"Trump Redux"

 The photo is from the October 12 edition of The Spectator World.

If Democrats and Republicans offered sensible alternatives, choices would be easier for those like me. But we live in the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Trump Redux”

October 30, 2026

 

“The unanswered riddle of Trump redux seems to be what combination of the belligerent and the

pacific in his political programme and personal make-up will find expression in his foreign policy.” 

                                                             John Harper

                                                            “American Isolationism and the Riddle of Trump Redux”

                                                             Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 07/02/2025

 

Two years into Mr. Trump’s second term, confusion and chaos reign where I had hopes clarity and order might rule. While tariffs have always existed, they have become more controversial, especially when applied to neighbors like Canada and Mexico. Iran has long threatened Israel, the United States and western nations, but the war against them lingers. Talking is almost always better than fighting, but if the President, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi meet at the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China next month, and they carve up the world, the United States will become an accessory to our enemies and even more of an unreliable ally to our friends in the Pacific and Europe.

 

Politics at home have become ugly. Mr. Trump is loose with his language, but the Socialist policies of Democrats on the far left – those that seem to be in ascendancy – would sink our economy and markets. Corruption permeates both parties. Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist (and politician since age 40) has an estimated net worth two and a half times that of the constituents he represents in Vermont. It is doubtful that he made any money in the private sector, as his jobs before he became the Mayor of Burlington in 1981 included carpentry, psychiatric aide and teacher. While President Trump, according to Forbes, lost about a billion dollars during his first term, he has more than made up for it in his second term. NPR (admittedly a biased source) puts his gain thus far at $2.7 billion. Contrast the accumulated wealth of Clinton and Obama to Truman.

 

With the exception of John McCain’s bid for the Presidency in 2008, I have been unhappy about our choices for President thus far in the 21^st century. I had hopes that Mr. Obama might heal persistent racial divisions, but instead he widened them. I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 but perfunctorily. I voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 against the spiteful Hillary Clinton but without enthusiasm. In 2020, President Trump, who I felt had done well (except for his initial handling of Covid), got my nod against a mentally diminished Mr. Biden. And in 2024, with President Biden’s failing mental faculties becoming more obvious and an unhinged Ms. Harris replacing him, I saw no choice but to pull the lever for Mr. Trump a third time, even though disturbed by his January 6, 2021 antics.

 

Now, here we are, less than a week away from mid-term elections. Elections in the “deep blue state” of Connecticut are a Sisyphean task for Republicans. Both U.S. Senators and all five Representatives are Democrats. Both gubernatorial candidates for governor of Connecticut are from Greenwich, which does not seem to be representative of the state. But Ned Lamont is seeking a third term, while I believe governors should be limited to two terms. 

 

I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens natural rights; to uphold a Lockean Social Contract where citizens give up certain rights for safety and stability, while allowing them to pursue their self-interests; and to provide a public education and the infrastructure necessary for individuals and private businesses to flourish. I believe that people are equal before the law and in their rights, but I recognize we are not equal in abilities – physical or mental – or in wants. I believe society should strive for equal opportunity yet we should not be blind to the elusiveness of that goal. Government assistance should be reserved for those truly unable to care for themselves, because of age, illness, infirmities or poverty. 

 

The country drifted after the defeat of Soviet Communism in December 1991. The United States found itself the sole super power in a disharmonious world. Yet a false belief that world peace was possible prevailed. The percent of the U.S. federal budget spent of defense fell from almost 24% in 1990 to less than 13% in 2024. (It is expected to rise to 18% in fiscal 2027). But history did not end and enemies to democracy did not disappear, as 9/11 demonstrated, and as Israel has always known. Dictators did not surrender. The nexus of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba represent a more powerful adversary than did the old Soviet Union. Cyber threats are more likely than nuclear annihilation.

 

From what I have seen and read, Mr. Trump has no ideological beliefs. He prides himself as a deal maker. I doubt he has read either Adam Smith or Karl Marx. He is a disruptor. His antics and ill-manners upset many of our European allies. Yet those allies have responded by increasing defense budgets. On the other hand, their destructive social welfare system, lagging demographics, restrictive regulations, open borders (made worse by a failure to assimilate a growing migrant population) have resulted in civil unrest and anemic economic growth. 

 

Mr. Trump’s unpredictability can be a strength when dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, but his lack of social graces and respect for his opponents are off-putting in a world where steadfastness regarding principles is necessary, and compromise is essential to both domestic and foreign policy. His biggest failure is his unbridled egotism; one consequence is that his approval rankings are among the lowest for any modern president. Will those statistics be reflected in next week’s election? Mr. Trump is expected to campaign (or has campaigned) across 35 locations in the three weeks prior to election. He is not trying to convert independents or undecided voters; he is trying to ensure his believers actually go out and vote. Personally, I never respond to polls and I am suspicious of their accuracy; by next Wednesday we will know. 

