Category: SOCIETY

CARE ABOUT ME

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Dream Palace of the Arabs

By: Fouad Ajami

Narrated by: Qarie Marshall

Fouad Ajami (Author, Lebanese American, professor and writer on Middle Eastern issues.

Fouad Ajami’s book should be listened to more than once, particularly by those who have little understanding of Middle East culture. Earlier, “The Dream Palace of the Arabs” is unsatisfactorily reviewed.

After re-listening to Ajami’s book, a major point missed in the first review is Ajami’s poignant and tragic examples of Arab despair in the Middle East.

That despair is not about freedom but about care for traditions of the Middle East’s ancient and diverse cultures. The monumental discovery of oil roiled religious and ethnic differences in the Middle East. Foreign and local self-interests interfered with the peripatetic freedom of Arab cultures. Adding to that loss of freedom, the discovery of oil changed the relationship between rulers and the ruled.

Just as America is made of many races, ethnicities, and religions, it is the responsibility of government leaders to care for all its people.

In the 21st century, the Middle East has established borders even though they may not be of their citizens own choosing. The responsibility of leaders in any country is to care for their citizens. Government leaders that have recognized borders are responsible for the care of everyone within their country. When leaders fail to care about all people within their borders, they risk civil war. America has, at times, failed to care for all its citizens in its young historical life. However, those failures have not, at least not yet, led to national dissolution.

Lebanon’s Golden Age 1950-1970

Lebanon became one of the first 21st century Middle Eastern countries to realize a diverse society can be peaceful and prosperous with leaders that know how to care for all citizens within its borders. It is known as Lebanon’s “Golden Age” which lasted from the 1950s to the mid 1970s when a civil war began. When Lebanon’s leaders lost sight of the necessity of care for everyone, including Maronite Christians, Suni and Shia Muslims, and Druze within their borders, peace and prosperity declined. The same loss of care for others by leadership is true in all countries of the world made of different races, cultures, and religions.

Ajami notes Sadat is assassinated because he was seduced by American influence. That influence displaced Sadat’s care for all Egyptian citizens.

This is only partly America’s fault. Ultimately, it is a respective nations leader’s decision on how to care for their own citizens. Ajami notes Saddam Husein is abandoned by his army when America invaded Iraq because he did not care for all his people. It is the same failure that may occur in Syria and Iran if their leaders fail to learn the importance of caring about all of their citizens, not just those who believe what their leaders’ believe.

Nizar Qabbani (Syrian diplomat, poet, writer and publisher, became Syria’s National Poet.)

What makes the principle of “care about me” is clearly implied in Nizar Qabbani’s poem quoted in Adami’s book.

“Children of the Stones”

They stunned the world

With only stones in their hands.

They lit the lanterns, and came like good omens

They resisted, exploded and were martyred

And we remained ..polar bears

Heavily armored against heat (feelings)

They fought for us until they were killed

And we sat in or cafes like spitting oysters

One of us looking for business

One.. a new million

One.. a fourth wife

And breasts polished by civilization

One looking in London for a lofty palace

One working as

One seeking vengeance in bars

One, looking for a throne, an army a position of authority

Alas, O generation of treacheries

O Generation of deals

O generation of rubbish

Abraham Lincoln saved America just as great leaders in the Middle East may or may not save their countries.

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

BROKEN

Laurel Snyder’s story is as interesting and satisfying in its end as in its beginning.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

My Jasper June

By: Laurel Snyder

Narrated by: Imani Parks

Laurel Snyder (American Author, Poet, writer of children’s books, and PBS commentator.)

“My Jasper June” is a beautifully rendered story of life by Laurel Snyder. Snyder shows different ways of coping with life’s broken parts. It takes place in Atlanta, Georgia, but it could be in Anywhere, America. It is a story of a 13-year-old girl, her friend, and her family. Every parent who has a teenage child will be entranced by Snyder’s tale.

Having lived long, older reader/listeners know every life has broken parts. We either recover from the broken parts or we lose our way.

Snyder’s novel of a family who loses a son from drowning may be at the extreme end of life’s broken parts, but every life is touched by loss and hardship.

Snyder shows how a mother, father, and daughter respond to a child’s loss in their family.

Snyder’s story explains a broken part in life is suffered individually. Being broken comes in many forms. It may be a death of a loved one, failure in work, failure as a mother-father-daughter-son, failure in intellect, failure in physical health, so on, and on. Every person is broken in their own way. Care for broken parts is often lost in a fog of grief and despair. That grief and despair only disappears with time, understanding, and action.

