Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts

Friday, October 14, 2022

Three Cs, like three Rs in schooling, Crucial to Good Governance

Vacuousness Destroys Possibility

Like the tried-and-true (sorely lacking today) four R (or three-R sounding) essentials (reading, writing, reasoning and arithmetic (budding responsibility) in the formative years (child and adolescent learning and development years) — four Cs (not churlishness, contemptuousness, color or creed) are essential in adult positions of leadership and public service, particularly positions affording inordinate power and influence.
The four fundamental Cs (sorely lacking today) are Character, Courage, Competence, and Civility.

I

’ve been concerned with the quality of public service leadership for a long time and these thoughts came to mind as I was reading a piece by Australian journalist and lawyer Graham Hryce appraising the caliber and consequences of Western leadership and one particular reflection of it.

Individuals aspiring to public service or finding themselves in leadership positions are too often hungry for power, hollow, and susceptible to being handled.

The seeming “madness” of Britain’s Mary Elizabeth “Liz” Truss who holds a position gifted to her by “Thatcher-worshipping members of the Tory Party” is, according to journalist Graham Hryce, “a product of a crude neo-liberal economic ideology”; and true to the code, she “persists in robotically touting the benefits of ‘trickle-down economics’;” and “(unsuccessfully) trying to blame (Britain’s and more generally the West’s) economic crisis entirely on Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and the conflict in Ukraine.”

Like the US factions, the Truss regime has attempted “to remedy deep-seated problems … in the economy—including decades of wage stagnation, ongoing working class and middle-class impoverishment, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, dramatically rising energy and food prices, and the crisis in housing affordability”—by squaring a round hole or vice versa: doubling down with certifiably unworkable “neo-liberal economic policies.”

Systemically Weakened Economic systems Death knell of Western democracies

“Global elites” ruling Western “democracies,” Hryce observes, adhere obstinately to “greed-based, crude neo-liberal economic theories” and pledge their allegiance “to overturning the social democratic consensus” that prevailed, for example, before the UK’s (senile former plastics company worker boasting contempt for government service) Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, and before the US’s (senile B-movie actor boasting contempt for government service) Hon. Knight Grand Cross Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thirty-two years later, another senile entrenched gerontocratic bencher followed Sir Reagan.

Britain’s current head of state as the United States’ current head of state preside over layered economic and political crises.

Some of Hryce’s insights (with added commentary) are these.

Any political system that seats a demonstrably incompetent person “is irretrievably broken.”

Any political system that encourages a long train of nepotistic, incestuously ideological incompetents perpetuates political instability.

 A system that allows insider, gerrymandered selection (or pre-public balloting) of leaders degrades the quality of candidates and policies, weakens “democratic” processes, destabilizes institutions of governance, and deliberately forfeits the essential trust of the body politic (general public). 


W

eakness of character, competence, courage, communication invites malleability. An incompetent in public office (public service or any position), a person mindlessly harnessed to hardened ideology, open to the puppeteer, opens to any manipulation by any element of influence.

Such weakness weakens a nation, and is a threat to the larger world.


Sources in addition to general references

An original article by Graham Hryce, October 3, 2022, “Truss exposes the current instability of Western democracies” “The turmoil in British politics can lead to disastrous consequences. It also mirrors the current state of the wider West.”

Author: “Graham Hryce is an Australian journalist and former media lawyer, whose work has been published in The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Sunday Mail, the Spectator and Quadrant.”

 


Composition and Commentary excluding quoted material and individual images
Copyright © Carolyn LaDelle Bennett
Author’s links
www.BennettsAmericanEpitaph.com
https://www.facebook.com/carolynladelle.bennett
https://insightbeyondtodaysnews.blogspot.com/
nolandanisland@hotmail.com

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Era Worth Remembering

Man’s Principled Stand

… “There is one aspect of New Thinking on which I will keep insisting. It is the rejection of nuclear weapons and militarism.” “As long as nuclear weapons exist, there is a danger of nuclear war. It is like a gun on the wall in the first act of a play. As the Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once said, at some point it will fire.”

“When President Ronald Reagan and I stated in 1985 that a nuclear war must never be fought, that meant one thing: the ultimate goal is nothing short of the elimination of nuclear weapons. But talk about a world without nuclear weapons, which is still supported rhetorically by all countries, including the United States, will mean nothing if we do not put an end to the current militarization of international politics and political thinking.”

N

ew Thinking

“Glasnost” and “Perestroika”

 Though his comments were directed to the Soviet domestic situation, they warn of an anachronistic America, a cabal pushing America backward.

Perestroika was meant for the people, he wrote. Its goal was to emancipate the human being, to give people ownership of their lives and of their country. 

Perestroika was a wide-ranging humanist project.
It was a break with the past, with the centuries when the state—autocratic and then totalitarian—dominated over the human being. It was a breakthrough into the future.

Glasnost meant upholding the people’s right to know by reducing secrecy and “classified information” to a reasonable minimum.

 Previously, statistics had been in the grip of censorship. Data on the economy and social and population statistics were only published if permitted by a special resolution of the Central Committee and had to be heavily redacted. 

Crime statistics and environmental and medical data were shrouded in secrecy. The defense budget’s real numbers were secret. Not only the country’s citizens but even its leaders did not have a real and complete picture of many aspects of its life. 

We put an end to that.

T

he author of that text was said to have been of a Russian-Ukrainian family, son of peasants, son of a father who had been wounded while serving in the Russian Army when the Nazis invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): World leader, statesman, thinker and philosopher, Russian and Soviet leader and politician Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev March 2, 1931-August 30, 2022

Key Public office Positions

  • 1985-1991 General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
  • 1988-1989 Chairman of the Presidium (council of executive officers) of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union
  • 1989 – 1990 Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union
  • March 1990 – 1991 President of the Soviet Union

Sage words of Mikhail Gorbachev Perhaps one of his final writings

No challenge or threat facing humankind in the twenty-first century can have a military solution. No major problem can be solved single-handedly by one country or even a group of countries.

As we ended the Cold War, the world community formulated a set of concrete tasks to be addressed by the new generation of political leaders. These include eliminating nuclear weapons, overcoming mass poverty in developing countries, providing equal opportunities for everyone in education and healthcare, and reversing the degradation of the environment. Yet the United Nations has had to recognize that progress on these tasks has been insufficient.

This is a call for urgent action, not an indictment of the current generation of leaders. They must seriously reassess their political thinking and consider the experience of their predecessors, who had to deal with even more dangerous challenges. Their achievements are on record; no one will be able to negate them.

I hope that this reminder of the goals and values of perestroika and New Thinking will help readers who want to understand what is happening today. I want this to be my contribution to the dialogue between the past and the present. Linking them requires knowing the truth about the past and learning lessons for the future. This is what we all need in a changing world.”

1980s

The world was facing the rapidly rising threat of nuclear war. The international community was at an impasse from which there seemed to be no exit. The confrontation between the East and the West continued, seemingly with no end in sight.

That was the assumption on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Of course, no one wanted a nuclear war but no one could guarantee that it would never start—even if as a result of technical failure, false alarm or accident.

The Soviet Union’s relations with many countries were tense. The protracted conflict with China, the all-encompassing confrontation with the United States, the deterioration of relations with Western European countries caused by the deployment of medium-range missiles, regional conflicts in various parts of the world, and the presence of tens of thousands of our troops in Afghanistan—all were poisoning the external environment in which we were undertaking our reforms, while the arms race was sapping our economy.

The militarization of the economy was a big burden for all countries…. The military-industrial complex absorbed enormous resources, the energy and talent of our most highly skilled workers; 90 percent of our science was dedicated to defense needs.

However, excessive armament did not make our security more reliable. People felt this, and a sense of alarm was always on their minds. … It was therefore apparent both at home and abroad that we must not continue as before.

International relations and nuclear nonproliferation

 “My first meeting with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, which took place in Geneva in November 1985, broke the ice that had been building up for decades. This happened despite the fact that after our first conversation I, speaking to members of the Soviet delegation, called him not just a conservative but “a real dinosaur,” and we later learned that Reagan had called me “a die-hard Bolshevik.” “And yet, two factors were crucial: responsibility and intuition. We both felt that, however difficult our dialogue, we needed to persist.”

At a summit in Geneva, Switzerland, we signed a statement declaring that …

The leaders of the USSR and the United States agree “that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

The two sides “will not seek to achieve military superiority.’”

We also agreed to expand exchanges between our countries—both people-to-people and youth contacts—and to resume airline flights. Our speeches at the closing ceremony reflected a new tone that had for many years been absent from the rhetoric of Soviet and American leaders. It was the first step on the road to trust—something that is hard to achieve but is essential.

“Nevertheless, in 1986 it became clear that Cold War inertia and the routine of formal diplomacy might thwart the efforts to reach agreements. The attempts of U.S. Navy ships to enter our territorial waters, spy scandals and ‘the same old tune’ in disarmament negotiations convinced me that it was once again up to the leaders to make their position clear and their voice heard. I proposed to President Reagan that we meet ‘somewhere halfway’ between Moscow and Washington and discuss ways of getting things off the ground. The idea of Reykjavík was born.”

The US president’s response was positive but he “wanted not just to intensify his Star Wars program, but also to make us (the USSR) give the go-ahead to testing missile defense systems in space. This was something to which I could not agree. Nevertheless, the progress achieved on a number of important issues and the two leaders’ agreement that the ultimate goal of the negotiations was to rid the world of nuclear weapons allowed me to say immediately after the conclusion of the summit that Reykjavík was not a failure but a breakthrough, a new beginning in nuclear arms negotiations.”

1987

“Throughout 1987, there were many attempts to scuttle the negotiations on INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) missiles and the conclusion of the treaty eliminating two classes of nuclear weapons hung in the balance, but Reykjavík’s impetus proved strong. In December 1987, the Treaty was signed…” and the signing “set in motion the process of dramatic reductions in practically all categories of nuclear weapons, particularly in Europe….

“This is what happens when leaders have the courage to act realistically and abandon outdated concepts of security.…” The US “president’s firm stand (for the INF) opened the way to the emergence of mutual trust. This created an environment in which we took decisions that reduced tensions in many of the world’s regions and moved toward the settlement of conflicts that for many years had seemed impossible to resolve.”

Afghanistan “It was then that we corrected another mistake that had cost our country and our people dearly: we withdrew Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The orderly withdrawal of our troops created the conditions for starting a process of internal settlement in that country. We proposed that the great powers and Afghanistan’s neighbors work together to support national reconciliation in Afghanistan.”

1988

“By late 1988, we had managed to solve most of the problems related to ending the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, to reach a new level of relations with Western European countries, and to prepare the ground for normalizing relations with the People’s Republic of China. 

This was by no means easy. The country’s leaders, diplomats, military officials and experts put enormous effort into it.”

1989

The start of 1989 brought “unexpected developments, problems and daunting dilemmas. But even more importantly, it turned out to be the year when the changes brought to our country and the world by perestroika and New Thinking became irreversible.”

At the United Nations that year, “I spoke about the need to demilitarize and democratize international relations…; (and) “on the day I spoke to the United Nations, I also had a meeting in New York with President Reagan and President-elect George (HW) Bush. We noted the impressive results achieved in relations between the two nuclear powers over the less than three years of our joint efforts. I am proud of what we have been able to do together, Ronald Reagan said. For his part, George Bush stated that he hoped to continue our joint efforts. I replied by saying that this was fully in line with our intentions. … I gave a frank account of the processes under way in our country, of our achievements, problems and plans. … And President Reagan said, ‘I want you to know … that you have our support in this difficult undertaking. …’”

1992

On a visit to the United States in 1992, “I was invited to speak to the U.S. Congress. The welcoming speeches by the leaders of both chambers of Congress were constructive both in tone and in content, with not a word about the ‘victory of the United States in the Cold War.’ The same is true of major speeches by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker in April 1992 and of my conversation with them at the White House.

“Later, however, the American political establishment changed its tune. That was a major error in judgment and a failure to meet their responsibility to history. Instead of recognizing our common victory over the Cold War, they decided to declare themselves the sole winners. Within just a few weeks, ‘victory in the Cold War’ became the buzzword of the election campaign. It was picked up by the U.S. media and even quoted approvingly by quite a few people in our country.”

“That about-turn set the course of world events on the wrong track. It is the root of many mistakes and failures that undermined the foundations of new international politics.”

“In politics, triumphalism gives bad advice. It is, among other things, immoral. The need to bring together morality and politics is one of the main principles of New Thinking. I am convinced that only an ethical approach can help overcome the paralysis of political will…
“In a global world, relations among states must be governed not just by the norms of international law but also by certain rules of behavior rooted in universal moral principles. Such rules of behavior should include restraint, consideration of the interests of all sides, and consultations and mediation if the situation deteriorates and a dangerous crisis is looming. Many crises could have been averted if the parties directly involved and, to an even greater degree, outside parties followed such rules of behavior.…
“No challenge or threat facing humankind in the twenty-first century can have a military solution. No major problem can be solved single-handedly by one country or even a group of countries.
“As we ended the Cold War, the world community formulated a set of concrete tasks to be addressed by the new generation of political leaders. These include eliminating nuclear weapons, overcoming mass poverty in developing countries, providing equal opportunities for everyone in education and healthcare, and reversing the degradation of the environment. Yet the United Nations has had to recognize that progress on these tasks has been insufficient.

“This is not an indictment of the current generation of leaders, but a call for urgent action. They must seriously reassess their political thinking and consider the experience of their predecessors, who had to deal with even more dangerous challenges. Their achievements are on record; no one will be able to negate them.
“I hope that this reminder of the goals and values of perestroika and New Thinking will help readers who want to understand what is happening today.
"I want this to be my contribution to the dialogue between the past and the present.
Linking them requires knowing the truth about the past and learning lessons for the future. This is what we all need in a changing world.”


[Wherever emphasis exists, it was added]

Sources and news reporting

Gorbachev, Mikhail S (translation by Pavel Palazhchenko), “Perestroika and New Thinking: A Retrospective,” August 9, 2021, Global Affairs Journal, https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/perestroika-and-new-thinking/

 Editor’s Note: The article is a translation of a Russian-language text by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1985 until 1991, President of the USSR in 1990-1991,” previously published in Russia in Global Affairs. The original is available at: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/ponyat-perestrojku/.

PravdaRU “Mikhail Gorbachev dies at age 92,” August 31, 2022

“Mikhail Gorbachev was a great man. He was not a perfect, but an outstanding man, a prominent politician. We all make mistakes, and Gorbachev was no exception. While possessing such enormous power, Mikhail Gorbachev managed to stay true to himself. It was Gorbachev, who saved the world from a major war many years ago. Mikhail Gorbachev shall stay in our memories forever.

“Mikhail Gorbachev will be buried at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow, in a family burial next to his wife, a source told TASS.” https://english.pravda.ru/news/society/153819-mikhail_gorbachev_dies/

TASS “”Russia remembers Gorbachev.” Press Review August 31, 2022: “He was a politician whose name will be forever linked with the end of the Cold War era. Politicians and experts say Gorbachev was an important figure for Russia whose name will remain in history. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his deep condolences over the passing of the ex-USSR president.” https://tass.com/pressreview/1500299

 Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) leader and Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky: “‘Gorbachev was, undoubtedly, the most striking politician of his time. Yet, for everyone born in the Soviet Union he remains a complex and contradictory historical figure.’”

 Head of the Ad Hoc Commission on Protecting State Sovereignty and Preventing Interference in the Domestic Affairs of the Russian Federation Council Andrey Klimov: “It is difficult to provide an assessment since a lot of things have happened since then. Yet he tried, as much as he could, to maneuver between those forces and circumstances our state found itself in at the time.”

“Mikhail Gorbachev,” Biography: The Arena Group, https://www.biography.com/political-figure/mikhail-gorbachev
Mikhail Gorbachev, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

 

World and National Sources
Collage composed of individual Internet images
Composition, Commentary excluding quoted material and individual images

Copyright © Carolyn LaDelle Bennett

 

 

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Presumptive Purchaser of US Presidency 2020


Rich Bloomberg’s “‘rich’ history of presidents…”

POTUS (39) James “Jimmy” Earl Carter Jr., (40) Ronald Wilson Reagan, (41) George Herbert Walker Bush their administrations

…armed, trained, funded, advised Salvadoran death squads that murdered thousands of peasants and activists

…including “U.S.-trained Atlacatl Battalion” responsible for “the El Mozote massacre where more than 800 civilians were murdered, more than half children,” the “El Calabozo massacre,” and “murders of six Jesuits”

41 George Herbert Walker Bush (Ivy League: Yale)

…executed Gulf War against Iraq and “ordered the bombing of retreating Iraqi troops”;

…invaded and overthrew the government of Panama

42 William Jefferson Blythe III (William “Bill” Jefferson Clinton) (Ivy League: Georgetown, Yale)

…oversaw Rwandan and Somalia massacres; killed 500,000+ Iraqi children with economic sanctions;

…wounded and massacred thousands of soldiers and civilians in the U.S.-led NATO destruction of what was the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).

43 George Walker Bush (Ivy League: Yale, Harvard)

…declared a three-country “axis of evil” (Iran, North Korea, Iraq) to be dealt with militarily; launched a global terror campaign of extrajudicial abduction, detention and torture; and

…slaughtered (ordered slaughter), maimed, wounded and caused birth defects in thousands people in Afghanistan and Iraq (while courting Saudi Kingdom dictators and killers)  

44 Barack Hussein Obama II (Ivy League: Columbia, Harvard)

…conducted (ordered) wars, massacres, targeted extrajudicial assassinations and drone wars leaving thousands killed, maimed and wounded in at least seven countries: Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Libya;

…continued hostilities against the Far East (while courting Saudi Kingdom dictators and killers);

…persecuted and caused imprisonment of WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange

45 Donald John Trump (Hidden Ivy: Catholic Jesuit Fordham and Ivy League: University of Pennsylvania Wharton School) (net worth 2019 est. $3.1 billion)

…imposed tariff (trade restrictions) and sanctions wars against people and states of European Union, Canada, and Mexico, Iran, China, Russia; direct combat, dark ops, proxy, on-the-ground and drone wars against Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ecuador, Yemen, North Korea, Palestine, Cuba; and other hostilities against Central American (and other countries of origin) immigrants from or traveling through (North America’s) Mexico, labeling some the “Mexican Government’s … most unwanted people …, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc”;
…banned outright migrants from Muslim countries (while courting the Saudi Arabian dictators, killers, world’s 2nd largest arms importer whose central religion, Wahhabism, is described variously as an “ultraconservative” “far-right”, “austere”, “fundamentalist” Islamic doctrine; or a “deviant sectarian movement”);
…continued persecution and imprisonment of WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange
Michael Rubens Bloomberg set to buy U.S. presidency 2020 (Ivy League: Johns Hopkins, Harvard) (net worth January 2020 est. $61.8 billion)

…as (2002-2013) mayor of New York City

·       …declared “95 percent (of) …murderers and murder victims fit one M.O: … male minorities (ages) 16-25.… [W]e put all the cops in minority neighborhoods … because that’s where all the crime is. …And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them…. 

·       Supported U.S. war on Iraq, claimed “War on Terrorism” is “not only to protect Americans” (but as a controversial U.S.) “…responsibility to protect (‘R2P’) people around the world who want to be free”; 

·       2004 supported George W. Bush for U.S. President;

2020
·       supported U.S. “sanctions on Chinese officials for ‘human rights violations in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang’” 

·       (February on social media) declared:
“Our country has a rich history of presidents who respected the power, decorum, and influence of their office.

“Unfortunately, that rich history ended the day Trump became president.”

All of these men, it seems to me, present strange set of values: a sense of
what is good and just
what is honest and true
what is moral, ethical, legal and indeed
human
What are the young, what are the coming generations to think?



Sources

Real Clear Politics “Bloomberg Ad Compares Trump Quotes To Past Presidents” posted by Tim Hains February 10, 2020 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/10/bloomberg_ad_compares_trump_quotes_to_past_presidents.html
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Foreign_policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Religion_in_society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect


Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved



Long Way from Madison—Time to Rethink, Revise

Qualifications Standards Enforcement  Prerequisites for Public Office We are a long way—carelessly and arrogantly distanced— from Madison, ...