 

I find myself in agreement with the conclusion of an essay by Christopher Caldwell in the October 12, 2026 issue of The Spectator World: “In contrast to his first term, which was craftily undermined by his Washington adversaries, Trump’s second term has been carelessly destroyed by his own flawed character.” Need one say more.

 

...........................................................................

 

Ideally, we need a leader with character – one who leads by example, is honest with the people, is self-deprecating and takes responsibility when things go wrong. We want an individual who restrains government spending, yet keeps us safe from enemies, while promoting personal and economic liberty. Is there such an individual?

"Year-End Thoughts on Today's Politics"

 We will be away through Christmas visiting children and grandchildren, so this may be my last essay for 2026; though I am working on two personal essays and a book review. But if this is the last one, I wish you the happiest of holidays and the healthiest of New Years.  The attached photo was taken this past summer of Caroline and me on the beach in Sea Bright, New Jersey – where Caroline spent summers growing up and where we have been going for the past sixty years.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Year-End Thoughts on Today’s Politics”

December 19, 2025

 

“For last year’s words belong to last year’s language.

And next year’s words await another voice.”

                                                                                                                T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

                                                                                                                The Four Quartets

                                                                                                                “Little Gidding,” 1942

 

Year-end is a good time to take stock of where we are and where we may be headed. This year those questions seem particularly relevant. Polarization defines politics today. Extremists in both parties barely talk to one another, yet they dominate the news. Perhaps it is age, but I rarely watch televised news. Whether it is Fox on the right, or MSNBC, CNN or any of the networks on the left, newscasters and commentators, with rare exceptions, preach to their choirs. While pundits and politicians reflect this division, the rest of us are at risk of a similar hatred infiltrating our beings. We cannot let that happen. While Trump gets blamed – and he has done nothing to abate the loathing that divides us – this divisiveness has been building for two decades, at least since the Iraq-Afghanistan war.

 

While extremists consume most of the oxygen, most people are, I believe, centrists in their beliefs and in their politics. We should always remember that the extreme right (fascism and Nazism) and the extreme left (socialism and Communism) have more in common than differences. Both are authoritarian. Both rely on ignorance and dependency on the state. Both are evil. Hitler was responsible for an estimated 13-17 million deaths; Stalin for between 10 and 20 million, and Mao Tse-Tung for an estimated 38-107 million lives. Both are elitist, in that only a minority are party members. Vladimir Putin, with an estimated net worth of $70 billion, is considered the world’s wealthiest political leader, despite Russia being a failing state. Xi Jinping’s wealth is unknown but estimates put it in the hundreds of millions. Politics, which is profitable for dictators, is not a horizontal line, with a left and a right, but a vertical between authoritarianism and anarchy.

 

And the world is changing, not just in what technology has wrought in terms of social media and in how artificial intelligence will affect jobs and lives, but also geopolitically: In 1990, Japan and the Soviet Union were the second and third largest economies. Today, Japan is fourth and Russia is ninth. In 1990, neither China nor India ranked among the top ten world economies. Today, they are second and fifth, respectively. 

 

Much has been written about the recent National Security Strategy report. To the New York Times, its key point was “hostility to Europe.” The Wall Street Journal headlined: “U.S. flips history by Casting Europe – not Russia – as Villian in New Security Policy.” The Economist wrote of President Trump’s “bleak, incoherent foreign policy.” Those pieces are mostly balderdash. The best piece I read on the report was by George Friedman, the Hungarian-born, 76-year-old political scientist, author and founder of Geopolitical Futures. He wrote that its three main points are: 1) “The United States wants close economic ties with China, as well as an end to military tensions;” 2) “Europe is responsible for its own defense and is now capable of defending itself;” and 3) “The primary strategic interest of the United States is the Western Hemisphere.” The document, Mr. Friedman added, “is simply the summation of the reality the U.S. is now in.”

 

Nevertheless, there is much that concerns me beyond polarization, the effect of AI on jobs, and the role of the U.S. in the world as it is: Rising anti-Semitism across the globe, as the horrific carnage on Australia’s Bondi Beach demonstrated – only the latest example; federal and state debt, fueled by unsustainable welfare programs; demographics, which have us with more people over 65 than under 18 – a problem for every country in the West, except Israel; President Trump’s state capitalism, where the state does not own businesses but uses its power to influence behavior; The effect of newly elected New York City Mayor, Socialist-leaning Zohran Mamdani, who in his victory speech on November 4^th declared: “We will prove there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about” – how different from President Reagan in 1986 when he spoke of “...the nine most terrifying words in the English language.”; the seemingly indiscriminate removal of aliens without due process, some of whom have lived and worked in this country for years; capital markets where interest rates were kept excessively low for much of the past decade and a half, which fueled asset appreciation, sending stocks to historically high multiples, and which propelled gold and silver prices and promoted questionable assets like crypto currencies; and an economy, freed from excessive regulation and taxation, that is burdened with tariffs. Overseas, Russia is a wild card, as its population and economic clout are in decline, yet it remains the country with the most confirmed nuclear weapons – 5,500. The image of a cornered rat comes to mind. China’s Belt & Road Initiative, first announced in 2013 as a means of connecting Asia, Europe and Africa, now operates in over 150 countries, including 53 countries in Africa, 29 countries in Europe and 22 countries in Latin America. Propaganda and politics willfollow.

 

On the other hand, all is not bleak. Our borders have been secured; criminal illegals are being tossed out; climate scare mongers appear to be in retreat, as does Wokeism. Universities seem to be moving toward greater freedom to speak, to disagree. The Supreme Court, under John Roberts and with the appointees of Donald Trump in his first term, has witnessed a return to common sense. Europe is beginning to acknowledge that unsustainable welfare programs have hampered living standards and economic growth, and that they must pay a greater share for self-defense. The Abraham Accords give hope for peace in the Middle East. The deployment of several naval vessels from the Fourth Fleet to waters off Venezuela is not just about halting the drug cartels; it is an indication that the U.S. takes seriously the incursion of China, Russia and Iran into the Western Hemisphere. As for AI, keep in mind that creative destruction is a natural condition of economic growth in an innovative society. As Brian Gross wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “...when tools change human creativity doesn’t shrink, it expands.”

 

So what is on order for 2026, besides my 85^th birthday next month, February winter Olympics in Italy, the celebration of the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4^th, and mid-term elections on November 3rd? I am neither a prophet nor a seer, so haven’t a clue. My concerns stated above are for situations over which I have no control. I am fortunate in my family, my wife, children and grandchildren, and in the large extended family that includes my siblings and their families. I am fortunate in the friends I have, some of whom I see weekly at ROMEO lunches, and others that I see rarely but are often in my thoughts. As for Mr. Trump, I am not a personal fan. I am old enough to believe that civility and manners serve us well. But I do believe that, with his lack of an ideology and for all his faults, he sees the world as it is, not as some would like it to be. And he has provided Americans a cultural self-confidence, something missing when DEI reigned. For that I am thankful.

 

I thank you for your forbearance with my essays over the past year, and I send you best wishes for the Holidays and wish you good health and happiness in the New Year.

"Communism, China & Senator Cotton's New Book"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Communism, China & Senator Cotton’s New Book”

March 28, 2025

 

“Last month, Senator Tom Cotton published what might

be the most important book of the 2020s on China.”

                                                                                                                Jimmy Quinn

                                                                                                                National Review, March 20, 2025

 

“I have seen the future, and it works” – words written by Lincoln Steffens following a visit to the newly formed Soviet Union in 1918. Last year, while in Shanghai for a store opening, Apple CEO Tim Cook was obsequious in his praise of China: “I think China is really opening up…it’s so vibrant and so dynamic.”

 

For more than a hundred years many, supposedly perceptive Western geopolitical analysts, journalists and business leaders, have chosen to ignore the evil that is Communism. In his 1919 book, Ten Days that Shook the World, American journalist John Reed, scion of a wealthy Oregon family, wrote sympathetically of the Russian Revolution that he had witnessed in Petrograd. Warren Beatty turned the book into a 1981 film, Reds, nominated for an Academy Award. In 1937, after spending months with Mao Tse Tung’s Red Army, American journalist Edgar Snow wrote Red Star Over China, a glowing portrait of life in Communist areas. He contrasted his experience with Mao and his Communist followers with his depiction of the gloom and corruption of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang’s government, which relocated to Taiwan in 1949.

 

For Americans, Communism has never approached the revulsion felt for Nazism, yet the similarities are far greater than their differences. In the February 5, 2018 issue of The New York Review of Books, Ian Johnson responded to an earlier article by Timothy Snyder, “Who Killed More, Hitler or Stalin?” Johnson wrote that the question was slightly off: “…it should have included a third tyrant of the 20^th Century, Chairman Mao. And not just that, but that Mao should have been the hands-down winner, with his ledger easily trumping the European dictators’.” According to his research, Stalin killed somewhere between 6 and 9 million people, Hitler between 11 and 12 million, and Mao between 35 and 45 million, most during the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Nazism and Communism both practice(d) genocide, are (were) authoritarian, and have (had) no regard for individual rights or human life.

 

Repression and intimidation in China did not end with Mao’s death in 1976. While accurate numbers are not available, estimates of those killed in 1989’s uprising in Tiananmen Square range from a few hundred to several thousand. Since Xi Jinping became President of the People’s Republic of China in 2013 more than a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang Province have been placed in internment camps. No one claims to know how many have died. The province has a population of 24 million, half of whom are Uyghurs, so almost one in ten Uyghurs have been confined. The BBC has reported that Uyghur women have been sterilized, and former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has called what has happened in the province “genocide and crimes against humanity.” In a review of Emily Feng’s book Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, Maura Elizabeth Cunningham wrote in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal: “Under Mr. Xi, the definition of what makes a person ‘Chinese’ has become increasingly narrow: someone who exclusively speaks Mandarin, marries Chinese and has two or three children, respects the leadership of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), accepts censorship and surveillance and recalibrates in accordance with each new political campaign…” In the Introduction to his new book, Voice for the Voiceless, the Dalai Lama wrote about Communism and Tibet, which he was forced to leave in 1959: “The issue is not about the matter of economic development…The issue is about a people’s need and right to exist with their distinct language, culture, and religious heritage.” An impossible dream for Tibetan Buddhists in China today.

 

China has a population of about 1.4 billion, of whom about 100 million (or 7%) are members of the Communist Party, the second largest political party in the world (in a one-party state!), but one not open to all. Officers of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are members, but most enlisted soldiers are not. While China, according to official statistics, has the world’s second largest economy, as measured by GDP ($18.8 trillion versus the U.S. at $28.2 trillion, its GDP per capita is $13,400 versus the U.S. at $83,000. Indicative of its concentration of wealth, China has, according to the Hunan Global Rich List, 814 billionaires, more than the U.S. That number, according to the Washington Times, includes Xi Jinping, who has never worked in the private sector. Mr. Xi has been hailed for eradicating poverty in China, but, as Bitter Winter (a European magazine that focuses on religious liberty and human rights) has stated: “Xi Jinping is a master in the Orwellian art to redefine the meaning of words to suit his propaganda.” In 2021, he put poverty at below $2.30 per day. The issue of how many Chinese fall below the poverty line was raised before Xi Jinping’s presidency, in Will the Boat Sink the Water? by Chen Guidi’s and Wu Chuntao, published in 2004. 

 

China represents a clear and present risk to Western liberalism – economically, militarily and culturally. 150 countries, representing three quarters of the world’s population and over half of the world’s GDP have signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s banks – backed by the CCP – have funded projects, including railroads, ports and gas pipelines in countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Latin America. Sean Thomas, in the April edition of The Spectator, wrote: “China is now the biggest trading partner for virtually every South American nation, supplanting the U.S. in the last decade.” While their military budget is less than ours (assuming we can believe their numbers), their standing army is twice ours – the largest army in the world. China has constructed artificial islands and military installations in the South China Sea, through which travel one third of all global maritime trade. In the 2022-2023 academic year, American universities enrolled almost 290,000 Chinese students, while 800 Americans studied at Chinese universities.

 

It is with that background, and at the suggestion of an old skiing buddy, that I picked up and read Senator Tom Cotton’s short but information-packed book, Seven Things You Can’t Say About China. Reading it convinced me of what I long suspected – China is an evil empire and the U.S. needs to be prepared. In seven concise chapters, covering 170 pages, Senator Cotton instructs the reader on how China is preparing for war, how they wage economic war, how they infiltrate society and are coming for our kids, and how they might actually win. In a telling example, and quoting PEW Research Center, he relates that in 2020 9% of young American adults got their news from Chinese-owned TikTok; today, 39% do. He starts off chapter VII, “China Could Win:” “Most of us take American global dominance for granted, without thinking much about it; since at least World War I, that’s just the way it’s been.” Complacency has become nemesis.   

 

If you believe, as I do, that most people, regardless of heritage or cultural background, prefer liberty to dependency, this is a book you should read. The West, led by the United States, is an advocate for the former, while China exemplifies the latter. In the U.S., we command our fortunes, and we control our futures. The vast majority of Chinese, living under the tyranny of a dictatorship, control neither their fortunes nor their futures. We cannot let them win.

 

In the March 16, 2025 issue of The Telegraph, senior foreign correspondent Roland Oliphant wrote: “China, not Russia, is the only country on the planet capable of challenging the United States’ military, economic and political hegemony.” Caveat emptor should apply when dealing with Communist China.

"Political Stakes"

 This essay was begun before Russia’s threat on Ukraine’s border became front page news. Putin’s actions validate the thesis that the political stakes are high, that the risks are existential, and that the United States and its Western European allies must change tactics from promoting “social justice” to affirming and defending a belief in classical liberal democracy. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Political Stakes”

February 23, 2022

 

“Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20%

of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the

decade? You don’t have to imagine it. It’s called the United States of America.”

                                                                                                                                                Thomas Sowell (1930 -)

 

The Cold War lasted for 42 years, from 1947 until 1989. It pitted the United States against the Soviet Union, along with respective allies. It ended with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and when a wave of (mostly) peaceful revolutions overthrew Communist governments in the Eastern Bloc. Three years later Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man, which argued the universal acceptance of Western liberal democracies represented the final form of human government. The intervening years have shown how wrong he was. He appears to have misunderstood geo-politics, and he underestimated human desire for power and control. 

 

Today, liberal Western democracies face a new challenge: an autocracy epitomized by China, where power is concentrated in the 205 members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, a Party that comprises less than seven percent of the population of the world’s most populous country. Joining the Communist Party can take several years and is generally open only to those with Han ethnicity. Xi Jinping is the current, paramount leader. He serves as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Central Military Commission and President of the People’s Republic of China. China’s Communist Party is not diversified, equitable or inclusive. According to Statista, 88% of its members are ethnic Han. There are only nine women who sit on the Central Committee, a committee composed of 205 members. Its parliament, the world’s largest, stands at 2,924 members and which, according to CNBC, includes 100 billionaires. The 209 wealthiest members have an average wealth of $300 million. This is a country where the mean adult net worth is less than $68,000, and where GDP per capita is one sixth of that in the U.S. 

 

Yet, our enemies see us as divided, in retreat globally and undergoing self-flagellation. What do immigrants make of Vice President Kamala Harris’, the daughter of immigrants, recent statement: “The truth is: There is segregation in America, xenophobia exists in America. Antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia all exist.” One cannot deny that among 330 million inhabitants one could find examples to substantiate her claim. But do the words of a few nuts define our nation? In every country there is good and evil, there are saints and devils. On February 17, reporting on Ms. Harris’ observation, National Review said: “If they wish, American citizens may be neutral on the virtues of their country. The Vice President doesn’t have that luxury.” Her statement served as aid to our enemies who want the rest of the world to perceive the U.S. as hypocritical, as divided by race and gender. Moreover, Ms. Harris, a woman of mixed heritage and daughter of immigrants, has risen to the nation’s second highest office. Is she a victim?

 

One asks: Why do immigrants choose to come to the United States, Western Europe, Australia and Canada and not to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba? Why did Ms. Harris’ parents come here rather than Russia, Iran or Cuba? Where are the Chinese protesting China’s internment of Uyghers? Where are the Russians protesting Russia’s new-found imperialism? Where are the protesters complaining of wealth and income gaps in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba?

 

What we face is a new cold war – which we pray does not become heated – between forces of darkness, led by China and other totalitarian states, and forces of freedom led by the United States and other liberal democracies. We must be alert and able to respond to weapons they will use: strengthened militaries, cyber warfare, which could affect banks and electric grids, biological weapons and, perhaps most important, insidious and infectious propaganda designed to undermine our culture. The outcome may not affect those of us in our 80s, but it certainly will have consequences for our children and grandchildren.

 

But the United States will continue to stand as a beacon to other nations: if our government continues to protect our inalienable rights; if it functions under the rule of law; if it offers opportunities for individuals to use their individual drive and abilities to better their conditions; if it promotes freedom not mandates; if it rids itself of the scourge that is wokeism, and if it once again recognizes its unique position in the world.

 

Speaking to the desire of some in government to impose more controls, Kimberly Fiorello, a Republican Connecticut State Legislator representing Greenwich and Stamford, penned an op-ed in the February 18, 2022 issue of the Greenwich Sentinel in which she argued November’s election will not be about Democrat versus Republican. “In 2022, it is about more freedom versus more government control.” What is true for Connecticut is true for the world.  It is freedom, which lights the lamp that distinguishes democracies from autocracies. An interview by Richard Milne with Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, in last weekend’s edition of the Financial Times, highlights the concern of smaller, more vulnerable nations: “That memory of the terror and deprivations of Soviet rule, and a desire to never return to those days, explains why Estonia has consistently warned the west about the dangers of a revanchist Russia.”  

 

Among these concerns, there has been suggestion that woke Progressivism, which mimics the ideology, tactics and goals of totalitarianism, may have reached its zenith: The parents’ revolt in Virginia resulted in the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor; in November voters in Minneapolis rejected the overhaul of their police department; Eric Adams, a former chief of police, defeated Kathryn Garcia in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary last summer; the Build Back Better bill failed in the Senate, and a recent vote in San Francisco recalled three progressive schoolboard members. We must build on those successes, as we and the world confront ever-more dangerous, political alternatives, represented by the autocracies of China and Russia.

 

Thomas Sowell is correct, in the rubric quoted above. The United States, in the history of nations, has been unique in its radical, and positive, experiment.  It is the country that created and led an international order following World War II, an order now at risk. As we retreat from leadership, we leave open spheres to be influenced by China and Russia. The risk we face is truly existential – a new cold war that could end the nation and a way of life we have known, a country in which individuals, through aptitude, determination and effort, regardless of connections, race or gender, have risen from poverty to success. In this new war, the political stakes are high. It is imperative we keep lit the lamp of freedom, which gives hope to millions.

"Imperialism in the East"

 Martin Luther King’s emphasis on character over race is a lesson for us all, as we in the United States and in these discordant times, celebrate his birth today. Unlike our color, height or biological sex that are determined genetically, character is a quality for which we bear responsibility, and something on which we can all work.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Imperialism in the East”

January 17, 2022

 

“…the American left should focus on where empire

as an ideal truly endures, which isn’t in the West.”

                                                                                                              Robert D. Kaplan (1952-)

                                                                                                              American author and political commentator

                                                                                                              The Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2022

 

President Biden’s two immediate predecessors fractured the nation with divisive talk. In his campaign, Mr. Biden promised unification. Instead, he has increased dissension, focusing on identity politics, federalizing voting laws and diminishing the role of the traditional family, all the while calling his political opponents misogynists, racists, xenophobes, bigots and domestic terrorists who want to destroy democracy. Such intemperate language does little to bridge legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans – progressives and conservatives. He has wasted political capital, personally denigrating those with whom he disagrees, which has meant less time on issues that affect all Americans, regardless of Party – from the economy, inflation, education and illegal immigration at home to the consequences for the United States as to what is happening in the Middle East, Central Asia, China and Russia.

 

The calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan sent a message to its allies that the United States’ commitment means little, and to its enemies that America need not be feared. The Abraham Accords, one of the Trump Administration’s finest achievements, has been stalled by the anti-Israel stand of the Biden Administration, and by a desire to reinstitute the Iranian nuclear deal. While Western imperialism of an earlier time is, perhaps justifiably, denigrated, its reincarnation in the East – in China and Russia – is ignored by the same pundits who criticize the West. Recent riots in Kazakhstan and the plight of the Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang Province are examples of unrest that are being dealt with harshly by Russia and China, while the West turns a blind eye.

 

Under both land-based and sea-based Belt and Road initiatives (BRI), Chinese banks and companies fund and build roads, power plants, ports, railways, 5-G networks, and fiber-optic cables around the world. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), as of last March 139 countries from five continents have joined BRI. Not all members host projects, but all endorse BRI as a concept and “pledge to cooperate with China to promote the initiative.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has lauded China’s BRI for having “sustainable development as the overarching objective,” and pledged that “the United Nations stands ready to travel this road with you.” China’s Belt and Road initiative began, shortly after Xi Jinping assumed the Chinese Presidency in 2013. The absorption of Hong Kong and China’s threat to Taiwan have shown what they can (and will) do to free markets and political freedom. In increasing the dependency of member states on China, BRI is reminiscent Ivar Kreuger’s early Twentieth Century scheme to create monopolies in myriad countries for his match businesses, by lending the countries money. Kreuger’s business collapsed in bankruptcy in 1932. China has an anti-democratic, authoritarian government that competes for the hearts and minds of people around the world, with their supposed economic success. It risks impoverishing its Belt and Road members by indebting them.

 

The threat in Ukraine appears more imminent. Over 100,000 Russian troops have gathered on Ukraine’s eastern border and have been joined by tanks and other weapons from Russia’s east. “Mr. Putin,” wrote Kathryn Stoner, author of Russia Resurrected: Its Power and Purpose in a New Global Order, in Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal, “has a history of using foreign policy to improve his domestic standing when he has felt his status slipping.” COVID-19 and the economy have caused his poll numbers to slip. They are now at their lowest level in ten years. Last September’s national election saw proceedings so corrupt that even the Communist Party – the “loyal opposition” – cried foul. In December, a Russian court closed the Memorial Human Rights Center, originally established to document Stalin’s crimes against humanity. In 2014, with his poll number slipping, Putin invaded Crimea, and then saw his approval numbers jump from around 60% to 90%. Since, they have slipped. Vladimir Putin justifies his imperialistic tendencies by claiming concern for the security of his homeland. It is true that the Baltic states, which had been part of the Soviet Union after World War II and at least six former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO. However, the only threat Ukraine poses to Russia is the pitting of democracy against authoritarianism. Putin’s interest in Ukraine is personal. As Ms. Stoner wrote: “What does any autocrat truly fear? Being strung up by his own people from a lamp post.” 

 

What we are seeing is what Yaroslav Trofimov of The Wall Street Journal termed the “Great Power competition.” The question: What will the West, led by the United States and Europe, do to deter this trend? The prognosis does not instill hope. Wokeness and identity politics dominate both cultures. Europe’s focus on social welfare has meant that it spends little on defense. Led by Germany, the Continent has become dependent on Russian energy. At the same time, the United States has given up its oil independence and has been embroiled in battles of self-hatred, focusing on what is wrong with our lifestyles and government, rather than what is right. The West is smug, fat and complacent. Europe’s lack of defense and now buying oil and gas from Russia, and with Mr. Biden disparaging his political opponents as enemies of democracy, the West risks the world becoming more authoritarian.

"Risks and COVID-19"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Risks and COVID-19”

April 11, 2020

“There is freedom waiting for you.

On the breezes of the sky.

And you ask. What if I fall?

Oh, but my darling,

What if you fly?”

                                                                                    Erin Henson (1981-)

                                                                                    Artist, Designer, Poet

Most decisions we make involve some measure of risk. Generally, the consideration is fleeting. Do I take the stairs and risk falling, or the elevator and risk it breaking down? At times, the choice is more absolute: Do I take the double-black diamond with moguls, or do I go around on the bunny trail? Sometimes the odds are important: Is my need to cross the street against traffic so great that the attempt should be made despite oncoming traffic? Risk is ubiquitous. It is embedded in the friends we make, where we go to college, what job we take and in our choice of a marriage partner – a risk my wife and I took fifty-six years ago today. A wise friend used to say that he was never upset with mistakes he had made but was troubled by risks he never took. Risks vary depending on what we do. To a soldier in combat, risks have different consequences than the ones we encounter daily. In his 1916 collection of poems, Mountain Interval, Robert Frost included “The Road Not Taken.” At a fork in the road a traveler pauses, knowing he cannot walk down both paths, so chooses “the one less traveled by…”  The reader never knows whether the choice was a good one or not, only that it “has made all the difference.” As well, progress is impossible without risk. A baserunner cannot steal second without taking his foot off first. Neither can we avoid risk. “Security,” as Helen Keller once wrote, “is mostly a superstition.”

Risk is defined as the interaction with uncertainty, a measure of the probability of danger or loss, against safety or profit. In our daily lives, we try to mitigate risk. We are encouraged to look before we leap. Insurance companies employ actuaries to assess risk and calculate premiums. Investors use algorithms to quantify the risk of loss against the potential for gain. While these calculations are never perfect, they are Darwinian in that those who are best at measuring risk tend to be the most successful, what Joseph Schumpeter termed creative destruction in industries as they adapt to change.

Politicians employ risk to further agendas: we are told we will be overrun by illegal immigrants if we do not shut our borders; we are frightened into believing that anthropomorphic warming will destroy the planet, and that an ever-expanding population will lead to mass starvation. Now we have the health risk of COVID-19 that was first downplayed by professionals, the media and politicians, but which now dominates the news. As well, COVID-19 has created enormous economic risks.  

There is little question that COVID-19 is dangerous, especially for the elderly and those that have under-lying medical conditions, like asthma, lung diseases, heart conditions, diabetes, liver or chronic kidney disease. Given the game of blame, as to who missed the seriousness of the virus, it may be of value to review some of what was said and done about COVID-19, from when it first made its appearance – a timeline, if you will, but a list that does not pretend to be exhaustive; but it is indicative.

November 17, 2019 – On March 14, 2020, Jeanna Bryner, Editor-in-Chief of Life Science, quoting the South Morning China Post, reported that a “55-year-old individual from Hubei Province may have been the first person to have contacted COVID-19…That case dates back to November 17, 2019….That’s more than a month earlier than doctors noted cases in Wuhan, China, which is in Hubei Province.”

December 31, 2019 – The New York Times reported on April 7, 2020 that on December 31, 2019: “The Chinese government confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases.”

January 14, 2020 – The World Health Organization (WHO) said: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”[1]

January 17, 2020 – The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that, “based on current information, the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is currently deemed to be low.” The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that American citizens returning from travel-restricted countries were being rerouted to specific airports where they would be screened and isolated.

January 20, 2020 – Japan, South Korea and Thailand reported their first cases of the novel coronavirus.

January 21-24, 2020 – World Economic Forum in Davos – attended by 3000 individuals from 117 countries, including 53 heads of state. China sent a large delegation, though Xi Jinping did not attend.  

January 21, 2020 – The first case of coronavirus in the United States was reported of a man who had traveled from Wuhan, China.

January 22, 2020 – President Trump, in response to a question regarding COVD-19: “We have it totally under control; it is one person, coming in from China.”  On that same day, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), a hawk on China, sent a letter to Alexander Azar, Secretary of Health and Human (HHS), encouraging the Administration to consider banning travel between China and the U.S.

January 24, 2020 – The CDC confirms the second U.S. case of coronavirus, adding, “based on what we know right now, the immediate risk to Americans remains low.”

January 28, 2020 – The WHO, following a meeting between WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping, issued a release: “The WHO delegation highly appreciated the actions China has implemented in response to the outbreak, its speed in identifying the virus and openness in sharing information with WHO and other countries.”

January 29, 2020 – According to an April 5th article in the New York Times by Maggie Haberman, Peter Navarro, President Trump’s trade advisor, warned the White House on January 29th that coronavirus could “cost the Country trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death.”

January 30, 2020 – The WHO declared a global health emergency of international concern. The CDC confirmed publicly for the first time the person-to-person spread of coronavirus. That same day President Trump created the White House Coronavirus Task Force to coordinate all efforts, with HHS Secretary Alexander Azar as chair.

January 31, 2020 – President Trump declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued a ban on travel between the United States and China. On that same day, Joe Biden criticized the President for the travel ban: “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.”

February 4, 2020 – The White House directed the FDA (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration) to step up coronavirus diagnostic testing procedures.

February 5, 2020 – The CDC issued a statement: “While we continue to believe the immediate risk of 2019nCoV exposure to the general public is low, CDC is undertaking measures to help keep that risk low.”

February 7, 2020 – New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot told a TV interviewer, “I want to be clear, this is about a virus, not a group of people. There is no excuse for anyone to discriminate or stigmatize people of Asian heritage. We are here today to urge all New Yorkers to continue to live their lives as usual.”

February 10, 2020 – New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio was interviewed on MSNBC: “If you are under 50 and you’re healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there’s very little threat here. This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts like a common cold or flu. And transmission is not that easy.”

                  February 18, 2020 – The CDC reaffirmed, “The risk to Americans from coronavirus is low.”

February 20, 2020 – The White House raised travel warnings to their highest level for Japan and South Korea.

February 24, 2020 – Nancy Pelosi toured San Francisco’s Chinatown, urging people to come along, mingle and shake hands with residents.

            February 26, 2020 – The first case of suspected local transmission in the United States was announced by the CDC. On that same day, President Trump replaced Mr. Azar as head of the corona task force with Vice President Michael Pence.

            February 27, 2020 – Vice President Pence named Dr. Deborah Birx to serve as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator.

            February 29, 2020 – The first death in the U.S. from coronavirus was recorded in the U.S. On the same day, President Trump halted travel to and from Iran.

            March 11, 2020 – The WHO declared coronavirus a worldwide pandemic.

            March 12, 2020 – President Trump imposed travel restrictions with Europe.

            March 13, 2020 – President Trump declared coronavirus a national emergency.

            March 14, 2020 – The White House extended travel bans to the United Kingdom.

All the incidents mentioned above reflect risks that were either political, reputational or both. People on both sides of the aisle can find the fodder to satisfy claims of neglect or worse. But should that be our pursuit as we face the twin crises of a pandemic and a collapsed economy? As someone once said (or should have if they did not), “democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight forward to the wrong one.” Unlike dictatorships, democracies move slowly, as they listen to multiple voices and encourage debate. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, after Pearl Harbor, is alleged to have said: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” They had. Was the President late in declaring a health emergency, or did the fault lie with the WHO and the CDC who downplayed its seriousness? Should Democrats have been pursuing a feckless impeachment when the coronavirus was invading our shores? Early on, with the exception of Senator Tom Cotton and Secretary Alexander Azar no one in Washington appeared to take seriously what became a pandemic. Why? Was it because of a deceitful China or a compromised WHO? Was it because Washington and the media were otherwise engaged? In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Holman Jenkins concluded: “Many things are worth doing; many risks are worth taking, and many are worth avoiding. It would be great to have more clear thinking about which is which in our current crisis.”  But that is the problem with forecasts. We deal with things as they are. “The future,” as the song goes, “is not ours to see.” At the moment the focus should be on helping the sick, finding cures and righting the economy. There will come a time to disinter the past and place blame where it belongs: who underplayed and who overplayed the risks of COVID-19?

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to point out missed signs, like the concern of Senator Cotton on January 22 or the warnings from Secretary Azar a week later. But it wasn’t until January 30 that the WHO and the CDC elevated coronavirus to a health emergency of international concern. The next day, the President declared COVID-19 a U.S. public health emergency and banned flights from China. So, should he have listened to two men, accomplished in their fields but neither a doctor, or should he have heeded the scientists and doctors at the CDC and the WHO? Keep in mind, the President had to navigate the ship of state through the Charybdis of a public panic and the Scylla of ignoring an unknown health threat. He chose a middle course. Given what we now know about the failure of a compromised WHO and a depleted Strategic National Stockpile of drugs and medical equipment, it appears, at least to me, that he chose well. But risks continue to propagate. The United States has lost 10% of its workforce in three weeks, a rate of decline faster than during the Great Depression. The President now faces a challenge – how to restart a twenty-two trillion-dollar economy, without reigniting the deadly virus.

It has been three months since coronavirus struck our nation. As a Country, we have rallied. It appears that social distancing, self-isolation and commonsense hygiene are working, and that the worse may soon be over – that the light at the end of the tunnel may not be a freight train barreling toward us, but the light of resurrection, appropriate in this time of Passover and Easter. But there remain risks our leaders must take – How to restart this economy from the somnolence of a six-to-eight-week shutdown? How to pay back the two to four trillion dollars borrowed to save businesses and jobs? This will require more choices, decisions (and risks) for the politicians who lead. We are in untraveled territory. COVID-19 has not been eviscerated. Re-starting the economic engine will not be easy. Money is not free, and we all know it is the private sector that generates the income the public sector spends. Voters in November will elect the individual they believe best suited to lead us toward a healthy, economic revival.    

---

[1] Dates, not otherwise identified, come from a March 31, 2020 report by Cleta Mitchell in The Federalist. She is a partner in the Washington, D.C. law office of Foley and Lardner