Snyder’s novel shows grief is ameliorated with acceptance and reworking of one’s perspective.

Snyder’s story is not just about a death in the family. There are many ways Snyder’s story resonates with its reader/listeners. The most significant is in ways of coping with broken parts of one’s life. Some run from problems, but as the boxer Joe Louis famously said, “You can run but you can’t hide.” Snyder shows healing from broken parts can only begin with being honest with yourself and those around you. Understand how you are broken and explain the broken parts to those who are important to you. Snyder shows with understanding of what is broken, plans can be made, and actions taken.

Snyder’s novel shows–only with honesty of explanation can one’s relationship with another be restored.

Laurel Snyder’s story is as interesting and satisfying in its end as in its beginning.

TRANQUILITY/ANXIETY

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Breaking Bread with the Dead (A Reader’s Guide to a Tranquil Mind.)

By: Alan Jacobs

Narrated by: P.J. Ochlan

Alan Jacobs (Author, distinguished professor of the humanities at Baylor University, considered a Christian conservative by the media.)

Alan Jacobs offers an example of why book’ reader/listeners are “Breaking Bread with the Dead”. A personal reason for reading/listening to books is to acquire understanding of an author’s opinion. Of course, perceptions may be incorrect, but a book writer’s intended meaning, at the very least, makes a reader/listener think. Jacobs gives many examples of what past authors made him think. He explains how and why dead writers are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”.

In a short book, Jacobs notes knowledge of the past gives context and perspective to the present.

Dead authors add the dimension of a past that is either very like the present or very different. When a dead author’s beliefs are more like the present, it makes one think there may be something universal about their belief. At the least, a dead author’s beliefs help one understand the difference between the past and the present. Both circumstances offer what Jacobs suggests are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”. Belief either remains the same or modern life makes past beliefs unique to their time.

Renowned dead authors, or for that matter, insightful living authors make one realize how much they do not know.

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety. In either case, it pays to seek understanding from both dead and living writers.

SOCIAL BRAIN

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Gender and Our Brains (How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds.)

By: Gina Rippon

Narrated by: Hannah Curtis

Gina Rippon (British Author, neurobiologist, received a PhD in physiological psychology, professor at Aston Brain Centre, Aston University in Birmingham, England.)

Gina Rippon develops an argument, reinforced by literature but indeterminant by science, that there is little intellectual or social difference between the sexes. Like white dominance of the western world, Rippon implies difference between the sexes has been institutionalized and biased by society.

Though Rippon does not reach back to fossil evidence of human beings, one might make a case for the beginning of biased human socialization in the discovery of homo habilis males and females that lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa. Ironically, “homo habilis” is Latin for “handy man”.

The vary choice of identification of the oldest known fossil is a reminder of the influence of socialization and gender discrimination by the actions and definitions of science researchers. ((Hardly a surprise when only 38% of the population of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics’ (STEM) bachelor’s degrees are held by women.)) Conceivably, in the beginning of history men dominated women because of inherent physical strength and a division of labor that set sexual bias for generations to come.

In “Gender and Our Brains”, Rippon is raising the chicken and egg paradox for the origin of male and female identity.

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Having been raised by a mother with the only consistent father figure in the family being an older brother, this reviewer’s belief is as clouded as the conclusions reached by Rippon. There is as much evidence for being born as a chicken as an egg in the history of science and sociology. The conclusion one may draw from “Gender and Our Brains” is “let people choose to be whom and what they desire to be”.

Society should neither condemn nor deny a person’s sexual preference. Just as racial and ethnic minorities should not be discriminated against, neither should those who choose a sexual identity.

Societal acceptance and equality of opportunity should be the same for all. There is no justification for denial of equal rights and opportunities based on what one becomes as an individual whether one’s life is an inherent or learned difference. The only reason sexual identity is a controversial question is because societies lean toward a “we/them” mentality. Why should one care whether one identifies as male or female if they make a positive contribution to society. America is founded on the principles of equal treatment and opportunity for all, not just a white, largely male, majority.

Rippon’s conclusion is that human beings may or may not have a sexual identity when they are born. Science experiments and studies give no distinct answer to inherent sexual identity.

If sexual identity is inherent (which is neither proven or unproven by science), socialization is shown to influence sexual identities maturation and how men and women behave toward each other. Rippon argues if sexual identity is partly determined by socialization, then socialization is where equality of the sexes should and can be reinforced.

Rippon makes a convincing argument that there is minimal difference between men and women except in their role in human reproduction.

