MOST INTERESTING ESSAYS 2/5/26: THEORY & TRUTH, MEMORY & INTELLIGENCE, PSYCHIATRY, WRITING, EGYPT IN 2019, LIVE OR DIE, GARDEN OF EDEN, SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION, DEATH ROW, RIGHT & WRONG, FRANTZ FANON, TRUTHINESS, CONSPIRACY, LIBERALITY, LIFE IS LIQUID, BECOMING god-LIKE, TIPPING POINT, VANISHING WORLD, JESUS SAYS
On the one hand, genetic science may cure the incurable. On the other, genetic science may destroy civilization.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Why Fish Don’t Exist” A Story of Loss, Love, and the Hidden Order of Life
By: Lulu Miller
Narrated By: Lulu Miller
Louisa Elizabeth Miller (Author, Peabody Award-winning science reporter for NPR.)
Lulu Miller’s “Why Fish Don’t Exist” reveals the flaw in believing intelligence or position are measures of admirability. David Star Jordan is a founding president of Stanford University. He served from 1891 to 1913 after being the Indiana University president from 1884 to 1891. Jordan gained his academic qualification as a recognized ichthyologist (a zoologist who specializes in studying fish species).
David Starr Jordan (1851-1931, Scientist, founding president of Stanford University.)
Miller begins her memoir in admiration of Jordan but ends in vilification. Jane Stanford appointed Jordan as the first President of Stanford. Their collaboration laid the foundation for what became a research powerhouse for engineering, business, humanities, and sciences. Ms. Stanford’s relationship with Jordan is reported as less than harmonious because in the University’s beginnings there were financial difficulties and differences of opinion about faculty.
Jane Elizabeth Lathrop Stanford (1828-1905, American philanthropist and co-founder of Stanford University.)
Jane Stanford rejects an economics professor’s contract renewal because of his politics and his criticism of immigration. (Ms. Stanford’s and her husband’s wealth came from the railroad industry which was hugely benefited by immigration.) It is alleged that she pressured Jordan to refuse the professor’s contract renewal. Five faculty members resigned after the professor’s termination. Ms. Stanford had a reputation for requiring total devotion to her beliefs which, at times, conflicted with Jordan’s management of the University. More significantly, Ms. Stanford’s drive alienates and makes enemies of many people associated with the University.
Ms. Stanford dies in Hawaii in her 70s. The cause of death is attributed by authorities to be poisoning from strychnine.
What makes her death an ongoing mystery is that Jordan hires a medical investigator who argues Ms. Stanford died from natural causes, a heart attack, brought on by overeating. In much of America, Jordan’s hired investigators’ cause of death is accepted. That is, until a book is written by Richard White in the 21st century, that reaffirms the authority’s earlier opinion. Miller does not suggest Jordan had anything to do with Stanford’s murder, but Miller’s inference is that he initiated a cover-up.
In one sense, Miller is Jordan’s character assassin. In another, Miller reveals the dark side of science.
Jordan is shown to believe in eugenics that advocates selective breeding of the human race. Eugenics is a science meant to selectively breed human beings. Miller explains Jordan believes in forced sterilization (which surprisingly exists in the United States until 1981). Eugenics is the same belief held by Adolf Hitler when he tried to exterminate Jews and create an exclusive Nordic or Aryan race. Hitler established laws for forced sterilization, euthanasia, and selective human breeding.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Miller’s memoir of David Starr Jordan shows how science is a mixed blessing. Jordan’s remarkable work in zoology and his role as the first President of Stanford is tainted by his expressed belief in eugenics. The threat of eugenics is greater today than in the past. On the one hand, genetic science may cure the incurable. On the other, genetic science may destroy civilization.
“…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Democracy or Else” How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps
By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor
Narrated By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor
(Left to Right) Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor
The suggestion that “Democracy or Else” comes from “…10 Easy Steps” on “How to Save America…” is an oversimplification of life and politics. Saving America takes hardened objective opinion, personal commitment, appreciation of the difficulty of being a political leader, and most importantly, the wisdom of Jesus Christ. Few, if any humans fit the bill. Voting is the only thing that everyone who believes in American Democratic leadership will agree upon in the author’s “…10 Easy Steps”. The steps are not easy. The authors appear to have committed some time and effort to fulfill some part of the 10 steps.
