donald-trump – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

INDIVIDUAL POWER

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

48 Laws of Power

Author: Robert Greene

Narration by: Richard Poe

Robert Greene (American author, wrote seven international bestsellers, received his degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison in classical studies.)

This is a long book that shows a breadth of understanding about the history of power. How power and influence is acquired and wielded by human beings. Power and influence ranges from idealism to pragmatism to nihilism. In some sense, the “48 Laws of Power” is a study of emperors, courtiers, generals, con artists, and others who acquired power over others in history. What Greene reflects on is the social and human art of gaining and wielding power over other human beings. Whether one is low or high in the hierarchy of humanity, the general key to having power according to Greene is “never outshine superiors” but “always court attention that gains either respect, influence, or control of others”.

MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976)ING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)

Greene brilliantly summarizes many characteristics of leaders in history to support his fundamental beliefs about power. He suggests all humans are primarily self-interested. One may disagree with that belief as a universal truth because there are many examples of social cooperation to achieve a common good or a stable system of governance. However, there is always a prime mover, a powerful person behind the scenes who drives the effort to succeed or fail.

Greene argues power is the result of interpersonal relationships. There is a great deal of truth in Greene’s analysis of power but from an institutional or organizational point of view, power is spread among departments’ leaders who report to a single leader. This is not to contradict Greene’s examples of interpersonal power but to temper belief that all power rests with one wielder of power. There is a great deal more to power than individual human manipulation. Organizations of the modern world are built around individual departments with singular powers beyond singular organizational leaders.

American Capital.

To give an example: regardless of who is President of the United States, there are Constitutional and legal systems that constrain his/her power. The bureaucracy of governance operates within rules set by law and precedent. In the case of business enterprise, shareholders, boards, and regulatory frameworks diminish the power of its executives. Further, even in the marketplace of business, capital limitation, supply chains, national platforms like Google, Amazon, and credit card companies have major influences on power exercised by any singular entity. Power in every human organization is also influenced by religions, social myths, and societal norms.

In this increasingly interconnected world, power has become impersonal, sometimes structural and emergent in ways that are non-intentional but significantly more powerful than one individual.

The weakness of the “48 Laws of Power” is that it fails to address institutionalized power that multiplies the power of individuals. A leader of a government or corporation works within a framework of historically developed departments that have their own powers and influences on public and private functions. The dynamics of power Greene explains apply within departments of government and corporations that go beyond the power of one leader.

This often leads to unintended consequences. ICE and Trump’s power are a current example of unintended consequence because of the murder of two Minneapolis American citizens who demonstrated against the President’s immigration policy. One doubts that the President of the United States wishes for the murder of American citizens who disagree with his immigration policies. However, power of the individual still matters as is demonstrated by today’s American President. Greene precisely explains how one person gains power over another despite a modern world that complicates individual power.

ICE murder of American citizens in Minneapolis who are protesting Trump immigration policy.

President Trump demonstrates his power over education, government employment, health and human services, birth control, and immigration policy. However, both good and bad government policy is magnified by Departments of Government that report to the President, i.e., bad policy coming from a President’s power is only made worse through implementation by subordinates who create their own power structures.

It is not that Greene’s analysis of power is wrong but that it applies to individual relationships without addressing distortions of power exercised by departments of business and government that have developed their own hierarchies of power.

One doubts any President of the United States who orders elimination of illegal immigration wishes to have ICE agents murder American citizens. This is not to absolve President Trump but to suggest the ICE employees on the ground bare the weight of two unjustified murders in Minneapolis.

Greene’s explanation of power is spot on, but it is about every person’s rise to power, not the reality of one leader’s power. Organizations are made up of many other managers using the same laws of power as their presumed superior. The end result is a level of unintended consequence. Or as Lord Acton noted: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.

JESUS SAYS

Fugelsang preaches to the choir in writing about Trump’s ignorant Immigration policy. It is not a matter of being or not being Christian but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate immigration policy that serves the needs of America’s future.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Separation Church and Hate (A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds)

Author: John Fugelsang

Narration by: John Fugelsang

John Fugelsang (Author, American actor, comedian, television host, political commentator.)

John Fugelsang argues President Trump’s immigration policies are unjust, hypocritic, and unchristian. Fugelsang, as the son of a mother and father who have deep religious backgrounds, appears to have carefully read the Bible. In his Christian’ beliefs about humanity, Fugelsang argues Trump distorts Christian teaching, has no compassion for immigrants, and pursues an immoral immigration policy that exemplifies a false relationship between “…Church and Hate”.