Many literary stories believe in the equality of the sexes. Rippon’s fundamental point is that all humans are born equal whether male, female, or other. Her inference is that the world needs to get over discrimination and promote equal rights and opportunity for all because any natural origin of sexual identity remains a scientifically indeterminant puzzle.

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

There must be no discrimination in society based on sex, race, religion, or ethnicity for equality of opportunity to evolve.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Mrs. Bridge

By: Evan S. Connell

Narrated by: Sally Darling

Evan S. Connell (American Novelist, 1924-2o13., died at age 88.)

Evan Connell captures a woman’s middle-class life in the twentieth century. “Mrs. Bridges” is a story of a twentieth century woman whose life begins in the middle-class and rises to the upper middle-class. She marries, has three children (one boy and two girls) with a husband who becomes a highly successful lawyer. Her son is characterized as moderately intelligent with two sisters, one sister characterized as smart and haughty and another quiet and reserved. The story is set in middle America.

In 1959, “Mrs. Bridge” received the National Book Award in fiction. The novel became a moderately successful movie, “Mr. and Mrs. Bridge”, starring Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.

“Mrs. Bridge” will resonate with many women’s and men’s aspiration in America. It is a reminder of what it is like to be an American in a world ruled by white men, i.e., not women or people of color. “Mrs. Bridge” is a wife slowly becoming aware of an evolving society that is far from the ideals of equality of opportunity outlined by the 1868′ 14th Amendment.

The Bridge’s smart and haughty daughter graduates from high school, chooses not to attend college, and decides to move from the Midwest to New York. She moves to Greenwich Village and finds a job as a manager’s assistant while living a bohemian life that mystifies her mother.

The son chooses to go to college and appears on his way to becoming an engineer with a fascination for measurement and construction. He seems to have a plan to achieve his father’s success. However, he rebels in a different and similar way to his sister by dating girls who do not reflect the staid relationship of his parents. On the one hand, the son strives to emulate his father, on the other, he rejects the privileges of wealthy upper-class existence in white America.

The youngest daughter takes a different route to adulthood. She is the quiet one who never challenges her mother or father.

She turns to religion. Ironically, she abandons her religious obsession, marries a plumber’s son who drops out of college to take over his uncle’s business with the ambition of becoming a financial success like his new wife’s father. That goal is unrevealed in Connell’s story, but he shows their marriage is rocky, presumably because of their societal upbringing. The husband unjustifiably strikes his wife. He apologizes but Connell infers the reason for their conflicts is because of the different economic circumstances in which they were raised. The Bridge’s young daughter is accustomed to having housework done by servants while the plumber’s son is self-reliant and an ambitious doer. The story infers they stay together but it is an untold exploration of their remaining lives.

Nearing the end of this family’s story, Connell illustrates the growing boredom in Mrs. Bridges’ life.

The children grow away from her. She feels a sense of loss of purpose in life. Housework is now entirely done by servants. The children no longer listen to her or seek her advice. Her husband is consumed by his work. No one seems to need or care about her. The only solace seems to be in wealthy women friends who are experiencing a similar ennui. One of these upper-class women commits suicide. Mrs. Bridges suggests to her husband that she should see a psychiatrist for her growing depression. Her husband suggests that is nonsense and the idea is dropped.

The life of the Bridges family is disrupted by WWII. The son chooses to leave the university and enlist in the Army. The implication is that life goes on for the family as it had before, but the experience of war is only reinforcing the dynamics of their family’s socialization.

Self-interest permeates human life. In a capitalist culture, self-interest is measured by wealth.

One suspects some who have lived this twentieth century life see themselves in Connell’s story of the Bridges family. In socialist culture, self-interest is measured by power. In a communist culture, self-interest is a combination of wealth and power as evidenced by Russia’s and China’s rule in the 21st century.

The value of Connell’s “Mrs. Bridge” is in its dissection of American society, and not just of its time but of today.

Its story implies American wealth should not be a measure of human value. The gap between rich and poor is a measure of how far America is from the intent of the Constitution’s statement “all men are created equal”. Connell’s story infers the statement in the American Constitution should have been “all people are created equal”, not just men. In being created equal, the 14th Amendment stipulates all citizens are to have equal rights in pursuit of life, liberty, and property.

Connell masterfully shows the strength and weakness of American society. Its strength lies in freedom to exploit human self-interest. Its weakness is in believing wealth is a measure of human value.

The only way wealth can be considered a measure of human value is when all human beings have equal opportunity, as their interest and ability allow.

There must be no discrimination in society based on sex, race, religion, or ethnicity for equality of opportunity to evolve. That is aspirational in America, but whether equal opportunity can ever be achieved is problematic based on the nature of human beings.

