POLITICS – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

HUAWEI

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

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

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

Author: Eva Dou

Narration by: Nancy Wu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist captitalism.

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

Huawei discipline.

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

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

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

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

WARNING

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

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fire Next Time

Author: James Baldwin

Narration by: Lawrence Fishburne

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

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

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

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

Racist rally in America.

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

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

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

RUSSIA’S LEADERS

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

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

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

Author: Mark Galeotti

Narration by: Mark Galeatti

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

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

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

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

Tsarist Russia.

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

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

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

Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO WINS?

The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Has China Won? (The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy)

Author: Kishore Mahbubani

Narration by: Aaron Abano. P.J Ochlan

Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat, and academic who is a permanent representative to the UN.)

“Has China Won” is a controversial political opinion that suggests America is grossly underestimating the growing strength of China that will continue to grow in influence and power in the world. Some may argue Mahbubani overstates China’s strengths and understates its weaknesses. Mahbubani does not deny America’s strengths, its resilience, and peaceful world strategy. However, his underlying inference is that peaceful socialist doctrine will replace democratic capitalism as the “sine quo non” of the future.

Communist socialism or democratic capitalism, a peoples’ choice.

There are three general categories of governance in the world. One is communist socialism, two is democratic capitalism, and three is authoritarian despotism. By the end of “Has China Won?”, one is inclined to believe China will grow to be a competitor to America as a socialist communist success just as America has become a democratic capitalist success. Authoritarian despotism will disappear as a system of governance as human education improves. China may surpass America as a superpower in the sense of population but not necessarily as a world influencer. Both systems have discriminatory flaws. China is neither better nor worse as a political entity than America; i.e. both are destined to compete for socio/political influence in the world. Socialist communism will likely grow to be equally influential as democratic capitalism for nation-state governments. Socialist communism is an ideological competitor; i.e., it is as likely to be adopted or rejected as democratic capitalism. In my personal opinion, socialist communism and democratic capitalist governance will survive in some form until their equal or superior is discovered.

American democratic capitalism has made its mistakes.

America cannot deny its international intervention mistakes. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overreaches of America’s belief in democratic capitalism. America fails to understand deep-rooted cultural beliefs, the nationalism of other countries, and the appeal of socialist communist or authoritarian doctrine. In an effort to support national dissidents; America has invaded several countries and chose to abandon their citizens which allowed authoritarians to retake control of their countries. Vietnam remains a socialist communist country. Afghanistan returns to rule by the Taliban. Iraq is a weakened economic nation led by a fragile, technocratic, non-aligned political novice named Aliall-Zaldi.

America’s latest mistake is the bombing of Iran. (A water plant destruction.)

President Trump chooses to bomb Iran and expects Iranians to rally around American democratic capitalism when all that is accomplished is a hardening of authoritarian Iranian Leadership’ beliefs. Many Americans believe Iranian authoritarian leadership will fail. Whether socialist communism or democratic capitalism will replace authoritarianism may only be a matter of time. President Trump’s ham-fisted actions are unlikely to endear democratic capitalism to Iranian citizens. Iran’s future cannot be predicted in the short term, but Iranian authoritarianism seems likely to fail.

What is happening in China is remarkable. China’s transition from Maoist communism to capitalist communism is a caterpillar turning into a butterfly; i.e. China has grown wings but it still lives in a world constrained by its environment.

The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success. It depends on China’s history of long-term domestic stability and growing prosperity. Will Xi and his successors continue to improve the economic well-being of the millions of Chinese poor? Can China avoid military conflict with the U.S.? No one knows but many speculate. Will the U.S. finally understand China’s government and what it means to its people. Xi is not America’s enemy; neither is he an ally.

A HONG KONG LIFE

Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults. One big difference is American capitalism offers a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant).

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Red Roulette (An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, and Vengeance in Today’s China.)

Author: Desmond Shum

Narration by: Tim Chiou

Desmond Shum (Author, born in Shanghai in 1968, former Hong Kong businessman who lives in the UK. with a son born in the U.S.)

