting irony in that communism is a form of government that endorses a collective concept. Of course, a communist collective is external to one’s inner self while Buddhism believes a collective is formed through an inner understanding of the self. China insists on centralized government authority, conformity to its edicts, and personal identification with the state’s government. One’s heart goes out to the Tibetan people and the discrimination they are suffering. Only time offers hope for their future.

As every American, particularly white people of conscience know, ethnic minorities are faced with hardship, violence, and social discrimination until ruling majorities realize that all human beings are entitled to equality of opportunity in the society in which they live.