WARS TRUTH

War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Looking for the Good War: American Amnesia and the Violent Pursuit of Happiness

By: Elizabeth D. Samet

Narrated by: Suzanne Toren

Elizabeth D. Samet (Author, Professor of English at West Point.)

Elizabeth Samet’s “Looking for the Good War” tells a hard truth about war. Samet’s history of war is like the refrain from the Temptations’ song:

War, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
War huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again y’all

THE FEAR OF WAR IN VIETNAM

As a professor at West Point, it seems incongruous for Samet to write this book. On the other hand, who would better understand a career for future military officers than a West Point’ professor? The command structure of the military requires soldiers do what they are ordered to do. In that doing, they may lose their minds, their lives, or their physical health. Samet raises the hard truth of every war, i.e., a soldier’s duty is to follow orders and when necessary, kill or be killed.

Samet questions stories, films, and images that glorify war.

Samet implies, once war is declared, its causes and consequences become fictionalized tales.

Once a country is compelled to defend itself in war, like Ukraine, Samet infers a “…Good War…” becomes fiction.

Truth of war becomes distorted by memory, and human bias that is memorialized by the visual arts and literature. The support for Samet’s view of war is in art and media representations of its history. From Picasso’s Guernica that illustrates the real horror of war to movies like Sands of Iwo Jima, war’s reality is distorted. Art and literature tell different truths.

Samet often refers to Shakespeare’s plays and his many observations about war, i.e., about its perpetrators and victims. From Julius Caesar to Richard III, to Henry IV, to Henry V, to Henry VIII, Samet quotes Shakespeare’s lines like

“Cry havoc’ and loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.”

Samet argues Tom Brokaw, and Robert Rodat (screenwriter for “Saving Private Ryan”) glorify the winning side of WWII by choosing narratives that distort the true nature of war.

Samet is not alone in her opinion about the history of war distorting truth. American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle says the same. To Serle and Samet, history is a personalized perception, a truth imprinted on the minds of combatants. This personalized truth is an interpretation of what one experiences. War’s events are interpreted by the understanding of those who choose to write, paint, or film war’s events. War’s events become interpretations of interpretations. Samet implies a “…Good War…” is oxymoronic, a contradiction of words because there are no good wars.

American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle, wrote “History, memory is by definition fiction. Once an event is no longer present, but remembered, it is narrative. And we can choose the narratives we tell–about our own lives, our own stories, our own relationships.”

Samet is arguing no war is a good war because war is inherently bad for the mental and physical existence of human life. She argues narratives of America’s Civil War are prime examples of the distortion of truth about a “…Good War…” in the same sense as Brokaw’s WWII narrative. Samet coldly notes America’s idealization of rebel opposition to union and civil rights falls into the same category as the idealization of America’s role in WWII. There were singular brave actions in both wars, but those stories of bravery distort the reality of death and destruction, murder of human beings, an aftermath of coping with loss or permanent injury of loved ones, and the consequence of destroyed homes and economies of warring nations. Both WWII and America’s civil war solved nothing. Discrimination has not disappeared. Mass killings still occur. The only difference is in the organization, execution, and volume of deaths and injuries. There is no “…Good War…”

Samet explains neither WWII or the American Civil war were examples of a “…Good War…”. That statement shocks the senses.

Just as America did not save the world for democracy in WWII, America’s Civil War did not erase institutional racism. Racism hardened after America’s civil war and continues to this day.

Axis powers chose to wage war just as Allied powers chose to defend themselves. The story told by victors tends to view war by focusing on heroic events of conflict rather than war’s atrocity and aftermath. The story told by losers is one of blame for miscreant leaders who misled their countries into war. Both stories are fictions to justify new leader’s perceptions of reality. More importantly, Samet clearly explains how memory distorts the truth of what is accomplished by waging war.

Samet is simply writing about the fundamental truth–war is hell for all human beings, whether victors or losers.

The upside-down world of George Orwell notes “War is peace, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” This is the world of which Samet writes. Samet explains what Orwell satirizes. War is hell. “Equal rights” are an unaccomplished ideal. Ignorance of war’s truth is compounded by distorted memories of the past.

As seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Sudan–wars continue to roil the world. War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.

IDENTITY

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

We Love You, Charlie Freeman

By: Kaitlyn Greenidge

Narrated by: Cherise Boothe, Karole Foreman, Myura Lucretia Taylor

Kaitlyn Greenidge (American novelist.)