Good government, not religion, is what is needed to solve America’s immigration problem.

As one who is not raised with any particular religious beliefs, much of what Fugelsang argues makes sense. The gestapo tactics of the Trump administration are appalling. Whether one is a Christian or not, the terrorism created by Trump’s policy of home, school, and street attacks on people who may or may not be immigrants is un-American and, according to Fuigelsang, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Where Fugelsang is off the mark in his criticism is in attacking presumed motives of the President as opposed to the substantive reasons for managing illegal immigration. Trump’s methodology is cruel and unjust. The point of being Christian is superfluous. Fugelsang’s knowledge of the Bible is exemplary but who cares? It is not whether one is following Christian beliefs but whether one with power is acting with compassion and good judgement in addressing what is wrong with America’s immigration policy.

America needs immigration reform.

It is easy to agree with much of what Fugelsang has to say but it is not addressing the complexity of the problem of immigrants’ desire to have a better life. Trump is making the same mistakes past Presidents have made with native Americans. Rather than addressing the reasonable needs of human beings, past American Presidents made deals for Indian land, broke promises, murdered native populations and rejected inherent human rights. Trump is doing the same with today’s immigrants.

The starting point for correcting the problem of illegal immigration is in the creation of a fair, compassionate, and workable immigration policy.

Money is being wasted on gestapo-like actions by our government that terrorizes the public with armed ICE officers who continue to send the wrong message to the world about American democracy. We are not a police state. We are the nation that said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.

Trying to turn back time is a waste of American revenue and manpower.

Trump, Congress, and the Judiciary need to back-off from a show of power. Our government needs to get to work on practical solutions that help American gain control of immigration. A show of power will not solve illegal immigration. It is only Trump’s theatrical way of making it look like he is doing something about illegal immigration. What he is doing is making America look like Hitler’s Germany. This is not America or what it stands for.

Fugelsang may be right from a Christian’s perspective about Trump’s lack of Christian belief but that is the easy part. The hard part is creating a compassionate solution by the American government for immigrants that have entered the country illegally. America needs an immigration policy that works for the future. Immigrants made America. American power and prosperity will decline without the help of immigrants. Modernization and a falling birth rate in America will reduce available labor for its future.

American Leadership

Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Gatekeepers (How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency)

Author: Chris Whipple

Narration by: Mark Bramhall

Chris Whipple (Author, political analyst, documentary film maker, journalist.)

Democratic government is complicated and messy, but decisions are made based on an understanding of the interests of many as opposed to the dictate and judgement of one.

“The Gatekeepers” may be viewed by most as an historical account of White House Chiefs of Staff based on many interviews of former government officials. However, one is inclined to see this history as a chronical of American government effectiveness. The facts and incidents reported give reader/listeners a view of America’s government function. Whipple details a series of relatively prudent and sometimes bad decisions made by late twentieth and twenty-first century presidents. Whipple’s history suggests the decision-maker for pursuit of government policy is America’s elected President. However, the road to policy approval or rejection is paved by White House’ Chiefs of Staff.

Whipple covers Nixon’s, Ford’s, Carter’s, Reagan’s, both Bush’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s, and Trump’s first administration. It does not address Biden’s Presidency or the Chief of Staff for Trump’s second term. The many interviews Whipple bases his history on offer a credible and enlightening history of American government. It is H. R. Haldeman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Panetta, Card, and Rahm Emanuel that are the most prominent examples of effective and consequential Chiefs of Staff in Nixon’s, Ford’s, Reagan’s, Clinton’s, first and second Bush’s, and Obama’s administrations. The definition of effective is their ability to achieve a desired result whether good or bad for America. This is where one’s personal political beliefs come into question. It is always easy to see the errors of the past retrospectively. Whipple is careful to report facts and results without much judgement about their consequences.

H.R. Halderman (1926-1993, former Chief of Staff for President Nixon.)

Haldeman was Nixon’s Chief of Staff. There is no evidence that he had anything to do with the planned or ordered Watergate break-in, but Whipple shows he participated in a Watergate cover-up. Though Haldeman’s actions after the Watergate scandal are reprehensible, the point made by Whipple is that Haldeman set the table for what an effective Chief of Staff should be for a President. Haldeman acts as a consummate gatekeeper. One can criticize Haldeman’s bad decision to try and coverup Watergate, but he defined the role of a President’s Chief of Staff. Whipple shows Haldeman manages access to the President, understands where the power of government lies, has a good understanding of staff members surrounding the President, protects the President’s time, and balances a President’s policies with the politics of his party.