“Red Roulette” is an amazing personal story of a former Chinese citizen who marries a successful Chinese woman, Whitney Duan. She is disappeared by the Xi government in 2017. Shum and Duan were married from 2004 to 2015. His wife’s fate is unknown to Shum as he writes this book. Amazingly, Ms. Duan calls Shum four years after she is disappeared by China to ask him to not publish his book. Shum believes this is the first public contact by Duan since her disappearance in 2017.

Ms. Duan had chosen to capitalize on a system of doing business in China the way it had been done for many years. That system is riven with a kind of societal corruption revealed in “Red Roulette” that has grown with communism in China.

Women simply want an equal opportunity to succeed in pursuit of money, power, and prestige, i.e. all the secular objectives men take for granted.

Desmond Shum reveals surprises to many Americans about China’s culture. Despite a presumption of many non-Chinese, Shum explains power is personal, not institutional in China. One might presume that CCP’s control of wealth and power in China comes from the party and its leaders. However, wealth in China is only influenced by the communist government through a social network of beliefs. Shum explains personal relationships and connections are built on favors, gifts, and mutual obligations that are debts that carry the reality of power in China. This explains the title of the book “Red Roulette” in the sense that success in Chinese society is a game of chance based on bets placed on the value of favors, and gifts that CCP members believe have worth.

Debt for favors and gifts is in the eye of the beholder which makes fair payment a mysterious and chance driven calculation. Adding to that complexity is the power of a CCP leader to erase a citizen socially, legally, and economically. By erasure, Shum explains citizens may be detained, prevented from family contact, denied legal representation, arrested, impoverished, and isolated from any social contact. Shum explains his ex-wife, Whitney Duan, vanished for years with no charges, no trial, and no record of her disappearance.

Xi Jinping (Leader of the CCP in China.)

The CCP elite govern China through relationships among themselves, not by official meetings or party leadership orders that are necessarily based on definable communist dogma. Everything happens behind the scenes. Official meetings, if there are any, are strictly “for show”. Shum’s admits in his personal story that he and his ex-wife became wealthy through a corrupt relationship with Zhang Beili, one of the CCP apparatchiks and power brokers. One may argue the CCP is similar to the Congress of the United States. Wealthy capitalists, like CCP apparatchiks, game the stock market and society through political connection with elected government officials

Deng Xiaoping launched an initial shift away from Maoist central planning despite ordering the crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989.

As somewhat of a realist, one understands governance is based on leaders presumed power, wealth, and political influence. Shum argues China’s economic modernization and capitalism began with Deng Xiaoping who rose to power after Tiananmen with Hu Jintao continuing China’s economic boom. Shum argues today’s Xi is increasing control of the CCP and the economy with the traditions of Chinese society. In the author’s opinion, China is reinstituting a Mao-style autocracy that is spreading fear across the country.

In fairness to Shum’s assessment of China, there is evidence of America’s slip into autocracy in today’s economy.

Zuboff’s scholarly examination of American internet mavens concludes “…Surveillance Capitalism” will lead to Orwell’s “1984” or B.F. Skinner’s “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”.

Shum believes Xi Jinping’s CCP anti-corruption campaign is only a pretext for power consolidation. In Shum’s opinion, Xi’s targeted removal of CCP apparatchiks is not because of their corruption but because they rival his power over the party. Xi’s campaign on corruption increases fear among CCP members and influencers that reinforce traditions of China’s rule by personal relationship and connection. Xi’s goal is to increase personal loyalty to himself which is part and parcel of the history of Chinese social norms. Shum’s evidence of corruption is the increase in disappearances, secret detentions, arrests of businesspeople without charges, and insistence on what is characterized as party discipline.

Whitney Duan and Shum when they were married.

Whitney Duan’s disappearance is Shum’s primary example of Xi’s Chinese governance. Duan is characterized as ambitious, brilliant, and determined. Her rise to power in Chinas is from close relationships she develops with people who have influence in the communist party. She befriends Zhang Beili, the wife of the Vice Premier of the CCP, Wen Jiabao. Because of that association, Duan has privileged access to information about land deals and major real-estate projects in China. She uses that information to make deals with advanced knowledge that result in great economic wealth for her and her former husband. Shum marries Duan and they both capitalize on insider information they gain from Duan’s relationships. One presumes the marriage ends because of the stresses and political dangers involved in their common business interests.