Kaitlyn Greenidge’s “We Love You…” is an ironic tale about love and discrimination that blurs the line between science research, social truth, and exploitation. The story of Greenidge’s book does not cross the same line as the Tuskegee Experiments in 1932 and 1972 but it shows how it could happen. One may argue Greenidge defines the line to explain the ethical purpose of scientific research, but she also clearly illustrates how emotional entanglement influences human behavior which interferes with ethical purpose.

The Tuskegee Experiments were on 400 Black Americans who were purposely not treated for syphilis. Like test animals, these American patients were studied for the consequences of syphilis infection. None were given penicillin injections that could cure their infection.

“We Love You…” is somewhat difficult to follow because it goes back and forth in history with too many characters. If taken in order of history, the story begins with a white British anthropologist who is interested in studying “Negro” culture in the 1920s.

This well-educated white Anthropologist travels to a Black American community to observe the behavior of Black children being schooled by a Black teacher. The students object to the intrusive interruption by the anthropologist who asks questions and draws images of the children. The teacher asks the anthropologist to stop interviewing and making pencil drawings of the students. As a substitute for his interviews and drawings, the anthropologist asks the teacher to allow him to sketch her. In return, he would no long bother the students. She hesitatingly agrees. That agreement leads to increasingly intimate drawings of the teacher without her clothes. The teacher falls in love with the anthropologist while the anthropologist only sees her as a subject of study. The intimacy of the drawings alludes to the impropriety of the Tuskegee experiment.

The story jumps back to present time with the same research institute that the 1920’s anthropologist had joined. A Black family is employed by the institute to raise a chimpanzee and teach it to communicate by using signing like that used by the deaf.

One presumes the reason this particular Black family is chosen is because they use sign language to communicate with each other. Signing may be a more utilitarian and productive method for communication between chimpanzees and humans.

The father and mother of the family come to the institute for different reasons.

Though the father, Charlie, is a teacher, their income and housing will be better because housing is provided at no cost, and Charlie can teach at a local school. Improved income seems the primary motivation of the father while the mother is interested in the idea of caring for an additional child-like animal. Their two children are not happy about relocation to the institute. The repugnant nature of the story is that race, rather than communication with the simian world, might be the unstated purpose of the research.

“We Love You, Charlie Freeman” takes many twists and turns that diminish its impact on a listener.

One might argue the story is about how love grows between humans and animals and between humans and other humans. The story is also about the impropriety of scientific research that is not clearly spelled out to those who are part of the research and what use will be made of the results. Impropriety was introduced earlier with the anthropologist who visited the school to draw pictures of children. That study evolved into a study of the genitalia of a Black woman. The author alludes to love of the anthropologist and how it developed in the Black teacher as a one-sided obsession.

Greenidge’s story addresses three types of love. There is family love, human to animal love, and human to human love.

Loves similarities, differences, and causes for break-up are illustrated. A woman loves a man who does not love her but exploits what she has to offer. A woman loves a woman but moves on to love another woman just as many of both sexes do. A married couple falls out of love with their mate. A spouse chooses to love an idea more than a person.

To this listener, there are too many fragmentary ideas in Greenidge’s story that fail to move one to a singular appreciation of her creativity.

DEFINING FREEDOM

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (America and the World in the Free Market Era)

By: Gary Gerstle

Narrated by: Keith Sellon-Wright

Gary Gerstle (Author, Professor of American History and Fellow in History at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge.)

Gary Gerstle’s history of the “…Neoliberal Order” is tiresome to listen to but gives weight to American belief and practice of freedom regardless of political affiliation or interest group association. Gerstle’s history is tiresome because of its labeling, not because of its historical accuracy. Whether one is a conservative, liberal, or neoliberal is superfluous.

Americans pride themselves on being beacons of freedom when in truth they are opinionated advocates of self-interest hiding behind political labels.

Gerstle’s history shows every President of the United States has been elected by the prevailing sentiment of the time. (To date, Presidents of the United States have always been men because of humanity’s history of misogyny.) The common thread of America’s leaders is their belief in freedom. In America, that freedom is limited by “rule of law” created by two branches of a popularly elected legislature. Sadly, as shown by Gerstle’s history, America’s “rule of law” has historically victimized the powerless and poor.

Belief in freedom has justified slavery, led to a civil war, given America the emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, and created vituperative media manipulators like Rush Limbaugh, trolls like Alex Jones, and media conglomerates like Fox News.

The difficulty of American democracy is in knowing where to draw the line between freedom and rule of law that regulates excesses and treats all citizens equally. Guilt finally rose to the level for the emancipation proclamation to free slaves, and voting rights for women in 1920, but Black Americans and women are still seeking equal rights.