Donald Rumsfeld (1932-2021, Secretary of Defense and former Chief of Staff for President Ford.)

President Ford’s Chief of Staff is Donald Rumsfeld with Dick Cheney as Deputy Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld is characterized as a mentor to Cheney. They had a close relationship according to Whipple. Ford’s political decision to give a full pardon to Nixon and clemency for Vietnam draft dodgers were hot potato issues that were abetted (if not endorsed) by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Most significantly Ford ended America’s war in Vietnam. Ford endorses tax increases to reduce inflation while supporting tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Ford increases congress’s role in foreign policy.

Dick Cheney (1921-2025, second Chief of Staff for President Ford.)

In a cabinet reorganization Cheney becomes the Chief of Staff and Rumsfeld switches to Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld and Cheney, in their roles as Chiefs of Staff, control access to President Ford, coordinate policy actions, shape internal decision-making, and advise Ford on strategy to influence people who accomplish these acts. The two Chiefs influenced Ford to replace Kissinger as National Security Advisor, promote George Bush as CIA Director, and prepare Ford for the next election which is ultimately lost to Jimmy Carter.

Hamilton Jordan (1944-2008, Chief of Staff of President Carter.)

When elected, President Carter felt he did not need a Chief of Staff. However, he relented in 1979, when he found the job was needed. Carter hired Hamilton Jordan who had been his campaign strategist when he ran for President. Whipple notes that appointment became a mistake because of Jordan’s lack of discipline. Though the Ford administration fought the idea of promoting Reagan for President, the public felt otherwise.

James Baker (1930-, Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush.)

After Carter, when Reagan is elected, he chooses James Baker as his Chief of Staff. Whipple suggests Baker is the quintessential model of a great Chief of Staff which all could be measured against. Baker is characterized by Whipple as an expert at managing the White House, the press, and Capitol Hill. Baker understood the process, the politics, communication, and presidential management requirements of the job. He never confused himself with the power of the President. He became manager of what is called the Reagan Revolution. The political and social movement revolves around ideas of smaller government, deregulation, cutting taxes, and endorsement of free enterprise. Whipple infers the success of the Reagan Revolution is largely due to the skill of James Baker.

Leon Panetta (1938-, Chief of Staff for President Clinton.)

One may argue Reagan caused America’s 1990-91 recession. Unemployment had risen to 7.8%. This set the table for a Democratic President named Bill Clinton. The initial Chief of Staff for Clinton is John Podesta who served from 1998-2001 and is replaced by Leon Panetta who, in the author’s opinion, rivals James Baker as a great Chief of Staff. Whipple infers that, without Panetta, Clinton would not have been reelected after the Monica Lewinsky affair. Panetta brought discipline and structure to the Clinton White House. Panetta could say “no” to the President, at least, in private. Panetta gained a reputation for being an honest broker as a negotiator for the President.

Andrew Card on the left. Joshua Bolten on the right.

George W. Bush, the next President, is noted to have two Chief’s of Staff during his two terms as President. It appears both Andrew Card and Joshua Bolten were more soldiers than Chiefs of Staff for George W. Bush. The policy decider is certainly George W. Bush but the influence of Dick Cheney as Bush’s V.P. seem a major influence on George W.’s decisions. Bush’s two Chief’s of Staff may have been effective as screeners but not as Chiefs of Staff that could say no to a President influenced by his cabinet and personal opinions. The entry to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests Card and Bolten were unduly influenced by others in the administration.

No one seems inclined to say no to President Bush in private. In retrospect, President Bush seems let down by his Chief’s of Staff and the research and judgement of his Department Heads. Both Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s invasions by the American military are retrospectively shown by most (if not all) histories as American mistakes, if not tragedies.

Rahm Emanuel (1959-, Chief of Staff for President Obama.)