The quality of Kafka’s story in “The Trial” is the human desire for freedom that is not extinguished even in the darkest times of a country’s repression. This is a hope one presumes for both China and America, but human nature gets in the way.

In 2017, two years after the author’s divorce, Whitney Duan disappears. There are no charges, no trial, no public disclosure, and she is unable to contact any of her family including the son she has with Shum. No one knows if she is dead or alive. The state refuses to say she has been detained. One presumes, she is arrested because of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign and his purge of some party members like Wen Jiabao. Interestingly, just before the book is to be published, Whitney Duan calls Shum to ask him not to publish. Obviously, she is alive.

One big difference between American capitalism and Chinese communism is a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant). That is a significant difference between China and America. However, both countries are impacted by bad actors that game the system based on personal relationship and influence with political leaders.

On the one hand, this story reinforces belief that Xi is trying to reform the CCP. On the other, the methodology of autocracy offers no defense against the injustice of being condemned without trial.

One concludes Whitney Duan lost in the game of Chinese Roulette by being part of a relationship that gave her inside information from the CCP. Her disappearance is proof of the theme of Shun’s book about the importance of relationships and connections to gain power and financial success in Chinese society. Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults.

ETHNICTY

Roth shows acculturation is both an opportunity and danger in “The Plot Against America”.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Plot Against America

Author: Philip Roth

Narration by: Ron Silver

PHILLIP ROTH (WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE FOR FICTION, MAN BOOKER INTERNATIONAL PRIZE AND MORE)

Roth’s “The Human Stain”, and “The Plot Against America” are troubling fictional stories of American society. Roth’s imagination seems somewhat out of control in “The Plot…” but his point is that American democracy, like all forms of government, is flawed by the nature of human beings. Popular election is no guarantee of government probity because the public is as easily led by lies as the truth; i.e., something we see in today’s American government. “The Plot Against America” creates a fictional story of the advance of a racist to the Presidency of the United States at the time of Hitler’s government putsch in Germany.

Charles Lindbergh (Famous aviator who expressed suspicion of Jews and is characterized as a supporter of Hitler.)

America had several famous supporters of Hitler’s ascension in Germany; i.e., not only Charles Lindbergh, but Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin, and Jospph P. Kennedy Sr., to name a few. Lindbergh believes in white supremacy but excludes those of Jewish ethnicity because he believes Jews are not a part of the American or Western racial community. He believes Jews are a separate people with separate loyalties. This conforms to Hitler’s view of German society as superior to all others. Added to Lindbergh’s racism is his belief that communism threatens individual liberty, a foundational democratic belief. Lindbergh is vociferously anti-communist even though Russia is led by white rulers. Lindbergh believes centralized state control, state suppression of dissent, and forced conformity are anti-American. This is an ironic view because Hitler insists on state control, suppression of dissent, and a forced conformity; i.e., beliefs Lindbergh infers he abhors.

Roth writes a story suggesting Lindbergh run against Franklin Roosevelt for President. Lindbergh wins in this fictional story. In truth, Lindbergh never runs for President. History actually shows the Republican party approaches Lindbergh in the late 1930s to run against Roosevelt because of his celebrity, anti-war message, and isolationist beliefs. However, Lindbergh turns the Republicans down.

There are many reasons why American Democracy continues to prosper despite elections of inept and unethical political leaders.

Wendell Lewis Wilkie becomes the nominee for President by the Republicans in 1940. (1892-1944, an American lawyer.)

Wendell Willkie is the Republican Party’s choice for President. What makes Roth’s story interesting is his concern for loss of Jewish ethnic identity from the influence of Americanization. Two fundamental points are made in the title of the book. There is the obvious “…Plot Against America” with Lindbergh as an America candidate for President who supports Hitler. A less obvious point is Roth’s more subtle “…Plot…” by American society to diminish ethnicity. In Roth’s story, Lindbergh is elected as President of the United States.

Human acculturation is a fact of life in any form of government.