Gerstle accurately reveals America’s adaptation to the will of an ethnic majority to circumstances of different eras, whether it is enrichment of the rich, preparation for war, recovery from economic depression, or adjustment to the threat of global warming.

The strength of America democracy is its flexibility in dealing with societal change, with the caveat that government tends to protect the status quo.

Communal self-interest changes with the circumstances of its time. Self-interest is immutable in one sense and highly fungible in another. The power of money influences elections and government policy that aids the moneyed, often at the expense of the powerless and poor. Communal self-interest is reenforced by the right to vote but the economic advantage of government policy goes to the rich and middle class because that is where the money is that supports election campaigns.

Gerstle notes that in the 21st century, particularly with the ubiquity of media, the challenge for the public is to know the difference between propaganda, lies, and truth.

Gerstle infers history shows America takes the course of moneyed interests in elections whether it is one or the other of the three challenges to the public. Sadly, propaganda and lies are often believed by the public to be truth.

Gerstle recalls how the flood gate of media technology opens and its flood takes hold of America during the second term of the Clinton administration. Clinton chose to eliminate the Glass-Steagall Act that was designed in 1933 to prevent another Depression.

Clinton recognizes the world is at the precipice of the tech revolution. During the industrial revolution, banks were steered away from volatile equity markets by the Glass-Steagall Act. Clinton, with the help of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, wanted to loosen the chains of investment banks so the technology revolution could blossom. Neither Democratic nor Republic Presidents reversed that decision after the Clinton presidency.

In part, one might argue the near banking collapse in 2008 could have been avoided if the Glass-Stegall Act had been left in force.

Worse, in the 2008 financial debacle, stockholders in at risk banks were bailed out by the Obama government while overstretched homeowners were left with mortgages they could not pay. The rich were bailed out while the poor were bankrupted.

The three banks that failed in May and March of 2023 are arguably a consequence of the volatile investments made in technology companies, a second threat to the banking industry in the 21st century.

The choice of the government in 2023 is to replace depositors’ funds in excess of FDIC limits to avoid the loss of their businesses from the profligate investments by these three banks. The difference between the 2008 bailout and the 2023 government response is bank’ stockholders were not bailed out by the government while other banks took over their portfolios.

Gerstle’s history clearly shows American Democracy’s failures are non-partisan. Both Republican and Democratic leaders fail the poor and powerless populations of America.

That failure is not because of a failure of democracy but because of poorly regulated capitalism. Karl Marx explained democracy is a first step toward communism. One can disagree with that conclusion by noting self-interest is a part of life that makes the ideal of communism unattainable. What is attainable is a democracy that improves public education and mandates business legislation that ensures and enforces social equality and equal opportunity.

American Democracy needs to erase lobbyist, industry, and individual financial donors’ influence on government political campaigns.

Democracy is a work in progress, but it is the best form of government known today. Capitalism is the engine of economic growth that works in all forms of government. In today’s world, capitalism offers the greatest opportunity for humanity in any form of government, but particularly in Democracy.

In the 21st century, it seems democracy is evolving to meld the best of socialism with the self-interest of capitalism.

Democracy struggles with the principles of regulated freedom. Gerstle’s history shows democratic freedom, limited by rule of law, remains at the heart of what can truly make America Great. What gets in the way is the greed of moneyed interests that elect leaders who become dependent on a minority of American society.

Gerstle’s recounts the history of the second Bush’s administration’s misguided and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

The bloody toll of America’s invasion and failed reconstruction of Iraq illustrates the hubris of American belief that democratic freedom works for all nations of the world.

The invasion and reconstruction of Iraq is shown to be an American failure by any measure of societal improvement.

Gerstle shows the election of Donald Trump is a triumph of the disaster of believing American Democratic elections are in the best interest of its citizens. Trump’s administration mocks the ideals of American Democratic government and freedom. Rule of law is a joke to Trump as evidenced by the many indictments and denials of America’s former President. Gerstle notes how unprepared Trump was to become President of the United States.

By any measure, Trump is shown by Gerstle to have damaged America’s image in the world.

Gerstle’s history shows Democracy needs to be regulated by rule of law. Self-interest is unlikely to disappear from human nature which puts all societies at risk. Any form of government can become autocratic but taking the influence of money out of elections leaves hope that citizens of Democratic nations will have a chance to live well, and in peace.

COVID19’S LESSONS

Business competition and innovation create winners and losers but if the field of play is level, society benefits.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Post Corona (From Crises to Opportunity)

By: Scott Galloway

Narrated by: Scott Galloway

Scott Galloway (Author, Professor of Marketing at NYU Stem School of Business, founder of several businesses.)

Scott Galloway is a professor of Marketing at NYU’s business school. He uses his experience and education to explain what happened in America during the Covid19 crises and what it revealed about 21st century capitalism. Galloway briefly writes of his boyhood raised by a divorced mother who profoundly influences his life.

Galloway is a self-professed introvert who is both an entrepreneur and business consultant who believes there is a need for government to revise its relationship with business.

Galloway notes the great power of capitalism is based on freedom to innovate and compete in the world of business. Business produces product and service for the public in return for the cost of doing business and the hope for profit. Galloway’s primary focus is on technology companies that grew from an entrepreneur’s idea to marketplace behemoths. Galloway’s education and experience suggest American government needs to redirect publicly held businesses to change their corporate focus from protecting stockholders to protecting workers.

Galloway argues covid19 accelerated restructuring of the business world.

Business has evolved from face-to-face transaction to internet ordering and delivery. Retail and services industries were gob-smacked by loss of customers who changed their social and purchasing habits because of the contact threat from exposure to the Corona virus that killed over 1,000,000 Americans.

Storied companies like J.C. Penney filed for bankruptcy because they could not adjust to changed social and business environment caused by Covid19. The world is still adjusting to the consequences of the pandemic.

The commercial real estate industry is undoubtedly the next crises for the economy. Having an office or a business away from home became less important with the advent of technology. The internet reduces the requirement of human presence in a central location.

Businesses traditionally driven by touch and feel relationships were made less safe by covid19. With the internet of things and people, it became more convenient for customers to buy product on the internet and work from home. As the threat of covid19 diminished, service industries revived, particularly restaurant and entertainment industries, but on-site retail sales continued to struggle. Exceptions are box stores that offer lower prices or retailers that have mastered the art of internet sales and delivery.

Galloway goes on to note the gap between rich and poor that diminishes human value while increasing wealth of stockholders at the expense of workers.

The median annual income of white families in America in 2019 was $188,200, Black families $24,100 and Hispanic families $36,100. Galloway suggests this unconscionable gap is caused by the failure of government to protect workers rather than stockholders as the business environment changed. Galloway suggests inept regulation by government politicians of the free enterprise economy accelerated the gap between rich and poor.

The election process is unfairly weighted away from public interest toward special interests that contribute huge amounts of money to get people elected that are beholden to their financial supporters.

Government lobbyists paid by energy producers, internet scions, automobile manufacturers, and banks were bailed out with government protection of stockholders with little help for workers who became unemployed.

Covid19 benefited tech companies that have changed the face of business commerce in America. Galloway addresses the technological revolution that was accelerated by covid19. Their stock value accelerated at a faster rate than businesses of the industrial revolution. The tech revolution’s change in commerce was equivalent, if not greater than the agricultural and industrial revolutions of the past. The rate of change for business has been greater and more accelerated by covid19.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and to a lesser extent, Tesla, Netflix, and Twitter (at least prior to Elon Musk’s acquisition) hugely benefited from social isolation caused by covid19.

Galloway optimistically suggests the high cost of education can be reduced by technology. (Maybe, but one wonders about the effectiveness of home schooling during the pandemic. Students fell behind during the pandemic.)

Galloway’s two highlighted potentials of the technology revolution that are not fully realized are education and business. Galloway argues remote learning will improve, and the cost of education will become more competitive and available to the general public. Businesses will become better managed and responsive to the needs of society as better government regulation of the tech age is realized.

The fundamental point made by Galloway is that government needs to change its focus to protection of workers rather than stockholders to realign the gap between rich and poor in the world.

Re-education classes for the unemployed.

Stockholders deserve their fate whether they win or lose the value of their investments, but workers are the driver of business success. Without protection of workers, the American economy will decline, and the influence of democratic capitalism will be diminished. Galloway infers free enterprise in a capitalist society will not regulate itself, but it will improve with prudent government regulation that serves workers first.

Galloway suggests the benefits of socialism will be best served by prudent government regulation of capitalism. Competition and innovation remain the blood and bone of improved economic equality, but workers are undervalued cells of that business foundation.

Galloway acknowledges the benefits of socialism but insists capitalism is the avenue for realization of the best socialism can offer a nation’s citizens. The conjunction of the pandemic and growth of technology have reduced social contact and created harmful media networks that distort truth, attack cultural difference, and exacerbate division and social conflict.

Business competition and innovation create winners and losers but if the field of play is level, society benefits. Moving fast and breaking things is the mantra of the tech world. It is up to government to regulate business to level the playing field. Galloway argues protection of workers, eliminating money’s influence on elections, and allowing stockholders to lose their investment when businesses fail are keys to improving American capitalism.

POLITICAL EVOLUTION

The evolution of political governance offers a kernel of hope for world peace.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order

By: Rush Doshi

Narrated by: Kyle Tait

Rush Doshi (Author, founding director of the Brookings China Strategy Initiative and a fellow in Brookings Foreign Policy, fellow at Yale’s Paul Tsai China Center.

Rush Doshi’s review of China’s history in “The Long Game” is enlightening. One cannot deny the truth and logic of Doshi’s explanation of China’s commitment and success in returning to international prominence. Doshi’s proficiency in Mandarin Chinese and his thorough review of China’s history give credibility and gravitas to his assessment.

Doshi explains China’s socialist belief is grounded in Leninist communist theory. Lenin believed in the Marxist principles of history and society that show materialism leads to human exploitation.

As the Marxist/Leninist argument goes, exploitation (materialist self-interest) will alienate the majority of society which will revolt against a capitalist ruling class. The belief is that a different form of leadership will rise from the ashes of a revolution that will more fairly distribute the riches of life. In China’s history, Mao is the leader of that revolution. The key to Mao’s, and now President Xi’s belief, is top-down leadership by an enlightened ruling class will raise China’s role in the world. Doshi infers President Xi and his 20th century predecessors believe a communist party’s domination will be the basis upon which a fair distribution of life’s riches can be achieved.

Doshi implies the fundamental conflict between China and the U.S. is political.

China believes in Leninist communism. America believes in democracy. The irony is that human self-interest defeats the idealist intent of both political beliefs. Top-down management of a communist party is potentially as damaging to the public as a democratically elected representative government because of self-interest. No communist or democratic government in the history of the world has resisted the lure of money, power, and prestige that accompanies political leadership. This is not to diminish the relevance and importance of Doshi’s book but to disabuse listeners of an undeserved idealization of any form of government.

Doshi gives a clear explanation of why China is suspicious and wary of American power and influence in the world.

Doshi identifies a trifecta of world events in the twentieth century that influence China/American relations; making it unlikely they will ever become allies. The trifecta is the Tiananmen Square massacre, the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the invasion of Iraq.

Tiananmen Square is widely condemned by the western world and nowhere more loudly than by the American public.

Deng Xiaoping was the Chairman of the Central Military Commission at the time. A secret mission by Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, made an effort to calm China/American relations but Doshi explains it failed. China objected to America’s interference and public rebuke of China in their response to the Tiananmen square demonstration.

The second blow to America’s relationship with China is the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Doshi notes that China and America secretly cooperated in America’s U.S.S.R.’ containment policy that was recommended by American diplomat George Kennan in 1947. When the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991, China reassessed their relationship with America. Without a common enemy, China perceived America’s intent is to be hegemon of the world, not just the West. Doshi explains, China’s view of America becomes an imminent threat to its sphere of influence.

With President George W. Bush’s defeat of Saddam Hussein’s army in less than a month and a half, China recognizes how far they were from being the hegemon they wished to be. Doshi suggests this became the third blow of the trifecta that China perceived as an imminent threat to China’s position as hegemon of Asia, if not sole hegemon, of the world.

The irony of Doshi’s history is that no form of government has been found that fairly mitigates self-interest inherent in human beings.

Just as American leaders who have put their personal interest above the interests of their country, Chinese communist leaders have been found to be corrupt and more concerned about themselves than the lives of their country’s people. Both China and America have a history of discrimination and unfair treatment of their citizens.

History has many examples of the graft and corruption that exists in both communist and democratic forms of government.

China’s history and society is unique and much older than America’s. However, each country is struggling with their governments to be better stewards of their citizens. What all national governments of the world forget is that we live on one space ship. Without better international relations, the ship is headed for oblivion. Governments can continue to argue and fight over who is captaining the ship but no government seems to know how to steer.

Sadly, Doshi ends his scholarly work with details of how America can use the same methods as China to block its hegemonic ambition. Perceived self-interest, once again, chooses opposition over cooperation to achieve comity, not peace.

The evolution of political governance offers a kernel of hope for world peace. Until a form of government equitably manages human self-interest, periodic wars and social unrest will continue. Neither China nor America have found an answer. The answer is neither “Big Brother” nor unregulated freedom.