Many (not most) Americans may be willing to vote but working on a campaign for a candidate who wishes to be elected to public office will always be low on their list of commitments.
Human beings, let alone Americans, are an unruly lot. Making a living, waiting for a hand-out, hating or loving others, and experience of life come first in the minds of most, if not all, human beings. The nuts and bolts of what it takes to become an elected representative in Democracy are way down on the list of humans’ self-interest. American Democracy, like all known forms of government, have winners and losers. Democracy has the best odds for serving the self-interest of its citizens but remains far from the idealistic goals of the U.S. Constitution.
American Presidents have been good and bad throughout history. Only a few have earned the history of “good or great” for America. The checks and balances of American government, the ideals of the Constitution, capitalism, and expanded voting rights have saved American Democracy from tyranny. Anyone who has read this blog, knows there is an opinion about the next President’s election but “…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.
Alcohol consumption in Russia and a penchant for autocratic government are long-standing societal truths.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Dead Souls”
By: Nikolai Gogol
Translated By: Richad Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852, Ukranian novelist born in the Russian Empire, short story writer, and playwright.)
“Dead Souls” is not an enjoyable listening experience. Partly, because it is not a completed book. However, it is an insightful examination of a Russian culture in decline. It is an incomplete novel with its main character, Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, who uses his looks, intelligence, and guile to appear prosperous in a society of rich and poor.
Agriculture is the economic foundation of society in mid-19th century Russia. The industrial revolution is at its beginning.
As a clerk in the government, Chichikov is familiar with government policy of charging a tax for deceased peasants that are owned but have died on Russian’ landowners’ farms. Social position is associated with land and peasant worker’ ownership, i.e., the more land and peasants one owned, the higher a Russian aristocrat is esteemed. Chichikov has no land but has earned and saved enough money through his work with the government to come up with a scheme to improve his status in society. His idea is to travel the country, buy dead souls, and purchase a farm to show society he is an aristocrat of substance. By buying peasant souls and land he creates an image of wealth and aristocracy. His plan is to buy land with the money he has saved over years of work as a clerk. He assumes his position in society will be secured by land ownership and owned peasant’ souls.
Chichikov’s false image is assumed to be true in a high society soiree.
Chichikov clownishly approaches the daughter of a regional governor because of her beauty. His attention is noticed by some of the wags at the social event. Similar to today’s social media, word spread about Chichikov’s bizarre purchase of dead souls. Rumors about Chichikov proliferate like Alex Jones spread of lies in the 2022 Uvalde school children murders.
Various stories about Chichikov’s history spread from people who were at the governor’s soiree.
Many reasons were given for Chichikov’s purchase of “Dead Souls”. One who was at the dance alleges the purchases were to show Chichikov’s intent to kidnap the daughter of the governor. Chichikov hears of these ludicrous accusations and flees the small town in which the ball had been held. In fleeing, Gogol’s story provides more examples of Chichikov’s nature and reasoning with the objective of showing the dysfunction of Russian society and its aristocratic governance.
Chichikov meets with a successful Russian farmer who capitalizes on what is known of agricultural science of that time and uses that knowledge as an aristocratic owner of many peasants who worked his land.
Chichikov persuades this prosperous farmer to lend him 10,000 rubles to finance the purchase of a failing nearby farm. However, Chichikov’s deceptions catch up with him. He is arrested and judged by a Prince of Russia who plans to make an example of him. The story obscurely ends with the prince inferring a way out of the mess Chichikov’s lies engendered. The story is never finished. Reader/listeners never learn the fate of Chichikov. The high praise of the book rests with its exposure of the societal faults of mid-ninetieth century Russia.
Every national society has strengths and weaknesses. America is as vulnerable to lies and misrepresentation as Gogol shows of Russia. The best one gets from “Dead Souls” is a vague understanding of Russian society. Alcohol consumption in Russia and a penchant for autocratic government are long-standing societal truths.
It is up to Americans to vote or not vote. The choice today is between two old men. American Democracy will not fail because of either man’s election.
America’s Presidential debate on June 27th, 2024, was a painful reminder of advancing age. Whether to choose Donald Trump or Joseph Biden to be the next President of the United States is a “Hobson’s Choice”. Americans are compelled to vote for one of these two men or stay home and do nothing. Doing nothing means other Americans will decide who will represent Democracy to the world for the next four years.
It is up to Americans to vote or not vote for a President of the United States. The choice today is between two old men. Either will have the help of the three branches of the American government to do their job. American Democracy will not fail because of either man’s election to the office of President of the United States.
Lewis describes a view of the 1930s in America when Roosevelt was dealing with the Great Depression and Hitler was martialing a nascent Nazi party in Germany.
Some Americans viewed Roosevelt as a fascist because of his centralization of power in the government. Famous people of that time, like V.P. John Nance Garner, Journalist Walter Lippmann, and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy turned against Roosevelt’s early administration. On the one hand, “It Can’t Happen Here” may be interpreted as a critique of the Roosevelt Administration.
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945, WWII Italian dictator who founded the National Fascist Party.)
However, historians suggest Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” as a warning to Americans that a reaction to Roosevelt’s interventionist economic policies could lead to a fascist American President’s election.
A fascist President’s policies would promote rich white Americans at the expense of the poor, particularly women and racial minorities. Lewis had reservations about extending Roosevelt’s New Deal policies but recognized it had alleviated much of the Depression’s suffering.
That control and influence hugely increased in the Roosevelt administration and roosted in the 1950s with Eisenhower’s mandated Interstate Highway System, and signature Civil Rights Legislation. Some would argue it blossomed with John Kennedy’s election, expanded in Johnson’s administration, and changed direction with Reagan’s election. Between 1789 and today, American political parties have increased federal government control on, and influence of, American society. Those controls changed human’ and economic’ rights of Americans.
Humans are naturally motivated by self-interest. In a capitalist economy, money and power are synchronized influences on freedom. Those influences are concentrated in an election process largely dependent on Americans who have money and power. Without money, one is unlikely to be elected to a political office. The consequence is a distortion of equality of opportunity. Corporations legally recognized as individuals carry greater influence on electability than “one person, one vote”.
“It Can’t Happen Here” and the American Presidential election process clearly shows “It Can Happen Here”, and it has happened here.
In 2025, the American election process may allow an adjudicated felon become President.
Is belief in God worth it? Cook’s history of Muslimism and knowledge of Christianity makes one wonder.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“A History of the Muslim World From its origins to the Dawn of Modernity”
By: Michael Cook
Narrated By: Ric Jerrom
Michael A. Cook (British historian, scholar of Islamic History)
Professor Cook overwhelms one with a voluminous examination of the Muslim World. His history really begins before the birth of the Arab prophet, Muhammad (570-632). However, it is after Muhammed’s revelations and his departure from Mecca in 610 CE, when he and his followers settle in Medina (622) that a more documented history is revealed. Arabs are identified as a nomadic tribe who occupied the Arabian Peninsula, Syrian Desert, North, and Lower Mesopotamia in the mid-9th century BCE. However, notable territorial regions first appeared in the 14th century BCE with the Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian Empires. Cook suggests it is in the 7th century CE that Islam became a force in the Middle East. After the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 1632, the Rashidun Caliphate established itself (632-661 CE).
(REVIEWER’S NOTE: Scribes recreated fragmentary writings and legends of long-dead contemporaries of Christ in the case of the Holy Bible, just as the thoughts of the “last messenger of Allah” were recorded by scribes. Modern science experiments explain human minds do not precisely record or recall the past. The human mind recreates the past and fills any gaps that may arise to complete the mind’s imprecise memory. That is why scribes of biblical or unbiblical history are interpretations of facts of the past, and not necessarily accurate facts of the past.)
With the Ottoman Empire’s dissolution, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Montenegro, and Macedonia were formed. Three Arab nation-states came out of the Ottoman Empire’ dissolution. They were Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan (now Jordan).
Interestingly, modern states with the highest number of Arab speaking residents are Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Only Egypt and Sudan have more than 10% of their population who use Arabic as their primary language. The point of this realization is that Professor Cook is writing a history of the Muslim religion, not Arab culture.
What Cook shows is how Muslim belief (24% of the world population) impacted the world.
Cook begins to explain the split between Sunni and Shia religious belief. In the modern world, only Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq have Shia-majority populations with a significant Shia community in Lebanon and Afghanistan. Sunni religious belief is practiced by a majority population in nearly 20 countries with a mixture in Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan.
A surprising observation by Cook is the impact of a language change in the Middle East. Persian (aka Farsi) became a bridge connecting the diverse communities and histories of the Middle East. This change largely took place between the 9th and 11th centuries. It significantly impacted Muslim cultural beliefs and Iranian culture in general.
Cook implies the colloquialization of translations by Farsi (the language of Persia) of Arab Caliphate’ triumphs and failures molded beliefs of Middle Eastern nation-states. Countries like Iran either adopted or rejected Farsi’ stories of accomplishments and failures by Arab Caliphates. Some failure is associated with moral turpitude, a falling away from Qur’anic teaching, translated into Farsi language.
(Genghis Khan’s sons establish four kingdoms in the Middle East that lasted until 1368.)
Though none of the kingdoms practiced a particular religion, each influenced the course of religious acceptance. The environment they created allowed Christian religion to spread from Russian territory, while Turkish influence leaned toward Islam. Cook explains how young rebel leaders gained followers by successfully defeating and pillaging villages that had poor defenses. With each successful raid, more young people would join the raiders. This incremental growth led to the spread of Christian and Islamic religious influence, depending on the religious leaning of raiding parties.
Cook clearly illustrates how Arab culture lies at the heart of Islamic religion despite its nomadic existence. From the first madrasas (Islamic schools) in the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th century, the teachings of the last messenger of Allah began with Arabs. Cook explains the religion is unlikely to have flourished without other cultures adoption. Without Persian, Turk, Uzbek, and Mongol societies adoption, the spread of Islam would have been minimized. Muslim belief evolved in a cauldron of conflict with Christianity, Judaism, and other indigenous religions but prevailed as a religion with two faces, i.e., the Suni and Shia Divide.
Like the schism between Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shia believe in one God but differ in ways that have roiled the world. In the case of Catholics and Protestants, there is the French wars of 1562-1598, the European thirty years war of 1618-1648, and the Troubles in Ireland in 1968-1998. In the case of Sunni and Shia, there was the battle of Karbala in 680 CE, the Safavid-Ottoman wars in the 16th-17th centuries, the Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990, the Iraq War of 2003-2011, and the Syrian Civil War that began in 2011 and continues through today.
The forgoing were only human deaths within the two major religions of the world, while neglecting the atrocities incurred between Christianity and Islam. There were the Crusades between the 11th and 13th centuries, the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, The Siege of Vienna in 1683, and the Lebanese Civil War between 1975-1990.
Later chapters of Cook’s history reveal the conflicts between the Islamic religion and other major religions in the Middle East, besides Christianity. Many leaders are identified for historians who will be interested in knowing more, but the names become a blur to a dilatant of history.
Every nation in the world can learn from nation-state’ mistakes in history but none can right the wrongs of the past.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Empireworld” (How British Imperialism Shaped the Globe)
By: Sathnam Sanghera
Narrated by: Homer Todiwala
Sathnam Sanghera (Author, British journalist, born to Punjabi parents, graduate of Christ’s College, Cambridge with a degree in English Language and Literature.)
“Empireworld” offers a credible explanation of how the white race, which is a mere 16% of the world’s population, has dominated the world since the 17th century. That domination changed in the 21st century. It changed with the power and economic growth of the United States which is being challenged today by the Asian continent.
In earlier centuries, China, the Ottoman (modern day Turkey), and Mughal Empires (modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) were Asian rulers of the world
Prior to the 17th century, an empire’s influence is arguably more local because of transportation and communication limitations. What Sanghera infers is Great Britain’s growing power and influence surpassed others because of its domination of the sea and growing industrialization. The point is all of these 17th century nations were principally white with similar ambitions but only Great Britain influenced all foreign cultures of that period, with remnants extending into modern times.
France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and Portugal were major 17th century players, but Sanghera argues the imperialist drive of Great Britain surpassed its rivals.
Sanghera focuses on GB, not only because it was white but because it represented a national power’s intent to shape the world in its own image. The image Sanghera creates is not egalitarian, democratic, or sanguine. GB is characterized as dominating, autocratic, and driven by self-interest. He suggests eleemosynary efforts by GB to aid other countries was principally to guild their own lily, not to offer other countries self-determination or freedom. Indigenous populations are inferred to be expendable in Sanghera’s “Empireworld”.
“Empireworld” is a harsh judgement of Great Britain’s history of enslavement, indigenous displacement, colonization, and confiscation of other countries’ natural resources. Sanghera systematically builds a case for GB’s attempt to English-size the world. Parenthetically, this is the same view held by some nations about America.
Sanghera recalls the history of the slave trade, Great Britain’s colonization of India, Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, North America, and other countries of the world. He reminds listener/readers of the despoiling of the animal kingdom, confiscation of nation-state natural resources, enslavement of Africans, sexual discrimination, suppression of colonial sovereignty, displacement of indigenous peoples, and re-education or extermination of native countrymen who will not accept an English view of superiority and custom.
Sanghera tempers his harsh view of Great Britain in the conclusion of “Empireworld”. He does not deny G.B.’s history but acknowledges his countries’ measured efforts to right the wrongs of the past; which is of course not possible.
Sanghera cites G.B.’s belated effort to preserve animal and plant species, its acceptance of former colonies’ nation-state sovereignty, growing discussion about reparation for profiting from the slavery trade, endorsement of indigenous people’s rights, legislative action for sexual freedom, and support for improved health, education, and welfare of former colonial citizens. All are works in process, far from completion, but progressing. Sanghera’s history of Great Britain is the story of America. Though America avoided the colonial history of England, it has similar challenges.
Every nation in the world can learn from nation-state’ mistakes in history but none can right the wrongs of the past.
America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“A Map of Future Ruins” (On Borders and Belonging)
By: Lauren Markham
Narrated by: Gilli Messer
Lauren Markham (Author, reporter on issues about migration and human rights.)
Immigration is a hot subject around the world.
Lauren Markham writes a somewhat disjointed book about immigration to a Greek island between Turkey and Greece.
Lauren Markham offers a report of a fire in a Lesbos refugee camp in the small town of Moria on September 9, 2010. There were no deaths from the fire but the conditions of the encampment and the government’s response to the crises tell of unfair and inadequate treatment of refugees–reminiscent of other countries dealings with unwanted immigrants.
The camp was designed to hold 3,000 people but grew to nearly 13,000. Seventy percent of the migrants were from Afghanistan. A fire of unknown origin destroyed the immigrant’s shelter that gave notice to the world of the inadequate care offered refugees fleeing crime, poverty, and displacement in their home countries.
Turkey and Greece have a storied history of conflict that is reminiscent of the Afghanis flight from Afghanistan. Turkey’s most revered leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, ordered Greeks to leave Turkey in a mass exodus during his reign. Ethnic and religious differences between the Ottoman Empire and Greece came to a boil in 1923. Those differences are reminiscent of the escape of Afghanis from the restrictive life of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghanis chose a route from Afghanistan through Iran to Turkey to the Greek Island of Lesbos to escape the Taliban.
Markham shows the initial response of the Greeks was to aid the Afghanis in their flight but as the number of refugees grew, the burden became too great. The conditions of the encampment deteriorated, and the anger of the Greek government escalated. A fire of unknown origin began in the camp. Six Afghanis, two of which were minors under 18 years of age, were arrested and found guilty of setting the fire. Markham shows the evidence for conviction had nothing to do with truth but was manufactured by the Greek Court to find a verdict of guilt.
“Dallas, Texas, United States – May 1, 2010 a large group of demonstrators carry banners and wave flags during a pro-immigration march on May Day.”
The inference from Markam’s report is that America’s border state conflicts will, and undoubtedly have, resulted in unjust treatment of emigrants. The irony is that America needs emigrants to meet the needs of its economic future. America seems to be doing as poor a job of addressing immigration as the story of the Afghanis in Moria. America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.
NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“The Marshall Plan” (Dawn of the Cold War)
By: Benn Steil
Narrated by: Arthur Morey
Benn Steil (Author, American economist, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.)
Along with an excellent history of America’s “…Marshall Plan”, there is an underlying message about two fundamental forms of government, i.e., one is democratic, and the other is authoritarian. By democratic, the point is not to suggest an idyllic understanding of American Democracy or Russian Authoritarianism. America and Russia have experienced government leadership that has been both authoritarian and democratic in the last 248 years.
One can justifiably argue America’s authoritarianism was experienced during the four years of the Trump administration (2017-2021).
In contrast Russia’s democratic experience was with Mikhail Gorbachev between 1985 and 1991. Before and after Gorbachev, democratic experience in Russia has been limited and largely authoritarian. What history of “The Marshall Plan” shows is the superior value of American democracy’s checks and balances that limit the power of authoritarian leadership by preserving deliberations of the many as opposed to the one. Trump is not the first U.S. President that was an authoritarian.
George Catlett Marshall Jr. (1880-1959, American army officer and statesman, became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense during the Truman administration.)
History of “The Marshall Plan” shows the resilience of democratic versus authoritarian governance. Steil shows “The Marshall Plan” is created in a boiling cauldron of disagreement among branches of the American government. The conflicts between American political parties and departments of government hammered out a plan that improved the economies of both America and Europe after the war. America became the economic hegemon of the world as Russia’s economy collapsed in the early 60s.
MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping
One might argue the success of China came as a result of the more inclusive economic decision-making policies of Deng Xiaoping after Mao Zedong’s death. With Deng’s opening the economy to market-oriented reforms in 1978, worker efficiency and productivity created an economic boom in China. China’s danger today is the autocratic rule of Xi Jinping. His one-man rule nearly collapsed the economy during Covid 19. America certainly suffered from Covid, but Trump’s authoritarian character was mitigated by political resistance to unilateral Presidential decision-making.
Steil explains how Molotov delayed negotiations on “The Marshall Plan” with a clear understanding that only one person, Joseph Stalin, made decisions in Russia.
Steil notes “The Marshall Plan” is singularly disparaged and reviled by the Russian government. That disparagement is directed by one person, Joseph Stalin. There is no one to oppose the autocratic rule of Stalin’s leadership. Stalin’s opposition was either sent to the Gulag or murdered. A more balanced power structure in Russia could have taken advantage of “The Marshall Plan” but by singular fiat of one person (Stalin) implementation was impeded after WWII. The errors inherent in communism and authoritarian rule are being recreated by Putin in the 21st century.
What Steil shows is that many elected officials in America fought the principles of “The Marshall Plan”. However, the constant back and forth of government policy arguments in Congress aided European recovery after the war in a way that stabilized Europe and monumentally improved the economic growth of America.
Autocracies can certainly improve their economic growth at a pace that is superior to governments ruled by democratic ideals. However, autocracies have a much greater risk of following the wrong path because of their singular focus on one person’s decisions.
With an autocrat’s decision-making process, economic growth is either stultified or accelerated by one person’s decision. The give and take of democracies offer the benefit of different policy maker’s perspectives that may slow policy decisions but ultimately improve the odds of forward economic growth.
However, it is more than the availability of natural resources that made America economically successful. It is the give and take of a democratic process that protects America from the giant missteps that can come from autocratic rule. America has had some good to great rulers, but it has also had some ignorant, bigoted autocrats that offered minimal support for the ideals of freedom and equality. Checks and balances are the strength of American democracy. Presidents can make a difference, but they cannot destroy America’s future.
Ben Steil’s history of “The Marshall Plan” is not limited to an explanation of how important and difficult it is for America to pass important and consequential legislation.
The last chapters of Steil’s history of the Marshall Plan explains why Russia, China, and North Korea resent American encroachment on their spheres of influence. From the era of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong II, there has been a growing concern over the expansion of America’s sphere of influence. Steil explains how the Marshall Plan has morphed into a deepening concern about NATO expansion in Europe. As noted in an earlier, the Marshall Plan is created to aid recovery of countries that were impacted by WWII’s destruction. In reality it aided America to become the hegemon of the world. Because of the economic stimulus that revived the countries damaged by WWII, America created new markets for their industrial growth and international trade.
NATO is viewed as another vehicle for America’s economic growth and ideological threat to Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un’s control of their countries.
NATO is viewed as another invidious way for America to expand their influence and power. That seems an unfair evaluation of NATO. NATO is a military defense plan saying one country within NATO that is attacked by another country is an attack on all NATO countries. Every nation that has managed to become an independent country should be able to pursue there own interests.
The iron curtain is rusting but its characteristic strength remains a barrier to international cooperation.
The rusting of the iron curtain comes from the tears of societies ruled by authoritarians. The authoritarians are leaders who believe their way of life is threatened. NATO is viewed as a trojan horse at the front gates of non-aligned countries.
One decries Putin’s slaughter of Ukrainians in an unjust war. Life of innocents have no value to today’s Russian leadership that believes their power and way of life is threatened.
The real-politic of authoritarian’s desire for stability and power outweigh the value of human life. The same is seen in the plight of Palestinians who are not part of the October 7th’ terrorists’ killings and kidnappings but are in the way of Israel’s retaliation against Hamas.
In my amateur opinion, China, Russia, North Korean, or other authoritarian governments have a right to rule their countries as they wish. Their citizens are the key to every leader’s longevity. NATO is an effort to offer freedom of choice to established independent countries but if the citizens of a country support their leaders, there is little NATO, or any alliance can do, except to support the sovereignty of all nations.
NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.
Steil argues George Kennan is right in suggesting NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”. Kennan believed it would inflame nationalist beliefs and reinvigorate the Cold War. And so, it has–as evidenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s expressed intention and action toward Taiwan, and North Korea’s armaments support of Russia.
Kaplan’s last chapters make a powerful statement about what America should do to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Earning the Rockies” (How Geography Shapes America’s Role in the World)
By: Robert D. Kaplan
Narrated by: William Dufris
Robert Kaplan (American Author, freelance journalist and foreign correspondent.)
The first chapters of Robert Kaplan’s “Earning the Rockies” are a travel memoir about America’s growth from 13 colonies to 50 states, but the last two chapters are a considered view of America’s turbulent history and what its role should be in the world.
Kaplan explains he comes from a working-class family born in New York City.
Kaplan was raised on the East Coast. His father was a local truck driver. However, his son became a world traveler who served in the Israeli Army and worked as a freelance writer for major publications. His travels and professional reporting experience undoubtedly influence his opinions about America’s role in the world.
Kaplan’s book begins with memories of his beloved father who talked to him about many things, one of which is a belief that “Earning the Rockies” requires one to work to make a living before traveling across the country.
Kaplan writes an apocryphal story of traveling from the east to west coast of America. In reflecting on his journey, he recalls the history of America’s growth as a nation state. He writes of white settler’s displacement of Indian tribes, a journey to the northwest by leaders of the Mormon church, and America’s growth and assembly of 50 states.
In his travels, Kaplan recalls:
1) America’s territorial growth with the Louisiana purchase,
2) confrontation with Mexico to expand America’s southwestern border,
3) Civil War for union rather than separation, and
4) Mormon and other pioneer travels on the Oregon Trail to see and settle the Northwest.
America becomes an economic giant, protected from foreign interference by two oceans.
In the creation of this American geographic giant, many territorial, political, and economic conflicts were resolved. Kaplan’s suggests America’s economic growth is based on force and compromise, the keys to America’s future in the world.
Kaplan’s American heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush. He adds the extraordinary insight of Ambassador George Kennan in his analysis of Russia. Kaplan notes other great leaders, but these four Presidents and one diplomat are examples of how American leaders use force and compromise to enhance the power and prestige of democracy in the world.
Kaplan explains prudent use of force and compromise is how the west was won and how America became an economic hegemon, a power and influence in the world.
Union of America’s States was perpetuated with force, while compromise continues to ameliorate the wrongs done to Indians and Blacks in America. Those wrongs will never be removed but compromise inures to the benefit of future generations.
Kaplan argues there is an imperial elite in America, similar to what were the elite and influential intellectuals of ancient Greece.
China is working toward a similar goal with its expansion of aircraft carrier and warship production.
Prudent use of power and compromise will expand the influence of every country that has hegemonic ambition. The operative word is “prudent”, i.e., navigating life with a thoughtful eye toward the future. Of course, there is a difference between China’s and America’s political prudence, but each is able to draw on resources that can change the course of history. The question becomes which has a system of government that can prudently use force and compromise to achieve peace and prosperity?
China’s and Russia’s education system leans toward communism which has not had the same level of success as capitalism.
America’s imperial elite is largely educated in American’ ivy league schools. Kaplan suggests, to the extent that these elitists grasp the importance of using force and compromise through democratic capitalism, the world has a chance for peace and prosperity.
Kaplan notes there is less geographic advantage for America today because of technological interconnectedness.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 