Drawing the line between cultural disintegration and acculturation is different in an autocracy than in a democracy. A perfect democracy allows ethnicity to flourish within the boundaries of common societal norms while an autocracy demands conformity to specific societal norms that, in some autocratic countries, become demands. Roth’s point in “The Plot Against America” is that ethnic identity is a fundamental right of human beings that should not be denied by any government. This is not to say that ethnic identity is not influenced by society, but that ethnicity should only be a natural, not governmentally enforced influence. Roth’s story shows a fine line that is crossed by America in influencing Jewish culture to become less ethnic. He tells the story of a government endorsed program to offer Jewish children the opportunity to become laborers on American farms. That experience leads to a Jewish child’s exposure to eating pork which is explicitly forbidden by the Torah because it is considered unclean. Roth shows “old world” ethnic’ cautions are sometimes abandoned because of life experiences that diminsh ethnic taboos.

Discrimination based on ethnicity, race, or sex diminishes democracy.

Roth shows acculturation is both an opportunity and danger in “The Plot Against America”. One may read into Roth’s story that he regrets the Americanization of Jewish ethnicity. To the extent that the discipline of education may be harmed by acculturation, one is inclined to agree with Roth. On the other hand, ethnic identification has led to unequal opportunity based on ethnicity, race, or sex which should have nothing to do with innate capability.

DEMOCRACY’S STRENGTH

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

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

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

Author: Neil Howe

Narration by: Neil Howe

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

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

Generational beliefs.

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

Is immigration an American crisis or a discouraged opportunity?

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

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

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

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

LEWIS & CLARK’S AMERICA

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Vast Enterprise (A New History of Lewis & Clark)

Author: Craig Fehrman

Narration by: Jason Culp & 5 more

Craig Fehrman (Author, journalist, historian of Presidents and American history.)

Craig Fehrman writes an excellent history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. It entertains and informs reader/listeners of the lives of Meriwhether Lewis, William Clark, an enslaved man named York, and a tribal native named Sacagawea. From President Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning and his decision to create an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific, one learns something new, old, and troubling about America.

Thomas Jeffereson (1743-1826, President of the U.S. 1801-1809.)

Thomas Jefferson is characterized as a shrewd, partisan, and forceful political operator who had a clear vision for the future of continental America. That prescient vision of America by Jefferson hides his blindness to the truth of human equality of Black men and women as inferior to white men. However, Fehrman notes Jefferson believes natives of this continent had the potential to be the equal of white Americans. Jefferson’s shrewdness and forceful opinion is illustrated by his understanding of the importance of trading posts as a way to expand control of land possessed by native inhabitants and held by Spanish and French interests. Lewis and Clark’s western expedition is, in Jefferson’s opinion, critical to America’s future land interests.

Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark (American Explorers.)

Both Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark are characterized as relatively educated colonial citizens suited for an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific. Though both leaders for the expedition were heroic, their personalities, leadership styles, and temperaments were quite different. Lewis is characterized as brilliant but an inwardly volatile man, while Clark is a steady, self-confident manager of people. Lewis is the visionary who works in the Jefferson’ administration as secretary to the President while Clark is former military officer who gets things done with people who report to him. Lewis clearly understood Jefferson’s objective in exploring the west, its diplomatic purpose, and geopolitical importance. Clark’s frontier experience, military discipline, and surveying skill served Lewis’s understanding of Jefferson’s objectives.

Lewis & Clark Expedition

Both Lewis and Clark understood they were not only entering a wilderness but a continent full of other nations which made them effective negotiators and intermediaries with native tribes. Lewis’s intellectual understanding of Jefferson’s objectives is complimented by Clark’s skill in managing native tribe relationships. With the help of a Black slave owned by Clark and a native Shoshone woman married to a French trader, this former military man manages to gain the aid of the Lakota, Shoshone, and other tribes to save the Lewis and Clark expedition from failure.

Image of York (Slave owned by William Clark.)

The history of York (Clark’s owned slave) in the expedition is interesting. What the author, York, and enlisted members of the expedition show is that Lewis and Clark were dependent on their crew for the success of the mission. Men like York provide the labor and skill needed to complete the journey. As a young adult, York shows the value of all human beings to the success of the expedition while being a slave. The sad fact is that York is never released from his bondage to Clark. Despite York’s alleged inferiority, Clark relies on him for his field abilities and reminds reader/listeners of the importance of other cultures and ethnicities that make America. Fehrman infers York is a symbolic bridge between ethnic worlds; i.e. not just the Black and White world but the native and English American world. York is an example the difference of human beings in America; i.e., from people of color to native tribes in a dominant white culture. Fehrman’s story infers human difference reinforces belief that native tribes (Black, white, or other) could co-exist though not be treated as equal human beings. This is no stretch of a reader/listener’s imagination based on America’s history of Indian/American wars and slavery. There is one native American that travels with Lewis and Clark. She is Sacagawea, the only woman on the expedition. Her story reflects on America’s view of women as property despite their contribution to life and their contribution to social and economic society.

Image of Sacagawea on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Fehrman suggests Sacagawea is a full participant in the expedition. To Fehrman she represents a symbol of Native nations. Sacagawea and York became part of the diplomatic fabric of the journey demonstrating the truth of human equality. Sacagawea became pregnant from her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Her baby is born on the expedition. Charbonneau had two native wives, the first of which did not accompany them on the expedition. Sacagawea had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa tribe in a war with the Shoshone when she is 12. Charbonneau is 20 years older than Sacagawea. Sacagawea is 13 when she is forced to marry Charbonneau by the Hidatsa. The tribe had traded goods with Charbonneau. Sacagawea and Charbonneau are reluctantly hired by Lewis and Clark for the expedition. Both act as interpreters on the expedition but Fehrman argues Sacagawea represents more than being a translator because of her heritage and knowledge of the territory through which they will travel. Sacagawea’s Shoshone tribal heritage had diplomatic value beyond mere language interpretation. On the other hand, Charbonneau seems more a liability than asset to Lewis and Clark.

Shoshone Tribe in western America.

Fehrman shows the expeditionary Americans were not dominant actors in their relationships with native tribes. In the wilderness, they acted more as guests or supplicants in their dealings with various tribes. They recognized they were outsiders that needed political alliances with native tribes because they had meager knowledge of the territory and customs of indigenous tribes who controlled the river lands they explored. Their need for food, horses, guides, and knowledge of the land depends on their relationships with indigenous tribes. Without tribal help and guidance, they would have no protection or chance of safe passage. Native tribes provide horses and information that kept them on their course to the west and saved them from starvation and death. It is a combination of Jefferson’s somewhat arrogant plan for the country’s consolidation for the expeditionary force to be dependent upon indigenous tribes who are repeatedly deprived of their land in America’s growth as a nation. It is the explorer’s humbleness and humility that allows Lewis and Clark to succeed in growing an American continent that historically suppresses indigenous land ownership and use.

Most Shoshone Tribes appear more southwestern than northwestern.

Indigenous tribes were politically naive in their aid to American explorers. Without tribal’ naivete, the early days of America’s influence and growth as a singular nation would have failed. One presumes, the continent would have remained a land of tribal ownership and internecine conflicts over land and natural resources. In the early years of American government, it is humbleness, humility, and the growth of trade between natives and early Americans that transform a land of native tribal presence into a singular nation among nations. In Fehrman’s opinion the prime mover of that accomplishment began with Thomas Jefferson and “The Vast Enterprise” of explorers like Lewis and Clark.

The last chapters of Fehrman’s book leave listener/readers with notes about Lewis, Clark, York, and Sacagawea that are sad to read or hear. Lewis becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. Clark refuses to give York his freedom. York dies from cholera while Clark lives a life of success and power. Clark becomes governor of -Missouri Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Sacagawea is leaves her French husband and dies at Fort Manuel in 1812.

Robert Frost (1874-1963.)

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise”.

Ukrainian Independence

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Our Enemies Will Vanish (The Russian Invasion and Ukraine’s War of Independence)

Author: Yaroslav Trofimoy

Narration by: David Furr

Yaroslav Trofimov (Author, Ukrainian-born Italian author and journalist, foreign correspondent.)

“Our Enemies Will Vanish” is a brutal eyewitness account of the beginning of Russia’s invasion and war in Ukraine. Yaroslav Trofimov explains why Putin fails to achieve a takeover and annexation of Ukraine despite having an overwhelming military and economic advantage. Putin had a well provisioned and professional military force. Trofimov’s book is an insightful follow up on Karatnycky’s history of Ukraine’s leadership in “Battleground Ukraine”. Trofimov reminds one of the role Viktor Yanukovchy played in surreptitiously aiding Russia’s takeover of Crimea. Yanukovchy had fled to Russia and was waiting to return to the Presidency of Ukraine when and if Russia won the war. Having read “Battleground…” Ukraine’s resistance owes a debt to former President Yuschenko’s role in reinforcing a pro-Western leaning of Ukraine’s citizens. At the same time, Petro Proshenko (President of Ukraine before Zelensky) is shown to be equally important for having begun the rebuilding of Ukraine’s military.

Frenemies are defined as people who look friendly on the surface but contain underlying rivalry, and distrust.

Trofimov clearly explains why Putin fails to takeover Ukraine. He underestimated the capabilities of Ukrainian resistance. Putin’s predilection for complete control of the invasion created ground action confusion that could not adapt to circumstances of Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s ground forces could not effectively coordinate their actions because of Putin’s insistence on direct command and control. In contrast, the Ukrainian leadership made decisions based on ground circumstances rather than centralized command and control. Putin clearly underestimated Ukraine’s national awakening. The early atrocities of Bucha and Irpin where 400 civilians were murdered and many were imprisoned and tortured are examples of Russia’s brutal tactics. The heavy shelling of Irpin destroyed neighborhoods, homes, and schools. Satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts reinforced Ukraine’s moral and political resolve to defend their country.

Access to drugs for infection are a concern for Ukranian fighters.

Trofimov characterizes Russia’s attack of Mariupol as an attempt to “wipe a city off the face of the earth”. He vivifies the scale of destruction with a view of residential districts that are flattened, civilians are left without food, water, or heat and hospitals, theaters, and shelters are bombed. If one is wounded in combat, Ukrainians have no access to drugs to treat infection. A relatively minor wound could become a death sentence. Nevertheless, Mariupol became a heroic last stand and a symbol of Ukraine’s resolve to remain free of Russian occupation.

The brutality and slaughter of war is clearly brought to a reader/listener’s attention by Trofimov. The atrocity in Bucha occurs early in the Russian invasion. Families hide in basements without heat or electricity. People are shot with their bodies left in the street as Russians begin moving house to house to take food, phones, and whatever they wanted. Men who were captured were interrogated and tortured. Citizens were executed at checkpoints for being suspected of helping local Ukrainians. Door to door killings and summary executions were made on all who were viewed as enemies of Russia. Russian troops were spreading systemic terror to control the population. The immorality of war is brought home in Russia’s Bucha campaign. In Trofimov’s opinion, Bucha is an example of why Putin will fail to remake Ukraine a part of Russia.

Trofimov suggests Zelensky’s wartime leadership became critically important for the survival of Ukraine.

Trofimov argues Zelensky’s personal bravery changed the course of the war. One remembers the video of Zelensky on American TV standing with fellow Ukrainians saying, “we are all here” in Kyiv. He believes Zelensky united Ukrainian society against Putin’s invasion. He rejects evacuation offers, maintains government continuity, and enlists the Western world in resistance to Russia’s invasion. Trofimov feels Zelensky’s leadership became critically important for the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation.

Kraken fighters in Ukraine.

The creation of what becomes known as the Kraken fighters illustrates the ferocity, professionalization, and psychology of volunteer Ukrainian fighters in comparison to Russian conscripts. The Kraken unit’s utilization of urban combat and high-risk operations contribute to many of Ukraine’s territorial reversals of Russian land confiscations. Ukraine’s military competence grows with the Kraken’s successes. Though the Kraken were not the largest Ukrainian warrior group, they were a unit from Kharkiv that motivated frontline fighters.

Mariupol occupation by Russia.

Trofimov does not ignore the territorial gains made by Russia in their invasion of Ukraine. Their early success in Eastern Ukraine is stalled despite their gains. They did capture Mariupol, but it became a symbol of Russia’s brutality that hardened Ukrainian resistance. The Russians capture Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in 2022 and inflict a great deal of damage on Ukrainian infrastructure. However, Trofimov argues these were tactical, not strategic successes. Importantly, Trofimov notes Kyiv is not captured, Ukrainian morale has been maintained, and the West’s support remains strong. He believes Ukraine will ultimately retain its independence.

Ukraine’s fight for independence.

Trofimov argues Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and remain a sovereign nation, but it will remain a long struggle. Considering the age of Putin, i.e., he is 73, and growing discontent of some Russian oligarchs, the war may be ended sooner rather than later. Men like Andrey Meinichenko, one of Russia’s richest men, and several others complain about high interest rates and the war’s economic strain on Russia. It is not that they are anti-Putin, but they have economic interests that are being challenged by the war. One wonders how long Putin will last if the Ukraine war continues.

Chinese and American Youth

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Young China (How the Restless Generation Will Change Their Country and the World)

Author: Zak Dychtwald

Narration by: Zak Dychtwald

Zak Dychtwald (Author, public speaker, fluent Mandarin speaker, world traveler, graduate of Columbia University who moved to China and spent 4 years interviewing local Chinese.)

“Young China” is a fascinating comparison of a world traveler’s perception of the difference between young Americans and Chinese youths. A reservation one has in listening to Dychtwald’s explanation of Chinese youth is whether a 4-year immersion in a foreign culture constitutes a society’s truth or just a topical view of an intelligent observer who gravitates to students of similar ambition.

America’s Achilles heel.

Not knowing the author’s life experience, one assumes he has not lived the life of most American college students of his generation. As a graduate of Columbia, his decision to learn Mandarin Chinese, and choice to travel to China for a four year stay suggests he is not a typical American youth. Further, as the meaning of the saying “Birds of a feather flock together”, one presumes his choice of interviewees is not likely to be typical Chinese college students but those who excel in intelligence and academic pursuit.

Contrast of lives in China.

The main Chinese youths whom the author interviews and becomes acquainted with are Ben, Vivian, Chen, Liu, and Mei. Ben–who is a striver who has a rural background. Vivian is a young professional woman who speaks English and comes from the middle class. Chen is a university student who embraces nationalist beliefs of young Chinese. Liu is a young teenager who experiences the meritocratic pressure of academic achievement in China. And finally, Mei is a young Chinese college student dealing with job aspirations, dating, marriage pressure, and career ambitions.

Education is the great strength of China.

In some sense, these characters have American student similarities. One can find similar Americans in each of the broad categories of these five Chinese students. However, Dychtwald sees Chinese students as “dreamers and strivers” while his experience is that American students are skeptical about the value of education and their future. Dychtwald finds Chinese college students take their performance on college exams more seriously than American college students. High academic achievement is a critical goal to a Chinese student while to an American graduating with a degree is the primary goal and finding a career is more important than achieving high scores on college exams. Chinese youths see themselves as a part of a national achievement for China while Americans see themselves as cogs in a capitalist machine that may or may not turn into successful careers.

College is a pressure cooker for Chinese students while it’s more of a cultural experience and stage of life for most American students.

Finally, Dychtwald notes Chinese students are globally curious, Western influenced, while being confident in the superiority of their own country. In contrast, American students care less about other countries, know few languages beyond English, and see their country as just one of many cultures in the world. Dychwald is an outlier in that he does not view China as a threat to American hegemony, but a country focusing on improving the lives of their citizens.

The risks of singular leadership.

Admittedly, this review is a narrow interpretation of Dychtwald’s fascinating book. Only an extraordinary intellect would move to China after graduating from college and learn fluent Mandarin during a 4 year stay in China. It makes we who are old wish we had the privilege of Dychtwald’s intelligence to live life over again.

To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens. America has the advantage of 4-year democratic change in leadership while China is dependent on an authoritarian’s health and judgement as a singular leader.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: