Autocracy, Inc.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989 we in the west felt relieved and somewhat victorious.  We had broken the evil Communist Empire.  We felt liberal democracy was pre-ordained and it was just a matter of time before the rest of the world adopted our way.

Communism was an ideology that some believed in, but a few powerful people used it as a tool for their benefit.  According to author Anne Applebaum, the ideology we should be concerned about is autocracy.  In one sense it is not an ideology, but really just concentrating power for its own sake.  Loyalty to the leader is more important than ideology.

Westerners including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Angela Merkel honestly felt one way of bringing Russia and China to our way of freedom was through trade.  In reality we have enriched their economies and allowed them a bigger platform.  

Several nations are united in a distaste and fear of America with its western allies as a threat to their power.  Such diverse countries as Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba support one another.  India is one example of a democratic country that is dependent on Russian energy.

Vladimir Putin as mayor of St. Petersburg had control of export licenses and skimmed off the fees for himself.  A Russian company with Putin listed as an advisor was listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange that German Intelligence determined was laundering Russian money.  Before too long Putin became president, changing the rules so he could have more control.  Some westerners were ready to launder the ill gotten gains of the autocrats that was a key to their enriching themselves and maintaining power.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/freezing-order.html

Putin felt Ukraine should be restored to the Russian Empire.  Ukraine put up more resistance than expected.  At about that time I was tutoring a Ukrainian and we noted the newspaper coverage of the battles.  However when Hamas attacked Israel, the newspaper coverage immediately priortised the Mideast.  Iran was a financial supporter of Hamas and the Houthis. 

Autocrats use several tools to maintain their power.

The concept of sovereignty plays a critical role in their projection.  Many international groupings expressed the need for respecting human rights  Autocrats played that idea down and substituted the idea  each country was sovereign and no other country should interfere with its internal affairs.  Meaning that sovereign countries decide what is acceptable within their boundaries.

Controlling media is vital.  In their own country as much as possible  they take over media with perhaps two examples being Iran and China.  With modern technology autocrats have found ways to infiltrate their "enemies" who are more concerned about human rights.  Disinformation is spread through networks with their identity hidden.  The Russians do have presidential preferences, but are just as concerned about causing division to weaken democracies. They successfully delayed aid to Ukraine with outright lies.

Legalities are used to track activities of citizens.  Also to hide illegal money, many western countries do not require the name of the actual owner for many transactions. 

Autocrats finance terrorism (and divisive groups) to undermine their "enemies".   Russia supported Assad in Syria and went to the trouble of lying about the White Helmets. 

Assassinations are used not only to get rid of a particular person, but to intimidate others.  At the same time they do not want to draw too much attention that might turn off prospective allies or alert their enemies.  Two big examples were Khashoggi and Navalny.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/01/navalny-hero-for-our-times.html

How can we fight back? 

Autocracies do have different ideologies, but they seem to recognize a comradeship and support one another.  One illustrative example is Iran and Russia whose ideologies are opposed, but they share a hatred or fear of democracies.  Anne thinks the democracies need to think in terms of a war against autocracy and its predecessor, kleptocracy.  Isolationism is a fatal luxury.

Need to make transfers of money transparent.  Without making money laundering illegal, there would be consequences if both parties were public.  Some businesses and politicians like to claim they have nothing to do with autocrats while they enrich and empower themselves.

Disinformation needs to be countered.  The American Global Engagement Center set up in 2023 to try to pre bunk disinformation (as opposed to de bunking afterwards).  AI is going to be an integral part of our future and is likely to be abused by autocrats (and other greedy entities).  International standards of transparency should be established that would showcase abuse. 

Jake Sullivan warned of the danger of becoming overly dependent on China.  The Chinese government subsidizes businesses to seek inroads into other nations.  They put in an effort to develop (or steal) technology.  They are looking at Russia invading Ukraine and see that fits their idea of taking over Taiwan.

Anne Applebaum feels that the free world "understand that one nation's freedom can often depend on the strength of freedom in others."

Climate change is a global crisis that few in real power accept.  That could change by force of circumstances, but it is too risky to wait.  There are big obstacles in the way, but a concerted effort has to be made to make this a global effort.  Ironically the country doing the most is autocratic China who expects to gain economic power from their efforts.  One of their edges has been access to key minerals, but in fact there are other sources that need to be developed.  This is a topic in itself, but ridicule should be turned upside down so that deniers are made to feel it.

The book was published in 2024 so although Trump was vocal he didn't really get into power until 2025, but I would say Anne Applebaum would agree Trump is displaying a determination to be an autocrat.  Her book has many more details to help readers understand the problem that faces us.

Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine

As an outsider what I see in the "Holy Land" is hate and fear bundled together with ignorance.  No solution will work until much greater trust is somehow generated.  Outsiders feel compelled to take sides, but that isn't really fair as there is plenty of blame to spread. 

The two authors of "Tomorrow is Yesterday" Hussein Agha and Robert Malley were insiders who had been involved with advising leaders on both sides and were involved with negotiations. 

They noted an American bias.  It really goes back to 1948.  President Harry Truman was uncertain if he should support the movement to create Israel.  One of his more trusted friends, a Jewish tailor from his home town in Missouri encouraged him to support.  After knowledge of the Holocaust many Americans felt guilt as they had made it difficult for Jews to immigrate to the U.S.  Some admired the gutsyness of the Jewish pioneers.  The Jewish Christian traditions inclined Americans to think of the Arabic Muslims as uncivilized.

Religious fervor was a big factor.  While suffering in their wanderings after an expulsion, some Jewish thinkers felt they needed to get back to the Holy Land and organized the Zionist movement.  A small, but powerful group of Christians were able to find in the Bible signs of the second coming of Christ that required the Jews ruling in Jerusalem.  They became a significant factor in U.S. elections.  Israeli settlers seemed to feel they were fulfilling a historical religious calling.  A Jewish group, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee also provided political support for Israel.

On the other side, the Muslims felt they were owed the whole of Palestine.  Going back to World War I they had been led to believe if they helped the British defeat the Turks they would have more freedom.  The Arabs felt they had conquered Palestine and beaten off the Crusaders and Turks and had their own religious attachment for the land. 

In 1948 the United Nations had tried to set up two independent nations, but the Arabs felt they were entitled to all the land between the sea and the river and furthermore the Jews were intruders.  The Palestinians have been criticized many times for not accepting Israeli/American attempts at compromise, but they felt cheated.  

The two authors were personally familiar with Yasser Arafat, Mamoud Abbas, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and many others.  The American presidents felt restricted by their four year terms forcing them to rush. 

The two authors feel the two state solution has been advocated for many years and very likely to be resisted by elements on both sides.

They feel it is time to look for alternatives.  A single state giving equality to both sides with protections for minorities might work, but has a lot of resistance.  Nearby Lebanon has a constitution that is supposed to protect Muslims, Christians and Jews that worked very well until after World War II.  For awhile Jordan controlled the West Bank, but backed away from it over (among other concerns) worry of Palestinians dominating their country.  

To me the big problem was depicted in my first paragraph.  Fear and hatred need to be tamed and trust built up.  This would take more than an American presidential term.  The western world is gradually learning to live with Muslims (many escaping from Mideast turmoil).  Arab nations with oil wealth are now trying to exert international presence.  Many are open to trade with Israel.  A lot of political rhetoric in the U.S. has been about how repulsive Arabs and Muslims are and have been generating hate in American elections.

Trust is built by interconnections.  Two areas that have worked for others, are sports and arts.  Arabs/Muslims and Jews do business with one another in the rest of the world.  Western consumers are becoming fans of Muslim athletes and artists.  Education is critical and should include such things as cultural appreciation, history and logic.

Perhaps we expect too much.  Humans distrust strangers, but we function in big cities.  The world has become much more interconnected and we have mutual concerns.  Climate change affects everyone, even those who think it is a "con job."  Pollution has invaded pretty much everywhere.  All our problems could be obliterated in a nuclear war.  We would all be better off if more people would shift their focus to things that really matter.

Andrew Bacevich: The Age of Illusions

 Andrew Bacevich is a contemporary of Donald Trump, although they have never met they lived in what the Chinese like to call "interesting times."  Bacevich feels we have all been too obsessed with Trump, so much so that we have failed to understand the forces that made him possible.  

The Cold War ended between 1989 and 1991.  It was supposed to be about Capitalism and Communism and when the Soviet Union collapsed it was hailed as a victory for the freedom loving Capitalists.  Bacevich disagrees asserting that underneath all the ideological rhetoric the real dynamic was for power.

For many it meant a loss of a defined enemy.  The Military became voluntary which attracted high school grads at the poorer end of society.  University graduates and the better off declined to join the armed forces.  The American president became the most powerful man in the world as he can trigger a nuclear war.  There is a vetting process for presidential candidates and to be successful one must undergo scrutiny by Wall Street, the National Rifle Association, the Israel lobby, Koch Brothers, Evangelical churches among others.

During the Vietnam War, many either fought or resisted (by protests and draft dodging), but another group avoided it.  That included Donald Trump with more than one deferment.  Andrew Bacevich served in Vietnam and stayed in the military for 23 years and eventually became professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

George W. H. Bush was the first post Cold War president and one of his accomplishments was a successful limited war.  

Bill Clinton was very astute and charismatic.  Amongst other things he broke up restrictions for banks that later led to problems.  Pushed globalization which meant expanding U.S. trade with many American jobs being taken over by lower wage countries.  Considered risk averse he did authorize military actions in Somalia and the Balkans.

George W. Bush surrounded himself with "experienced" politicians who helped drag him into the Iraq War.  At one time he answered the rhetorical question, "Why do they hate us?' with the answer "They hate our freedom." 

Barack Obama seemed he would be a peacemaker, but got involved in mid East conflicts and Libya.  Infuriated some by negotiating the Iranian Peace Agreement and the Paris  Climate Change agreement.  Obamacare got off to a rocky start with much resistance.  Gay marriage became legal nationwide in 2015 with large parts of the country stunned by this new freedom.  Of course anything done by a black man would be resented by segments of the population.

As we approach the 2016 election, Bacevich draws our attention to the state of the nation.  Poverty on the increase, retirement savings diminished for many, homelessness on the upswing, opioid deaths at new record, 24.7 million fatherless children, 40% divorce rate, highest incarceration rate in the world, 40 million regular visitors to porn sites, 33,000 killed by firearms.  In short a lot of despair.

A lot of candidates offered to run the gauntlet.  Hillary Clinton expected an easy nomination, but ran up against Bernie Sanders who put up a strong fight.  He believed that without economic democracy there could be no political democracy.  Hillary with a slick presentation was able to finally win the Democratic nomination, over the man labeled a socialist.

On the Republican side, tv. celebrity Donald Trump assessed the situation better than his opposition.  Despite his libertine reputation he was able to garner evangelical support as unlike his rival for their support, Ted Cruz because he was more credible to bring about an abortion ban.   Michael Cohen had another perspective on this angle (and others).  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/11/disloyal-michael-cohen-version.html   Although easily criticized Trump was loved by the media who gave him a free platform for his message. 

Donald Trump is criticized for dividing the country, but Bacevich claims it was already divided and Trump not only recognized it, but was able to exploit it.

The book was published in 2019 and Bacevich was well aware of many flawed policies of Trump as well as his behavior and he was uncertain about the 2020 election.  He felt "...American politics will almost surely remain a forum for hyperbolic promises."  He would like to see stewardship replace the notion of increasing consumption.  He also feels freedom should have obligations as well as rights.

American technology has boosted speed, efficiency and precision, but has tended to convenience and relief from boredom which has allowed corporations to gain greater control of our lives.  We are close to the limit of how much we can tame nature and some acknowledge climate change is only one risk, with others including pollution, littering of plastic, deforestation, etc.  America is losing its political and cultural domination of the world.

In conclusion Bacevich maintains real necessary change will not come from the top down.  In the past Americans have rallied around causes that forced government action, such as abolition and the Depression.  He suggests a worthy and necessary cause is climate change which could lead to "a conception of citizenship that seeks to harmonize individual freedom with the common good."  His last sentence, "For Americans to shirk that responsibility will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps--or someone worse-to come."

Not sure how he would react to the January 6th insurrection, except as proof there are more factors involved than worship of Trump and that some elites will go to great lengths for power.  One hopes that Americans will wake up and realize there are higher priorities than hating others and overcome an egocentric view that they are "exceptional."  It will be difficult for Americans to accept they are only part of huge world.

My Favorite books of 2018

Getting set for retirement I thought it time to switch my emphasis from non fiction to fiction.  I have always found a well written novel is hard to put down.

FICTION

"The Son in Law" by Charity Norman was only discovered after a flukey chain of unlikely events, but I am grateful for grabbing it when I had the chance.  The book is beautifully layered.  You are introduced to a dramatic emergency resulting in death.  Next you go a few years ahead to learn some of the consequences.  Then you go back and gradually uncover the background.  The son in law (and you know he can't really be as bad as first portrayed) is hated by his in laws and the book really tracks how that originated and follows how it evolves.  Hint:  a masterpiece of mediation.  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/charity-norman-discovery.html







"MacBeth" by Jo Nesbo was an ambitious murder political power inspired by William Shakespeare.  I had studied MacBeth in high school but confess many details eluded me.  Nesbo has shifted from mediaevel times to more recent, but has retained many of the same names and locations.  Instead of royalty as the structure for power politics he uses a police force and municipal government.  A few other elements were three witches and obsessive washing of hands.  The real core is of power politics.  If you are familiar with Jo Nesbo you would be right to expect interesting violence.

"The Husband's Secret" by Liane Moriarty was enjoyed during my trip to New Zealand.  Vjakumar MK Nair, a Facebook friend from India first brought author to my attention   Enjoyable read.

"Manhattan Beach" by Jennifer Egan is an historical novel set before and during World War II.  The protagonist is a determined woman who becomes an underwater diver against male rules.  There is also a mystery involving gangsters and a missing father. 

"The President is Missing" is full of inside information and a complicated plot.  The president is on the verge of being impeached yet is faced with Armagedden and unable to tell his tormentors.  Reminds one of Bill Clinton when he first tried to kill Osama bin Laden.  There are mechanical details few would know about, but the most fascinating feature is the political games being played.  Government certainly seems complicated with the president constantly juggling a variety of balls.  It has the clever twists one would expect of James Patterson.  A few digs against the Russians and Saudi Arabians.  Towards the end there is a list of Democrat agenda with a few sly comments on Republicans, but since I think Hilary should have defeated Trump easily it only adds to my enjoyment of the book.


NON FICTION

 Lots of politics, but there is more.

21 Lessons for the 21st Century, another book by Yuval Noah Harrari that deserves recognition as the  best of the year.  Everyone should read his three books to better understand where humankind has been, where it is going and what needs to be thought for today. For more: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/12/21-lessons-for-21st-century.html

 

"The World as it is" by Ben Rhodes a speech writer and aide to Barrack Obama.  Ben traveled with Obama helping make many key speeches such as for Mandela's funeral.  He also wrote for Suan Rice for the initial response to Benghazi.  He points out Republican hypocrisy.  Also on Russian intransigence with Crimea.  He reported how Mitch McConnell blocked attempts to publicize Russian interference with the American election.  He was given negotiating responsibilities regarding improving Cuban relations and for cleaning up the mess left by American bombs in Laos.    For more check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/06/the-world-as-it-is.html

"What Happened" by Hilary Clinton, may be seen by some as excuses for her failure to get elected, but it a good analysis of the election and events subsequently learned reinforce her analysis. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/hillary-clintons-what-happened.html

"Hitmaker's"  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/hit-makers.html   Ever wonder what makes one piece of art/music become a hit while others never reach public consciousness?  A few answers, but you will have to work hard and be a bit lucky if you want to duplicate some of the success stories.  

I was persuaded to read "The Devil in the White City" by co-worker Susan Brinkmann.  An interesting juxtaposition of a serial killer and the Chicago World's Fair with its architectural wonders.  Makes for compelling reading.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/04/the-devil-in-white-city.html

"Rescue" was bought after author David Miliband was on tv with Fareed Zakaria.  While there are many countries acting out an anti-immigrant hysteria the refugee situation is desperate.  It is tied into not only political turmoil, but also climate change so we are all complicit.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/04/rescue.html

"Ordinary Virtues" illustrates that similar to the United States we in Canada do not properly appreciate real global thinkers.  Michael Ignatieff as part of a project identified four virtues (tolerance, forgiveness, trust and resilience) as essential for global survival.  Interesting examples around the world.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/04/the-ordinary-virtues.html

"Leonardo da Vinci" was another engrossing biography by Walter Isaaccson.  Da Vinci was more than a genius, known for his art, science and engineering.  You the reader would learn how deeply he understood the human body and how it was reflected in his art.  He truly is one of the giants that others have stood on.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/leonardo-da-vinci.html
 
"No is Not Enough" is another Naomi Klein well thought out protest book.  She sees greedy politics denying climate change.  She covers up to the Puerto Rico recovery which she asserts is undergoing shock therapy.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/naomi-klein-writes-another-insightful.html

"No Turning Back" is based on numerous interviews by journalist Rania Abouzail undercover from 2011.  She covers prisoners, refugees, fighters,one child.  Some of the complexities reported.

"Triumph of Christianity" by Bart D. Ehrman reports on how Christianity rose above many pagan religions to dominate the western world.  St Paul, more than the original apostles attempted to convert non Jews.  Constantine's conversion led many others to follow and gain momentum. Lots of psychological perspectives.  Read more: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/08/the-triumph-of-christianity-history.html

"That's what she said" is an interesting book advocating a bigger role for women for the good of us all.   The title comes from an experience where a man gets credit for an idea first voiced by a woman.  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/08/thats-what-she-said-book-worth-reading.html

"Fascism" by Madeleine Albright writes of parallels between Fascists and modern America under Donald Trump.  She grew up in Czechoslovakia and saw much of the political changes in Europe.  Her observations while working with Bill Clinton and since are very perceptive.  For more check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/10/fascism-warning-form-madeleine-albright.html

"Fear" by Bob Woodward makes it seem that there are endless anti-Trump books.  Hopefully the deluge will accomplish something constructive.  More at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/11/fear-another-anti-trump-book.html

"Prius or Pickup" starts with a simple premise that people can be reduced two major world views allowing for people that are somewhere in between.  Of course it is a little more complicated and they explore consequences. Read more: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/12/prius-or-pickup.html

In an attempt to better myself I am always on the lookout for self improvement books, particularly with a new slant.  "Get your Sh*t Together" by Sarah Knight comes from a different angle.  The language gets your attention and her advice is compatible with what you may have read elsewhere.  To follow further:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/03/get-your-sht-together.html

CANADA READS  was a mix of fiction and non-fiction.  For book lovers the contest where champions campaign and dissect each other is one of the most entertaining events of the year.  This year I was able to read the five nominations, but did so after the winner  "Forgiveness" had been declared. Read more including a brief discussion of each book.      http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/10/canada-reads.html

To see my favorite books from 2017:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/12/enjoyable-reads-from-2017.html

FASCISM A Warning from Madeleine Albright

The former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright has a history under fascism that she is reminded of under President Donald Trump.  The early sections on Mussolini and Hitler have many parallels to Trump.  Although she feels America can still redeem itself the warning should be taken seriously.  Her understanding, based on personal experience is well articulated.

The term Fascism has many interpretations, but includes authoritarianism and nationalism.  In modern times started by a small group in Italy after WWI who pledged to kill or die for Italy and adopted as a symbol elm rods bound together coupled with an axe called a fasces from Roman times.  Benito Mussolini a flamboyant speaker soon became their leader.

Mussolini originated the saying "drain the swamp."  To help consolidate his power he made deals with the Papacy and the monarchy.  By 1926 he was able to ban all competing political parties and even was able to control the Mafia.  Authority was emphasized over equality.  He started wars against Albania, Ethiopia ("the greatest colonial war in all history") and Libya.  In crowds he mocked foreign journalists.  He bragged about future growth, but had a poor understanding of economics.   He didn't trust advisors, instead relied on his instincts which he felt were superior

Hitler watched from afar admiring how Mussolini took control. He had been born in Austria but fought with the Bavarian army.  He was stunned by defeat and attributed it to Bolsheviks, bankers and Jews.  Hitler seized power in 1933 and required the army not to swear allegiance not to the country or to the constitution, but to him, Der Fuhrer.  He was pleased when foreigners criticized him as he visualized himself against outsiders.

Madeleine gives a little of her personal history.  She was a young girl when World War II broke out and her father was a diplomat for Czechoslovakia who fled to England to avoid the Nazis.  After the war he had been the ambassador to Yugoslavia, but her father sensed the Russian takeover in time to flee.  She explores several other parts of modern history including the Balkans, Venezuela, Turkey, Russia and Korea on a personal scale she had many of their leaders.

She had worked with the National Democratic Institute and involved herself with problems in the Philippines, Chile and South Africa.  In 2017 the United States was downgraded by the Economist's Democracy Index, not so much attributed to Donald Trump as a loss of confidence in institutions.  Too many citizens resented that the system seemed to protect the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  Madeleine feels "in a true democracy, leaders respect the will of the majority, but also the rights of the minority.  One without the other is not enough."

Democracy is helped by model leaders.  She mentions Abraham Lincoln in the United States and Nelson Mandela in South Africa.  Both men overcame lots of obstacles, but treated everyone fairly.

Madeleine is disturbed by some of Trump's words.  America first is not offensive in itself, but he projects a competitive atmosphere when there is great need for co-operation.  NATO should not be thought of as a business as it involves sharing training, intelligence and fighting.  Trust is critical.  His remarks against Muslims, allies and poor countries open up opportunities to enemies, especially China.  As most issues are complicated would be dictators offer simplifications.  Criticizing and insulting others appeals to those who feel aggrieved.  Avoid details that leave one open to attack.
 
Fascism is as easy as billionaires controlling the media, using influence to pick judges and restrict voting, shift public education to private and so forth.  Fascism can also come from leftist thinking.  Conservatives fear if the Liberals gain control they will discard the second amendment.

In concluding the book Madeleine suggests a series of questions that should have been asked of any candidate for president.  It appears not enough people asked Donald Trump or enough who listened for the answers.  Her warning should be heeded while it still possible to do something.

GEORGE LAKOFF SHOWS HOW TO FIGHT WORDS WITH BETTER WORDS.

Democrats are frustrated.  They believe the facts are on their side, but voters persist in giving power to the Republicans, even against their own economic self interest.  George Lakoff argues that facts and reasoning are not enough, but that there is a way to better understand how to influence voters.  Words count.

Reasoning is the main weapon of the Democrats, but they overlook the critical role of emotions.  The conscious reasoning process is already lagging behind the unconscious reflex process.  The unconscious mind is the base for much of our conscious decisions.  There is discussion of neural connections and how everything fits into established unconscious patterns.

Lakoff divides voters into two main camps--conservatives and progressives, but very definitely allowing that most people have a little bit of both tendencies.  There are words and images that tie to one "frame" and over a period of time can steer us in a direction.  If you listen you will notice that the Republicans use a well defined frame for their policies and criticisms.  Although no one is all conservative or all progressive in their thinking, we can be steered to accept views that are not totally compatible.

Conservatives are authoritarian and favour a strict father while progressives are more nurturing parents.  Discipline is admired as is loyalty by conservative.  An example is that when Bush pardoned Scooter Libby for taking the rap for disclosing a secret service employee (Valerie Plame) the conservatives admire the loyalty displayed.  Masculinity (including what I call machoism) is part of the same package.

A favorite word of conservatives is "entitlements" and they have even been able to get Democrats to use the term.  It infers that safety net items are luxuries that should not be taken for granted, instead of something voters help pay for.

A pet theme of conservatives is that regulations stifle business.  De-regulating is a stated goal of Republicans, but if you examine the issue what they really mean is the regulations that cut their ability to maximize profits.  A progressive view is that they are really protections.  Lakoff contends that if politicians always counter with the word "protection" voters would eventually realize they have a stake in the issue--their health, their financial security and their safety.  It really is a life and death issue, but Republicans have succeeded in picturing regulations as harmful.

Another beef he has is that conservatives are always wanting to privatize different functions on the premise that private business can do it more efficiently.  The problem from Lakoff's view is that the government has a mission to protect citizens while private businesses have profit as the highest priority.  These two goals are often in conflict.  One example of privatizing:  Black Water started by Erik Prince (brother to Betsy De Vos who wants to privatize education) contracts military services, but are not accountable.  It has changed ownership and names, but still active.

9-11 was initially termed a crime, but was soon converted to terrorism and the government adopted war powers putting Democrats on the defense.  Criticism was regarded as unpatriotic and many people suffered.

The Bad Apple defense is often used by conservatives.   A few underlings with little authority take the blame, not the organizers/designers.  One example was the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.  The big decisions were made at the presidential, cabinet minister level, but they were not punished.  Instead the focus was on low level employees.

Still another abused term is "Job Creators" who are pictured as the over taxed citizens who would start up factories, etc if they had the money when in fact no jobs are created without consumers spending money.  Usually poor people when given a little extra money are more likely to spend it than the rich who just gain a bigger cushion and the ability to better protect their greedy interests.

At the same time government jobs don't count.  Overlooking the fact that not only do their employees spend money, but they facilitate a wide range of market activities whether teachers, police, researchers, infrastructure workers or even bureaucrats.

Taxes are always bad and progressives are criticized as spendthrifts who take hard earned money from deserving people and waste it.  Expenditures should be seen as investments--facilitating and protecting.  Yes there is waste and government which is accountable to the voters must make efforts to control waste.

Metaphors are a critical tool we all use to make sense of things.  Republicans have mastered many of them.  Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/11/metaphors-are-more-pervasive-and.html

"The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt provides another perspective to my way of thinking.  It demonstrates some of the underlying differences that voters start with.  He is sympathetic to conservatives, but I think explains their base. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/02/the-righteous-mind.html

Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, "As we all become more interdependent we are more inclined to look for win-win solutions instead of win-lose."  It reminds me of  Stephen R Covey and the fear Republicans spout about dependency.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/09/dependency-new-hot-topic.html

Deregulation and privatizing mark a shift from a government with accountability to the public to a government (private business) without accountability to the public--from a government with a moral mission to a government with a mission of maximizing profit.

I

WHITE TRASH

America likes to promote itself as a classless society but with upward mobility.  Nancy Isenberg paints a different picture. Her premise is that from the beginning Americans have had a class system and uses "white trash" to illustrate.

The English were pleased to have a place to send vagrants and others.  The poor were seen as lazy.  North America was conceived as a vast vacant land, overlooking the fact that there was a large indigenous population.  Pocohontas, by marrying an English noble was seen by many as granting land to Europeans.  Many of them were purged by unintentional diseases, but as time went on by violence.

Tobacco was a product that required a lot of labour and after trying to work with natives, the European investors felt that black slaves would be more profitable.  Benjamin Franklin felt that black slaves made the English more idle and impotent.  William Byrd by 1726 declared that the poor whites in the south despised labour.

Voting in the early days was restricted to property owners.  Many of the poor white might have been called squatters and of course were not qualified to vote, but perhaps more importantly were seen as lower class.

Jefferson, a slave holder was a key person in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  It seems likely that he fathered some children with a mulato servant, although it is conceded it might have been one of his male siblings.

Andrew Jackson, war hero, Indian fighter, slave holder was considered by many to be of a lower class because of his temper and habits.  As President he ignored the Supreme Court and pushed for a removal of Cherokees.

The Civil War had consequences for social classes.  Large slaveholders naturally looked down upon non slave holders, but needed to convince the poor to help fight their cause.  They lied about northern wages, suggested the way to move up in class was to save and buy a slave.  As long as the blacks were beneath them, the poor were not at the bottom.  Many poor non slave holders felt they were being asked to fight a rich man's war.  A slaveholder with 20 or more slaves could be draft exempt while wealthier officers were able to get furlongs more easily.  By 1864 the south faced a manpower shortage and some advocated putting slaves into uniform to fight, but others felt that would elevate blacks and would cause another set of problems.

After the Civil War, freed blacks were in an economic dilemma and many ended up working for their old masters.  Chain gangs were hired to do much work and blacks were easily imprisoned for this purpose.  Poor whites were able to feel superior (but also a bit threatened).

When integration started in earnest, it was the poor whites who resisted the most.  The author provides an example from Little Rock of a particular white woman who verbally lashed out at young black students entering a formerly all white school.

Hillbilly, redneck and cracker are terms used to insult people.  The movie "Deliverance" (which I remember as a very scary movie) depicted lower class whites that were physically repulsive and violent.

On the other hand Elvis Presley helped launch a cultural revolution.  He  came from a very poor Mississippi family.  He took a lot of black music and brought it to the white world where especially teens were very excited while their elders were bewildered.  One of the things Elvis did for his mother was to buy her a chicken coop at Graceland.  Obviously broke down barriers, but still many people looked down on him and where he came from.

Lyndon Johnson was the son of a sharecropper and became a teacher.  As President probably more responsible than any other politician for the legal advancement of civil rights since the Civil War.  "If you can convince the lowest of white men he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."  He advocated for better education in the Appalachia region.  A smart man he used his background to gain votes and to understand the lower classes of the south.  Still many thought of him as crude.

Bill Clinton was yet another President from a poor southern background.  Raised by a single mother he overcame lots of obstacles to get an Oxford and Yale education that helped him to gain a political career.  He described himself as a Bubba, another derogatory southern term, but appealing to much of his audience.  He encountered lots of vile opposition often aimed at his mother who had several marriages and suffered addiction problems.

The author contends that politicians are able to convince large numbers of people to vote against their self interest by using class strategies.  Both parties carve the population into a wide range of classes and try to determine how best to build coalitions that will help them win an election.  The electoral college was designed to get acceptance of the smaller states.

The author points out that social mobility is greased by connections and class based knowledge.  The children of celebrities get a head start.  Another interesting observation is that dating services are designed to match compatible people which means to the author, class comfort.  Another ironic observation is that Europeans have more social mobility than Americans.  An eye-opening good read.

Hillary Clinton Republican target

Bernie Sanders would have been my choice, but now it boils down to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Of course voters can partly undo that vote by how they vote for senators, representatives and governors.  Or they can vote for a third party or not vote at all.

Hillary has always drawn critics and she has made her share of mistakes, but most of the fuss is really petty nitpicking that should be dismissed by rational people.  Conservatives have always to one degree or another resented strong women and she draws more attention than other woman.

Pretty well all of the scandals against the Clintons have been disproved, but they keep coming up.  Voters must think there is some fire with all that smoke.  Perhaps there is, but one should also consider who is generating the smoke and why.

The core Republican agenda is economic with some legitimate concerns about freedom, but mostly freedom to exploit other people.  Conservatives by definition like the status quo and resent outsiders trying to widen their comfort zone.  They are smart enough to realize that to get the masses to vote against their own economic interests they will have to enlist other grievances.  Hence we have a marriage between fiscal and social conservatives.

Donald Trump has accused Hillary of being an enabler for her husband's adultery and there is some truth to that although Trump is deflecting from his own philandering.  Outsiders can never really know what goes on inside a marriage.  She tolerated her husband's "cheating" and tries to present a facade of marital unity seemingly calculating where she gets the most power.  For his part Bill also realizes she is an asset for his goals.  This is a very delicate matter that no outsider can really judge.  Jenny Sanborn divorced her husband, the Governor of South Carolina after he had a well publicized affair and has faded from national prominence.

The Clintons have grown rich through politics (not by any means suggesting bribes) and perhaps that has coloured their thinking.  Again likely true to some degree, but they both seem very involved in public service that has indeed made a difference.

Benghazi is unbelievably ridiculous.  The Republicans tried to exploit that while it was actually happening.  They continue to bring it up.  It is disgusting.  The situation might have been handled differently, but the Republicans do not have clean hands on this issue by their stinginess on security budgets and their willingness to divulge names.  Running embassies in hostile foreign countries has always carried a risk which thankfully some people are willing to take.  The Republicans had far more embassy attacks with more deaths under George W Bush.  They should have allowed for the risks, but chose to lower budgets.  But like other accusations the whole issue puts a little doubt in people's minds.  On the other hand a few others are amazed that there have been no high level war crimes investigations concerning the Iraq  Invasion and not very much media or Republican attention.

The Emails.  The FBI director who made the most serious claims is a strong Republican, but even he was forced to admit she did nothing illegal.  The history of Republicans and emails has involved mass deletions that were for the most part very suspicious.  After consulting with others she chose convenience which is what most people would do.

Criticisms over the Clinton Foundation are troubling.  There has always been some arm twisting to get people to donate and no doubt some donors saw an opportunity to lobby their interests.  There are literally millions of people benefiting from Bill Clinton's program and it has passed scrutiny of watchdogs.  They shouldn't ignore perceptions, but should not be ruled by them either.

Nobody has endured as many "scandals" as Hilary Clinton.  They have pretty well been dealt with in a legal sense, but conservative critics keep reminding people about all the smoke.  A lot of it is to distract from their own positions which disadvantage poor people and their own scandals.  Donald Trump has a lot of dirt of his own.

Yes many of her decisions do seem like calculations--the TPP, the Iraq War stand out for me.   That is what politics is about.  Without power you can do nothing, but to get power you have difficult choices and sometimes voting against your beliefs is wise or at least political.  We are often forced to re-evaluate our choices.

The one lie that disturbed me was the one about the danger she claimed on a airplane landing in the Balkans.  Memories can get mixed up, but glorifying oneself is to be avoided.

Donald Trump main strategy is to criticize and to use hyperbole.  He claims he can do a better job, but is vague on details.  His qualifications are very questionable, and his demeanour is counter productive.

I think Hilary like her husband and Obama has an idea of what she thinks is right and what is important, but also realize she has to cater to vested interests to achieve the best balance.  In her campaign she declared she wanted to improve the Affordable Care Act incrementally while Bernie really wanted to upend the apple cart at some risk.

It may not be an ideal choice, but it is clear.  The smoke is meant to be misleading.
You can inch forward or take a giant step backwards.  In an earlier blog I commented that the world looked on the American election as a kind of IQ test.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html

Thirteen Days in September

The news brings us updates of international conflict every day.  Sometimes the situation seems hopeless.  With this book, "Thirteen Days in September" author Lawrence Wright brings us to a time when three men were able to deal with great difficulties to fashion an agreement that has had a positive effect ever since.  The author argues the timing was wrong, the personalities not conducive, however in the end Jimmy Carter's determination was critical.

Lawrence provides a lot of background information that really sets the stage for why the Middle East is such a tense place.  Also a lot of in depth personal history of not only the main characters but also many of the supporting cast.

The three men, Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat had conflicting personalities  and viewpoints with one shared trait.  They all had religious beliefs, but they were in some ways counter productive.  Menachem Begin felt that the Jews deserved more land than they were originally given.  Jimmy Carter, a Sunday school teacher, then as now felt settlements on occupied lands were a provocation.  Anwar Sadat felt Egypt should represent the Arab and Muslim grievances.

Jimmy Carter wanted to be a facilitator letting the other two work out differences, but that failed.  Originally thought the process required 3 or 4 days, but dragged on.  Jimmy and his American team (Zbigniew Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance were key) then made proposals and looked for some sign of bending which occurred only after a lot of stress.

Tempers flare as there is a lot of obstinacy.  Each leader had his flaws--in the end political realities played a role. Once they had invested some effort they each needed something to show for the effort. Egypt wanted land, Israel wanted better relations--Jimmy Carter needed something to make him look good.

A few oddities included that Sadat was descended from a slave and had negro blood.  Boutros Boutros-Ghalli who later became prominent at the Untied Nations was a Coptic Christian, and married a Jew.  Zbigniew Brzezinski and Menachim Begin both shared a Polish heritage and enjoyed playing each other in chess.

In the end diplomatic relations were established between Israel and Egypt that also facilitated trade benefits.  The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt including oil resources.  The Suez Canal is accessible to everyone.  A surprising detail is that since 1979 there has not been a single violation of the terms.

The Palestinians were abandoned as their inclusion would have negated the rest of the treaty that could be worked out.  Originally they were an important component, but Begin would not budge and both Egypt and United States desperately wanted something to be agreed upon.

There was quite a political risk for Jimmy and in the end it wasn't enough.  The Iran crisis and a stagnant economy did him in.  Nobody since has made as much progress and the agreements were not enough of a building block to stop violence.  Jimmy Carter has said (and I agree) that the biggest obstacle is Jewish settlements on occupied land.  That is such an emotional issue on both sides that nothing will go forward until it is resolved.

Another step towards peace was taken under Bill Clinton, another Democrat president when he facilitated an agreement between Jordan and Israel in 1994.  Still no real impact on the Palestinians.

The Social Conquest of Earth deals with the really BIG questions.

Bill Clinton was asked by Fareed Zakaria to make one book choice and he insisted on making two--this was one.  It asks the really big questions.

The author, E. O. Wilson takes us through an evolutionary history of humans with some cultural elements.  Our survival was precarious with lots of little details that are critical--grasping hand, capturing fire, having a nest to defend,  sex and bonding for more effective parenting, bipedal posture to free hands and give a different perspective.  Intelligence developed as memory increased.  All critical details that led to our present abilities.

Humans see themselves as at the top of the heap.  Wilson studied insects and noticed that some insects such as ants, termites, wasps and bees had a social organization equal to humans.

Insects are useful as a comparison point for social organization.  A  key thing for eusocial insects is a nest to defend.  Once that is established specialization can move to more complexity so that the whole colony is strengthened.  Humans are in a parallel universe.

Genetic adaptations are very common and when coinciding with the right circumstances can expedite cultural adaptations.  Most adaptations are minor and are not carried on.

Humans do most of their perception through sight and sound whereas almost all other species rely more on the  chemical senses, taste and smell.

Along with Charles J. Lumsden, E. O. Wilson developed the concept of "gene-culture coevolution." Culture and genetics developed hand in hand.

Religion is thought to be a type of glue holding us together in groups.  I have been encountering this theme elsewhere in recent books, but the foundation is better established here.

Papal policy has been against contraception on the basis that the only purpose of sex is procreation.  The author points out that in evolutionary terms sexual pleasure helps to bond males to females.  He also feels that homosexuality serves a benefit to the group by providing diversity.

The arts have played a role in evolution.  Cave paintings go back thousands of years into pre history.  It is difficult to prove pre historical music because no one kept musical scores, but we do know there were rudimentary instruments.  Wilson speculates that music combined with other arts helped invigorate humans and points out that it does affect the structure of our brains.

For me wrestling between the merits of non fiction and fiction has been a struggle.  Non fiction is about the truth, isn't it?  E O Wilson sees another path and quotes Picasso, "Art is the lie that helps us see the truth."

In the prologue he refers to a famous Paul Gauguin masterwork with some description and notices that there are three sentences .  "D"ou-Venons Nous.  Que Sommes Nous.  Ou Allons nous."  Translated they become the biggest questions of the book, "Where have we come from?  What are we?  Where are we going?"  At the end we see a reproduction of the art work.

Wilson feels earth could be a paradise for all humans.  Two concerns he brings out are the need to deal with climate change and diminishing biodiversity.

All though the book one is confronted with profound thoughts.  A few insights (for me) have been highlighted but it is important to understand the development.  This book is well worth reading and I suspect any other books by E. O. Wilson.  A source for further E. O. Wilson insights is http://eowilsonfoundation.org