The final chapters address Chief’s of Staff for Obama and Trump. Obama became President when the American economy is in an economic crisis that threatens the financial industry, the general economy, and the mortgage market for many American homeowners. He asks Rahm Emanuel to become his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a tough Chicago politician who recognizes the pressure of the office and has some level of fear about the future of the American economy. He understood the gravity of the job he is being asked to take. However, his reputation as a tart tongued fighter for what he believed as right made him the best Chief of Staff that could be found. His role as gatekeeper gave Obama the support needed to pass the Obama Health Care plan and work through the economic crisis that nearly bankrupted America.

Reince Priebus (1972-, Chief of Staff for President Trump.)

Trump’s choice of Reince Priebus as his first Chief of Staff is short lived and lasts for less than 8 months. His short tenure is not evaluated, and history shows he is replaced three times in the remaining years of Trump’s first term. A pro-Trump person will have one opinion about those facts while an anti-Trump person will have another.

Whipple convinces reader/listeners that a competent Chief of Staff is critically important for any organization that approaches the complexity of a nation-state government. Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.

POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Despite John Kennedy’s anti-liberal leaning and conservative populism, his autobiography will make one pay more attention to what he says as a Senator of the United States.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

HOW TO TEST NEGATIVE FOR STUPID (And Why Washington Never Will)

Author: John Kennedy

Narration by: John Kennedy

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana

“How to Test Negative for Stupid” is an excellent autobiography of Senator John Kennedy. Not the John Kennedy who became President of the United States but a southerner who represents the great state of Louisiana. Having worked and lived for a couple years in New Orleans, experience reminds me of the extraordinary people I met who were as friendly as any strangers I have met around the world. Celebrating a Mardi Gras, seeing Elizabeth Taylor in a local theatre performance, and listening to Al Hirt live at a local bar were experiences one could not forget.

In my mind, Louisiana is an unusual State for Kennedy to represent as a Senator because of its colorful and diverse history.

In the 17th century it was claimed by France but ceded to the Spanish in the 18th century after the Seven Years’ War. France never really left Louisiana with some settling in New Orleans which became a vital port and, at least in my mind, a cultural representative of the State.

Half the state is enslaved by 1860. It joins the Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. After the Civil War, Louisiana endures Reconstruction and military occupation, while endorsing Jim Crow Laws that represent legalized segregation. This history is not to vilify or disrespect John Kennedy, but to give some context to the complex society John Kennedy ably represents in Congress.

Louisiana Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 declares the Confederate states “forever free”.

John Kennedy shows himself to be a well-educated, intelligent academic, and honest forthright politician. He is an erudite representative of the Louisiana’ Republican Party. This autobiography is a pleasure to listen to with one great reservation which is his defense of Donald Trump. Trump, like Senator Kennedy, represents a diverse constituency but, to this voter, President Trump is a risk to the health and welfare of America.

Trump’s anti-immigration policies are being enforced in legally suspect ways that should be and are being challenged by the judiciary.

Kennedy is reluctant to criticize Trump because of his belief that when one is elected to office in the United States, the position should be respected because of the election process. The absurdity of that belief is that Kennedy writes of the dishonesty and crookedness of some Louisiana Governors that got away with their corruption like it was just part of life in Louisiana.

Unfair political campaigning.

Kennedy is right about the Democratic Party unfairly vilifying Trump with false stories about Russian interference with electoral process and false reports of sexual activity (the Steele report) in Russia for which he could be blackmailed. False accusations have always been a part of the American election process. Every election for President has had true and false accusations made by opposing parties. None of these accusations kept Trump from being elected.

Presidents of the U.S.

Trump will be our President for the next three years of his second term. He is not the first or last President to abuse the office of the Presidency. His conflicts of interest are in his bond buying spree in 2025, his links to cryptocurrency, his appointments of cabinet members and advisors that have corporate ties, his use of the Presidency for personal branding, his gifts received like a $400 million plane from Qatar as Air Force One, and his personal empire building while being President of the United States.

Trump is not the first President to be accused of conflicts of interest.

George Washington had vast land holdings as the western parts of America that were being acquired by the government. Jefferson supported agriculture while being a large plantation owner dependent on slave labor. Bill and Hilliary Clinton were invested in the Whitewater real estate collapse in Arkansas, meant to sell vacation homes to the public. It went bankrupt and cost taxpayers an estimated $73 million. George Bush’s ties to the oil industry and his V.P.s recommendation to use Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton, to contract for work in Iraq seem questionable.

Migration is the movement of people to new areas of the world for work, better living conditions, and safety. In that process the world economy and American industry are arguably strengthened, not damaged.

Trump’s unadjudicated arrests and deportation of alleged immigrants is appalling. Trump’s anti-immigration policies are being enforced in legally suspect ways that should be and are being challenged by the judiciary. He is not the only President to have instituted policies that are contrary to the interests of America’s citizens. Many opposed Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal with history vindicating many of those decisions as appropriate for the circumstances of that time. Like Roosevelt, Trump tests the limits of his authority. What is appalling about Trump’s supported policies are issues like denying subsidized health care for the poor while maintaining tax reduction for the rich. Of course, history will be the final arbiter of Trump’s presidency.

Despite disagreeing with Kennedy’s support of Trump, the story of John Kennedy’s life is entertaining and enlightening. One comes away with admiration for a person who speaks his mind and who acts in the interests of his constituency and the country with honesty about what he believes to be right or wrong.

Despite John Kennedy’s anti-liberal leaning and conservative populism, his autobiography will make one pay more attention to what he says as a Senator of the United States.

VICE PRESIDENTS

Harris’s tough mindedness and potential are well illustrated in “107 Days”. America is ready for a woman to be President, but Ms. Harris may have too much baggage to be a successful candidate for President in 2028.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

107 DAYS

Author: Kamala Harris

Narration by: Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris (Author, former V.P. of the United States and former California attorney general.)

The obvious message of Kamala Harris’s book “107 Days” is that the Democratic Party lost the presidency because of the compressed time for Harris to mount her campaign. There are many reasons noted for Harris’s failure to get elected as President of the United States. She notes Biden’s weak candidacy, party disorganization, misinformation and disinformation, foreign policy controversies and protests, polarization and turnout problems, and cultural/generational messaging gaps. “107 Days” is a well written and narrated story of the difficulties that Harris had in her political race against Donald Trump. Her book is a compelling argument. However, it seems her most likely cause of defeat is time.

Donald Trump (President of the U.S., politician, media personality, born into a wealthy New York City family, has a B.A. in Economics from University of Pennsylvania.)

Retrospectively, Harris’s story makes many think she would have been a better President than Donald Trump. The story of her book reinforces that belief. However, that is misleading in the sense that Harris is faced with two burdens that are difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. One, America has never had a woman President and two, Harris is too closely associated with the administrations cover-up of Biden’s intellectual decline. There are many causes one can give to understand why Harris is defeated but time to know who she is seems the most crucial.

Vice President Harry Truman became President with the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

It seems most Vice Presidents of the United States are viewed as figure heads or pawns to increase votes for the person who is running for President. The duties of a Vice President today seem more like “gopher” jobs that give little visibility to the character of the person chosen to be Vice President. Only when that person becomes President, does the world find out who the Vice President is and what capabilities he (before Harris, they were all men) brings to the office. (For example, Trump’s successor, if it was his V.P., is unknown and unpredictable.) Harry Truman, retrospectively, is one of the great Presidents of the United States but no one thought a part owner and proprietor of a grocery store could be a competent President of the United States.

Five V.P.’s in history became Presidents of the United States.

Though there have been several Vice Presidents (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon, and Biden) who have successfully become Presidents of the United States their election was determined by campaigning. Regardless of whether time was the determining factor in Harris’s loss of the Presidency, her book shows she has the intelligence and ability to be America’s President. What that means to her and the future of America is unknown. One presumes Harris will consider running for President, but one suspects the burden of her loss to Trump is likely to diminish her chance of getting enough political support for her candidacy.

Presidents of the United States.

TYRANNY

Arresting people based on their appearance without judicial review puts America on the slippery slope of authoritarian tyranny.

Opinion Page
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Chet Yarbrough

Today, the idea of Aryan endorses the absurd belief in white, Anglo-Saxon supremacy. Research shows a French aristocrat (de Gobineau), and a British-German philosopher named Chamberlain, defined Aryans as a superior white race.

However, there are many ideas and speculations revealed by the Durants’ history of civilization.

In the Durrants’ research, the word Aryan was originally used as a descriptive word for the Brahmin class in ancient India. The Durants noted the word Aryan in their history of civilization meant “noble” or “distinguished”. The criteria of India’s Brahmin class are reprehensible to one who believes in “equality of opportunity” professed by America but not practiced by Americans.

Class identity in ancient India does deny the truth of equal opportunity but not based on the color of one’s skin, but on ritual status, occupation, and social custom.

The injustice of human inequality is as old as the history of civilization.

ICE’s accosting citizens because of the difference in the color of their skin is reprehensible. Of course, that has been the criteria for American Blacks before and after the Civil War.

Emigrant injustice is compounded by the failure to adjudicate immigration status before deportation.

The Administration’s use of force is a reminder of Nazi Germany when Jewish German citizens were being rounded up for believed difference and/or opposition to the government.

This is a picture of the beginning of Jewish discrimination in Nazi Germany with broken windows of businesses owned by Jews.

ICE arrests in America based on his non-white appearance.

Being able to easily identify difference based on physical appearance amplifies the probability of discrimination.

THREE ASIAN AMERICANS BRUTALLIZED IN 2025 BY AMERICAN RACISTS.

What has happened to the principle of “separation of powers” meant to provide a system of checks and balances on the Legislative and Executive branches of the American government? Have we abandoned Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, power sharing between federal and state governments, the Bill of Rights, Judicial Review, and Electoral Safeguards? The idea of our Constitution is to stop a single branch of the government from dominating our system of government. Have we become a third world country? Today’s “NO KINGS” turn-out offers hope that others agree with the sentiment of this disappointed supporter of American Democracy.

Where is the Supreme Court in this injustice?

Arresting people based on their appearance without judicial review puts America on the slippery slope of authoritarian tyranny.

THE WEST

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How the West Lost It (A Provocation)

Author: Kishore Mahbubani

Narrated By: Jonathan Keeble

Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat and geopolitical consultant, former Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Relations, formally served as the United Nations Security Council President.)

Mr. Mahbubani’s short book suggests the highly provocative belief that the West’s dominance of the world is giving way to Asia, particularly China and India. To mitigate the West’s decline, Mahbubani argues–the West needs to develop a more “coherent and competitive global strategy”. Paul Kennedy of Yale University praises Mahbubani’s assessment. The public commentator Fareed Zakaria endorses Mahbubani’s belief, and Hilton Root of “The Independent Review” acknowledges Mahbubani’s inference that “the West’s overperformance was a historical aberration and the East’s rise reflects a rebalancing of history”. Despite Root’s measured support of Mahbubani’s book, his analysis is nuanced. Root argues the decline of the West is oversimplified and that Mahbubani underestimates the resilience of Western economies.

Mahbubani argues Great Britain’s Brexit and Trump’s re-election are reactions to the West’s economic decline.

Edwad Luce argues Western liberalism needs to be reinvented by investment in a technological revolution for all Americans, not just those who have benefited from the industrial revolution. However, China seems to have read the future better than the West by building up their reserves of rare metals needed for advanced computer chips. In contrast, President Trump chooses to antagonize allies as well as competitors with a foolish trade war.

Root believes the innovative capacity and adaptability of the West will make adjustments to remain competitive, if not the dominant economic power of the world. Trump’s trade war suggests otherwise. Trump’s attitude is to ignore the years of built-up trust with Western allies and attack the world with destructive economic tariffs meant to right wrongs that are figments of real-politic’ imagination. However, some believe Mahbubani discounts political freedom and the drive of both the West and East to improve citizens’ living standards. That seems somewhat plausible, but Trump is attacking Americas most highly regarded universities with specious concerns with what he considers overactive recruitment of immigrants and minorities. The truth is American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.

Yale University (American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.)

The long cultural, educational, and technological influence of the West may be diminished by some of today’s political leaders but the trend over the last 200 years is unlikely to be reversed by Trump’s misguided authoritarianism. Trump’s significant risks are partially mitigated by publicly ingrained western democratic values. Though democracy is messy, it has demonstrated long-term stability and innovation that equals or exceeds the worst of what Trump’s authoritarianism is doing to the American economy and its institutions. Three more years of Trump’s presidency will not erase America’s legacy or destroy its future.

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short, impactful, and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America. Mahbubani argues for a more diplomatic American policy with rising nations in the East because he believes China will ultimately replace America as the leading economy in the world.

The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over the last 200 years, but it stands for continuity for America’s present and future.

The direction of American society remains true to the fundamental beliefs of liberty, equality, sovereignty, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and individual rights. Trump is challenging some of those rights, but balance of power and term limits will ultimately rescue America from his misbegotten domestic and international blunders. These rights have been challenged at different times in America’s history but never permanently reversed.

TWO OLD MEN

Age is an existential risk that can only be managed by the checks and balances of others which is why America’s government has survived and prospered despite good and ethically or morally corrupt Presidents.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Original Sin (President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again)

Author: Jake Tapper, Alex Thompson

Narrated By: Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper (Washington anchor for CNN.)

“Original Sin” is a hard-hitting expose by two tough minded reporters that convincingly explain President Biden did not have the cognitive ability to be America’s President in the last two years of his Presidency. This is a particularly hard pill to swallow because the current President of the United States is old while being at the opposite end of the political spectrum. At 74, this book reviewer is old. Age undoubtedly has an impact on this reviewer’s cognitive abilities and the cogency of what he thinks and writes. President Trump is 79 years old. The difference is that what a critic writes means nothing in respect to governance of the United States and the impact it has on American citizens and world events.

Trump’s decisions and actions have had great impact on U.S. relationship with other countries, American public policy, and the economic future of Americans.

Trump has directed the firing of thousands of government employees. Because of Trump’s authoritarian characteristics, he surrounds himself with sycophants who are more interested in pleasing him than managing the government’s responsibility for America’s welfare and role in the world. Authoritarianism is untrue of Biden who throughout his public career has been a consensus builder, not an autocrat. This is not to suggest Biden is not fundamentally wrong in not immediately supporting an alternative candidate for the Presidency. The authors of “Original Sin” clearly explain Biden fails America by waffling on his candidacy for a second term.

Old age is a risk for every manager of other people’s lives and opportunities.

Biden is not at fault for getting old but people who worked with him are guilty of negligence in their service to the American people. Tapper and Thompson offer numerous examples of Biden’s intellectual decline. The importance of their assessment of Biden’s failing capabilities is a warning to all managers of other people’s lives, employment, and family responsibilities. Age is a life circumstance that affects every human being. One who is losing their cognitive ability cannot see it in themselves. It is the responsibility of others to help older people relinquish responsibility for those things they can no longer handle.

Relinquishment by a man or woman who has great responsibility is a hard thing to accept. Age effects people in different ways. The catch 22 is that loss of cognitive ability is unseen by the person who loses it. It is the responsibility of those who rely on one who is losing their reasoning ability to manage the circumstance of that decline.

Putting politics of government aside, President Trump is old. The concern one has is the risk of relying on those who work for Trump, like many who worked for Biden, may see loyalty as more important than the public interest of America. Age is an existential risk that can only be managed by the checks and balances of others which is why America’s government has survived and prospered despite good and ethically or morally corrupt Presidents.

America will survive Trump but it will take time to reset America’s relationship with the world. America has had good and bad Presidents in both political parties but its foundation of checks and balances have kept it on course for the betterment of society. It is nations with leaders that have no checks and balances that threaten social and economic equality.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

It is interesting to be reminded of the danger of a strong executive branch and the consequence of rule by an authoritarian President. Trump shows loyalty to his beliefs, rather than competence, as the primary qualification for appointment to America’s federal government bureaucracy.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Alexander Hamilton

Author: Ron Chernow

Narrated By: Scott Brick

Ron Chernow (Author, biographer of Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Ulysses Grant, and Mark Twain.)

Though this critic did not care for Chernow’s biography of Washington, his examination of Alexander Hamilton is of some value. Chernow’s attention to detail is impressive. Considering the detail of Chernow’s biographies, it is quite an achievement for Chernow to have had the time to fully research and write histories of one, let alone four, important American’ leaders and influencers.

Traditionally, Alexander Hamilton’s father has been identified as James A. Hamilton, a largely unsuccessful Scottish trader in the British West Indies (approximately 1,000 miles from the American’ continent–made up of the islands of Cuba, Jamaica, and the Lesser Antilles.)

However, Chernow suggests James Hamilton may not have been the father of Alexander because his mother, Rachel Faucette, may have had sexual relations with other men. Ms. Faucette had become James’ lover while being married to Johann Lavien. Faucette had become unhappy and left Lavien in 1750 to take up with James Hamilton. Lavien had Faucette imprisoned for adultery. Lavien eventually divorces Faucette in 1759.

Chernow suggests Faucette, at some point, may have had an affair with Thomas Stevens, a successful merchant and landlord, while living with James Hamilton.

Chernow’s evidence is primarily from reports of Alexander’s close physical appearance to a son of Thomas Stevens. These two young men, Alexander and Thomas Steven’s son, Edward, were about a year apart in age with Edward being the older. Alexander and Edward became close friends, and Thomas Stevens played an important role in Alexander’s life when his mother died. Stevens took Hamilton into his household on St. Croix. Alexander became part of the Stevens’ family.

In Hamilton’s time with the Stevens family, he became educated by reading books and being employed in the mercantile trades of the West Indies.

By any measure, whether Alexander is the son of Stevens or Hamilton makes little difference. By definition, Alexander’s paternity is illegitimate. One asks oneself–so what? Alexander’s genetic inheritance from Faucette and either father leads him to become one of the most important historical influences in the creation of the American Constitution.

Hamilton arrives in New York City in 1772. Hamilton is only 17. The American Constitution is adopted, signed and ratified on September 17, 1787, and implemented on March 4, 1789.

Hamilton’s influence as a representative of New York is to create a centralized government with taxation authority.

This national government is to have the right to enforce national laws that apply to all citizens according to enumerated powers of a federal government under the direction of a President and Congress elected by American citizens. Chernow notes that George Clinton, the governor of New York, is opposed to the strengthening of the federal government because of his interest in maintaining his power as Governor of New York. Hamilton is one of the three representatives of New York at the convention, two of which were opposed to strengthening the federal government.

Chernow explains how the convention succeeded in strengthening the federal government.

The two framers that are shown to have the greatest impact on the draft of the Constitution are Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Chernow explains Hamilton pushed for a strong centralized government with broad powers to tax, regulate commerce, and enforce laws. Madison supports a strong federal government but argues for states’ rights and strict limits on federal authority. Hamilton wishes for broad flexibility for the federal government in the interpretation of implied powers while Madison insists on an explicit statement of the powers of the federal government to limit its implied powers. Hamilton looks to America as an industrializing nation that should be supported by a national bank with federal support for infrastructure improvements while Madison sees America as the agrarian breadbasket for the world with limited banking and industrial’ support by the federal government. Hamilton believes in rule by an educated elite while Madison is concerned about concentration of power in an elitist aristocracy. In the end, Madison takes on the role as the principal author of the Constitution which is intended to limit Hamilton’s expansive interpretation of federal government control of State governance.

It is interesting to be reminded of the danger of a strong executive branch and the consequence of rule by an authoritarian President.

Trump shows loyalty to his beliefs, rather than competence, as the primary qualification for appointment to America’s federal government bureaucracy. Chernow successfully reminds listener/readers of the history of early American government creation, but “Hamilton” is not a page turner like his biography of Mark Twain.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON

Trump’s push to hugely increase government debt at the expense of the poor and middle class, along with a tariff war, look to some like paths toward an economic Armageddon.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

On Tyranny (Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century)

Author: Timothy Snyder

Narrated By: Timothy Snyder

Timothy Snyder (Author, graduated from Brown University with a degree in history and political science, received a Doctor of Philosophy in modern history from the University of Oxford.)

“On Tyranny” makes one research Timothy Snyder’s education because of his allusion to the rise of Hitler and America’s rising authoritarianism in the 21st century. His short book “On Tyranny” is disconcerting. He infers Trump’s presidency is an early sign of American democracy’s deterioration. He recounts the rise of German complacency when Hitler came to power and Nazi’ support for victimization of Jews and invasion of Poland are the beginning of a plan to reorganize spheres of influence in Europe.

Snyder’s observation is undoubtedly to create a sense of moral urgency on the part of American listener/readers to do more than just observe what is happening in America. Not that it is about Jewish discrimination but about American government rounding up and deporting alleged illegal immigrants without due process and sending them to prisons in other countries. Snyder is a scholar who specialized in Eastern European totalitarianism which suggests he knows something about the precursors of authoritarianism.

It seems the comparison of Trump to Hitler is hyperbolic when one considers the dire financial condition of Germany in the late 1920s. However, Trump’s push to hugely increase government debt at the expense of the poor and middle class, along with a tariff war, look to some like paths toward an economic Armageddon. If the economy falters, would America fall into Germany’s past? One doubts that will happen, but with a President who believes his own lies and Americans who accept them gives listener/readers of “On Tyranny” a chill. The power of Snyder’s argument gains some credibility.

It seems with the history of the United States, federal government checks and balances, and the limited tenure of elected Presidents, a Nazification of America seems unlikely. However, the danger is there because Trump has strong support from his party and many Americans who voted for him who choose to ignore his lies.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: