Suchergebnisse

International conference to be held at the Center of Methods in Social Sciences (Qualitative Methods) on 9-10th February 2018, Göttingen This interdisciplinary and international conference offers an opportunity for discussion and exchange between scholars engaged in research on violence and those engaged in biographical research, from their different academic perspectives....

A new biography by Judith Hicks Stiehm ignores Janet Reno's many failures as attorney general.

A new Friedman biography ably explores the economist's ideas but sidesteps the libertarian movement he was central to.

A new Friedman biography ably explores the economist's ideas but sidesteps the libertarian movement he was central to.

Writer Walter Isaacson grew up in a family full of engineers and spent his spare time making radios and televisions sets. While he became a journalist and author instead, his interest in technology and science remained and has informed his selection of biography subjects, from Albert Einstein to Steve Jobs. Walter joined David to talk about his latest biography on Elon Musk and Musk's "epic hero visions of himself," his technological genius, how Musk's father's treatment of him affected his personality, the openness and transparency Musk allowed Isaacson, and criticism Isaacson received for getting too close to Musk during the writing of his book, "Elon Musk."To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

By MIKE MAGEE His biography states, "He speaks to philosophical questions about the fears and possibilities of new technology and how we can be empowered to shape our future. His work toContinue reading...

"London goes beyond any boundary or convention. It contains every wish or word ever spoken, every action or gesture ever made, every harsh or noble statement ever expressed. It is illimitable. It is Infinite London." Peter Ackroyd, "London: The Biography" (Chatto and Windus, 2000) Representing the infinities of London within a finite set of statutory … Continued

'To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle' George Orwell, Tribune, 22/III/1946 Spain's 1936-39 Civil War had a profound impact on George Orwell's writing and life, as a new biography of him shows. But for Orwell's experience, particularly the hunting down and silencing of Communist dissidents by the Stalinist party […]
La entrada How Spain's Civil War defined George Orwell politically se publicó primero en Elcano Royal Institute.

In ROAPE's latest tribute to Amílcar Cabral, Chinedu Chukwudinma interviews António Tomás, who wrote Cabral's biography in the 21st century. Tomás speaks about Cabral's political development, as well as his abilities as a teacher, revolutionary diplomat and leader. But he also discusses his insecurities, shortcomings and the myths surrounding national liberation in Guinea-Bissau.
The post Amílcar Cabral's life, legacy and reluctant nationalism – an interview with António Tomás first appeared on ROAPE.
The post Amílcar Cabral's life, legacy and reluctant nationalism – an interview with António Tomás appeared first on ROAPE.

The Canadian Council for the Americas held a webinar on the political center (sorry, centre!) in Colombia and whether it can unite. There was former Vice President Humberto de Calle (under Ernesto Samper, and he was also the head of the negotiating team with the FARC*) and then a bit later also Colombian journalists and a financier, moderated by Ken Frankel.The quick answer is that it's really tricky.De la Calle's main point was that, unlike Colombian political tradition, the center needed to start with a basic program rather than choosing a person to rally around. He gave various indicators, based on local election results and polls, about an appetite for centrist positions and parties. Centrist policy positions included agrarian reform, tax reform, pension reform, and crop substitution.But that is where the conversation got more difficult. Responses included asking where was the focus on women and youth? If the right dominated non-urban areas, how was this going to function? What are some concrete objectives? Doesn't this seem too top-down? And, fundamentally, what is the "center" anyway?Unless I missed it toward the end, when I had interruptions and missed chunks, the political mechanics of all this was missing. Who gets the ball rolling, which means controlling the message at the beginning? De la Calle advocated for self-exclusion, meaning no one would be rejected as long as they broadly accepted the program. But that depends on who defines the program.I've written before about how the FARC really screwed the democratic left in Colombia, because it's too easy to connect the left to the FARC (and nowadays also to Venezuela, though I don't know how much that actually convinces people). But I hadn't thought as much about the center. This discussion demonstrated to me how tough such a project would be. The essential question "can it unite?" just kind of hung there. Fear has served the right very well, and it's hard to overcome.* His overall political biography is really interesting. Subscribe in a reader

Updated: Edited for grammar and to spell John Adams' name properly.







Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
















































































































































































































































































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}





In my role as political analyst for MTN, I sat down on
August 14 with Republican House candidate Ryan Zinke and asked him about
releasing his full military records. In case you missed the interview, you can
watch it here. I was promised during that interview, and afterwards by Zinke
spokesperson Shelby DeMars, that I—along with the AP and Chuck Johnson of Lee Newspapers—would
receive the complete set of records. I was also told that this would take some
time.



It is now October 22, 2014, and the general election is less
than two weeks away. In last night's House debate in Great Falls, John Adams of
the Great Falls Tribune specifically asked state senator Zinke about a fitness
report in 1999 that one other former Navy Seal suggests indicates some problems
with Zinke's performance. Zinke did not provide a clear answer as to what was
in that report, and suggested that Adams "was unjust, unfair, and shameless"
for asking the question.

Adams' request was not shameless.Watch the exchange here.



I have, thus far, believed
that the Zinke campaign would in good faith produce those records in a timely
fashion. And I'm hopeful that they will still release those records. And yet, I still have not gotten what was promised. I, like John Adams,
am beginning to wonder why.



But, if I may suggest, the problem is bigger than Ryan Zinke
and his record as a Navy Seal. The problem hits directly at democratic
discourse and accountability in an era when fewer and fewer candidates running
for public office have extensive records in elected office. Yet, they ask US to
credit them with those experiences as evidence they are suitable for service in
higher public office. I believe Ryan Zinke, Steve Daines, John Lewis, and
Amanda Curtis all should release as much of their employment records as
possible to the press and the public. These experiences, they claim, will make
them excellent public servants. If that's the case, then we—the public who
choose them—should be able to make the judgment ourselves of those records.



I think there are three very good reasons for why we should
expect transparency from our congressional candidates in this regard.



First, such transparency is not unusual for those seeking
public employment of any kind. Take, for example, the information I have to
generally produce when applying for academic jobs (both public and private). As
a job candidate, I have produced the following for employers:



1.      
Transcripts (Graduate and undergraduate)

2.      
A copy of my diploma

3.      
My cv (an academic version of a resume)

4.      
References and letters of support from those
references

5.      
Student evaluations of my teaching

6.      
A teaching statement

7.      
A research statement

8.      
Publications



Then, if I'm lucky enough to get a campus interview, I often
have to give a research presentation and a teaching demonstration. All of this
is to demonstrate that my academic credentials are real and that I am competent
as a teacher and researcher. 



And, I should say, that a request for my transcripts from
Wisconsin or Indiana can be filled within 24 hours. Not more than two or three
months.



In running for Congress, candidates use their records to
bolster the case for why voters should vote for them and that they deserve the
trust of voters. Candidates who have served in elected office often have
extensive public records that voters can evaluate and pick apart—and even if
they do not, the opposition is more than happy to do it for the voters.



Ryan Zinke's House campaign biography begins with the
headline: Montana's Proven Leader. He highlights his accomplishments in nine
paragraphs. One paragraph details his service in the Montana Senate. Five
paragraphs focus on his "distinguished record" of military service. It is clear
that this service as a Navy Seal is critical to how he would like voters to
evaluate him.



Congressman Daines' campaign slogan is "More Jobs, Less
Government" and much of his campaign pitch focuses on his experience in
creating jobs—an experience he says begins with cutting government regulation
and red tape. In his campaign biography of seven paragraphs, one full paragraph
and the portion of another details his business experience. Only one full
paragraph, by contrast, details his experience in Congress. Congressman Daines
says he's a job creator. How exactly did he create jobs during his time at
RightNow and how many of those jobs were created in Montana, in the United
States, and in other countries?



Democratic candidates John Lewis and Amanda Curtis are not off
the hook here. John Lewis spent his professional career working as a staffer
for Senator Baucus, and on his campaign webpage, he notes that "working for
Senator Max Baucus and with Montana veterans, John spearheaded legislation
giving businesses incentives to hire veterans.  What began as John's idea
to better serve veterans is now the law of the land." We, as voters, should
have access to the memos staffer Lewis wrote which demonstrate how central he
was to this veterans legislation. Lewis should also ask that Senator Baucus
release his personnel file so we can see the evaluations he received as a part
of the Senator's staff in Washington and here in Montana. And Amanda Curtis,
who touts her experience as a teacher, should demonstrate to us whether she
excelled as a teacher or not.



The main point of all of this is not that Ryan Zinke was a
bad Navy Seal, that Steve Daines didn't create jobs as part of an important
hi-tech company, that John Lewis wasn't a competent Senate staffer, and Amanda
Curtis wasn't a great teacher. The point is the voters deserve to have the
ability to evaluate those claims for themselves absent a narrative constructed
by the campaign, just as my fellow political scientists have the right to
examine my academic record to help them decide—without my own spin—that I am
the right person or not for their institution. We should be able to determine
how distinguished a military career is, what makes job creator successful, and
the whether the influence a Senate staffer has on legislative outcomes is
substantial.



A second reason why these records should be made available
is the nature of who is running for Congress. In the past, the common path for
folks running for higher office was to spend considerable time working their
way up through a series of public offices, building a public record that voters
could evaluate. As our elected officials are increasingly coming from outside
the public sphere or, if they do serve in the public eye, with much shorter
tenures in office, we need to be able to assess those experiences. At least
with public officials, there is a clear public record for all to see. Without a
public track record, voters are left to the rhetoric of the candidates—who are
clearly not unbiased—to make sense of those private employment experiences. At
the very least, they should give us as much access to private records that we
can get from those in public employ. 



Finally, in an era of political polarization, it is even
more important that voters have access to unbiased sources of information to
help them make informed political judgments outside the spin room. Instead of blindly
accepting what candidates or their opponents tell you, it is even more
important to have metrics with which voters can independently judge the
records, temperament, and fitness of their candidates for public office. And,
even more important, an independent and free press must have access to these
records to do just that. 



Transparency helps us make better decisions and to have more
trust in the democratic process. One of the most important New Deal reforms, in
my judgment, was the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission which
required publicly traded companies to release particular information in a
timely and regular fashion about the company's operations and budgets. This
information allows investors far more confidence when they participate while at
the same time providing a somewhat level playing field for investors. This
trust has allowed the creation of mutual funds and a retirement system funded
largely by investments in the stock market. Shouldn't we demand the same kind
of accountability and openness of those who wish to serve in public office?
Shouldn't we demand more of and from them as investors in the democratic
marketplace?

This article was co-published with the Guardian.Nine of the 12 members of a high-level congressional committee charged with advising on the U.S.'s nuclear weapons strategy have direct financial ties to contractors that would benefit from the report's recommendations or are employed at think tanks that receive considerable funding from weapons manufacturers, the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft can reveal.While the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (CCSPUS) purports to recommend steps to avoid nuclear conflict, it does nothing to disclose its own potential conflicts of interest with the weapons industry in its final report or at rollout events at think tanks in Washington.The United States will soon face "a world where two nations [China and Russia] possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own," warned the commission's final report, released in mid-October. "In addition," the report charged, "the risk of conflict with these two nuclear peers is increasing. It is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared."According to the CCSPUS, this potential doomsday scenario requires the U.S. to make "necessary adjustments to the posture of US nuclear capabilities – in size and/or composition," a policy shift that would steer billions of taxpayer dollars to the Pentagon and nuclear weapons contractors."What we've consistently seen is the nuclear weapons industry buying influence and that means we cannot make serious decisions about our security when the industry is buying influence through think tanks and commissioners they are skewing the debate," said Susi Snyder, program coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons."Instead of having a debate about the tools and materials we need to make ourselves safe," she added, "we're having a debate about which company should get the contracts. And that doesn't make the American people safe or anyone else in the world."The CCSPUS was established two years ago via the annual defense policy bill, and conflicts of interest on the commission were apparent from the beginning. But an analysis by the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft found deep ties between the commission and the weapons industry.The most recognizable member of the CCSPUS is its vice-chair, Jon Kyl, who served as a senator from Arizona from 1995 to 2013 and again in 2018, after the death of John McCain. While this, and more, is included in his biography in the commission's report, what's left out is his more recent employment as a senior adviser with the law firm Covington & Burling, whose lobbying client list includes multiple Pentagon contractors that would benefit from the commission's recommendations.In 2017 Kyl, personally, was registered to lobby for Northrop Grumman, which manufactures the B-21 nuclear bomber that the commission recommends increasing the number the U.S. plans to buy, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700 million each.Kyl did not respond to questions about his employment status with Covington & Burling, but the former senator was listed as a "senior adviser" on the firm's website until at least December 1, 2022, nearly 10 months after the commissioner selections for the CCSPUS were announced in March 2022.Another commissioner, Franklin Miller, is a principal at the Scowcroft Group, a business advisory firm that describes Miller as having expertise in "nuclear deterrence," and acknowledges its work in the weapons sector."The Scowcroft Group successfully advised a European defense leader on a strategic acquisition opportunity," says the consulting firm in the "Defense/Aerospace" section of its website. "We have also assisted a major defense firm in pursuing global partnerships and co-production opportunities."Miller did not respond to a request for comment about the identity of the Scowcroft Group's clients.Kyl and Miller are joined on the CCSPUS by retired general John E Hyten, who previously served as the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the second-highest-ranking member of the U.S. military.While Hyten's biography in the commission's report lauds his extensive military service, in retirement he has worked closely with a number of firms that could benefit immensely from the commission's recommendations.This March he was appointed as special adviser to the CEO of C3 AI, an artificial intelligence company that boasts of working with numerous agencies at the Department of Defense. In June 2022, Hyten was named executive director of the Blue Origins foundation, called the Club for the Future, and as a strategic adviser to Blue Origin's senior leadership. Blue Origin is wholly owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and works directly with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the air force and the space force on space launch-related capabilities.Hyten's ties to these firms are notable given the CCSPUS report's repeated overtures for improving and investing in space and artificial intelligence capabilities. Specifically, the report recommends the United States "urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture" and take steps to ensure it is "at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI)."Hyten did not respond to a request for comment.The CCSPUS also included think tank scholars whose employers receive significant funding from the arms industry. Two commission members work at the Hudson Institute, which, according to its most recent annual report, received in excess of $500,000 from Pentagon contractors in 2022. This includes six-figure donations from some of the Pentagon's top contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.On Monday, October 23, the Hudson Institute held an event to highlight the CCSPUS's report that included the two Hudson Institute employees who also served as commissioners. The event unabashedly promoted recommendations from the report that would be a financial windfall for Hudson's funders. The landing page for the event features a photo of a B-21 stealth bomber, the same photo used in the commission report that also recommended that the U.S. strategic nuclear posture be modified to "increase the planned number of B-21 bombers and tankers an expanded force would require."Neither at the event nor in the report is it noted that the plane's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, is in the Hudson Institute's highest donor tier, contributing in excess of $100,000 in 2022.The Hudson Institute staff who served as commissioners did not respond to requests for comment.Another commissioner, Matthew Kroenig, is a vice-president at the Atlantic Council, a prominent DC think tank which, according to the organization's most recent annual report, is funded by several top Pentagon contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon (now RTX), General Atomics, Saab and GM Defense. The Atlantic Council also receives more than $1 million a year directly from the Department of Defense and between $250,000 and $499,999 from the Department of Energy, which helps manage the nation's nuclear arsenal.These seeming conflicts of interest were not mentioned at any point in the CCSPUS's report or at an Atlantic Council event promoting the report and featuring the same photo of the B-21 used by the Hudson Institute and the commission.Kroenig did not respond to a request for comment.Even commissioners whose careers had included positions that were notably critical of nuclear weapons had recently established ties with firms that profit from the nuclear and conventional weapons industry.Commissioner Lisa Gordon-Hagerty worked for years at the pinnacle of nuclear weapons policy in the U.S., including positions on the national security council, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Department of Energy. She was also the director of the Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization known for advocating for reductions in nuclear weapons globally. Her last government position prior to joining the commission was serving as the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is responsible for military applications of nuclear science. She resigned from the post in 2020, allegedly after heated disagreements with the secretary of energy, who tried to cut NNSA funding.While much of her career is mentioned in the commission report, what's left out is that Gordon-Hagerty has also been cashing in on her nuclear expertise. After leaving the NNSA, in 2021 she joined the board and became director of strategic programs at Westinghouse Government Services, a nuclear weapons contractor that has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars for work with the Department of Defense and Department of Energy.Gordon-Hagerty did not respond to a request for comment.Like Gordon-Hagerty, fellow commissioner Leonor Tomero had a distinguished career at the highest levels of nuclear weapons policy. According to her bio in the commission report, she was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy and served for over a decade on the House Armed Services Committee as counsel and strategic forces subcommittee staff lead, where her portfolio included the establishment of the U.S. space force, nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear cleanup, arms control and missile defense.Outside government, Tomero was Director of Nuclear non-proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, an organization that has repeatedly called for reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Tomero is also on the board of the Council for a Livable World, which explicitly states that its goal is to eliminate nuclear weapons.Yet, in September, Tomero became a vice president of government Relations at JA Green & Company, a lobbying firm whose client list includes a host of military contractors that could see revenues soar if the CCSPUS's recommendations are adopted. Space X, for example — which pays $50,000 every three months to JA Green for lobbying related to "issues related to national security space launch" — would probably benefit mightily from the commission recommendation that "the United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure US access to and operations in space.""No clients of JA Green & Company sought to influence the work of the Commission or the Commission's recommendations in any way," said Jeffrey A Green, president of JA Green, in an email. "We follow all applicable ethics rules and there are no conflicts of interest."None of the potential conflicts of interest between commissioners' financial interests and the policy proposals laid out in their final report were disclosed by the CCSPUS itself within its final report or at any public event highlighting its findings.While many commissioners did not respond to requests for comment, the commission's executive director, William A Chambers, provided a statement on behalf of the CCSPUS and its members."Members of [the commission] were chosen and appointed by Members of Congress based on their national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the Armed Forces, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce, or foreign affairs," wrote Chambers. "Before they began performing their role as Commissioners, they were instructed on the ethics rules that govern congressional entities and were required to comply with rules set forth by the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives."Chambers did not respond to a request for a copy of the ethics rules.But the opacity about potential conflicts of interest leaves some experts questioning the CCSPUS's recommendations."There's a huge argument raging over what is security, how much does it rely on transparency and, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, there is a call for greater transparency," said Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. "That light they're asking to shine on China, North Korea and Iran is a light they also need to shine on their own decision-making."

Frantz Fanon has been making the rounds lately. The subject of a new biography by Adam Shatz and a recent New Yorker essay, the anticolonial activist is enjoying a sort of intellectual renaissance. Perhaps that's because like so many people today, he lived in a world shaped by violence.
While the formal process of post-World War II decolonization had begun to run its course by 1961, when Fanon died at the age of 36, the Global South remained a violent space. Western powers continued to extract resources from former colonies, to manipulate local economies, and to expand local civil wars by intervening in regions from Latin America to Southeast Asia.
Fanon believed that violence not only begot violence, but that it could serve to uplift peoples long suffering under the colonial system. His 1961 seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth, spared no details on this point. "At the individual level," the revolutionary political philosopher argued, "violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self-confidence."
More than sixty years later, we might ask if Fanon's claims on violence still hold merit. While Fanon's writings focused entirely on anti-colonialism in his own time, broader interpretations of all violence as cleansing have entered the intellectual bloodstream. Recent conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East demonstrate the fallacies of perpetually seeing violence as a "cleansing force." All of this is worth examining in context, today.
The Martinique philosopher, it should be noted, did not speak in terms of "ethnic cleansing." In no way was he following in the abominable footsteps of an Adolf Hitler or setting a precedent for Slobodan Milošević, the 1990s "Butcher of the Balkans." Instead, Fanon meant to convey the rehabilitative nature of violence for oppressed peoples still living under the thumb of their former imperial masters. Perhaps this was because, as a psychiatrist, he actually treated victims of colonial violence — and colonizers themselves — during the Algerian war for independence from France.
But war doesn't rehabilitate. It only despoils and destroys. War is not reparative. Instead, it requires costly reconstruction in the wake of what it leaves behind. Policymakers and hawkish intellectuals alike peddle falsehoods when they promise war's therapeutic cures.
If Fanon justified the use of violence as a form of anticolonial self-defense — Shatz argues "cleansing" is better translated as "de-intoxicating" — such views have been extrapolated to rationalize military force for any occasion. In restating Russia's goals in Ukraine, for instance, President Vladimir Putin spoke in cleansing terms. Peace would come, he argued, only after the "denazification, demilitarisation and a neutral status" imposed upon Ukraine. It has been nearly a year since the World Bank estimated the costs of Ukraine's reconstruction at US $411 billion. One wonders if such massive destruction truly will wash away Putin's fears of Western encroachment toward Russian borders.
If Fanon saw violence as redemptive, he also judged it to be reactive, at least for the colonized. Violence could be politically and strategically instrumental in altering power relationships between oppressor and oppressed. In other words, it is a way to contest the infliction of injury by the more powerful when peace failed to deliver.
Did similar thinking underscore Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack against Israel? As the BBC reported, the Islamic Resistance Movement justified its actions as a response to "Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people." But the orgy of violence that followed—French President Emmanuel Macron called the 7 October attacks the "biggest antisemitic massacre of our century"—hardly was cleansing.
Nor did Israel's military response shy away from a Fanonian belief in the virtues of violence. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sidestepped criticisms of the heavy death toll among Palestinian civilians inflicted by the Israeli response, reaching back to the allies' World War II bombing campaign as justification for the "legitimate actions" of a state at war. If Fanon maintained that the colonized individuals could regain their dignity through "counter-violence," a way to liberate themselves from subjugation, surely Netanyahu thought similarly for the Israeli state writ large.
Yet the right-wing Likud party has gone farther than simply opposing violence with violence, with some extremists calling for the annihilation of Gaza and the Palestinians who live there. Can this language of genocidal violence, if not its actual practice, truly lead to the liberation of which Fanon spoke?
Lest Americans think that Fanon's political philosophizing doesn't apply to them, they need look no further than the global war on terror. In the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush landed on a two-pronged strategy for the Middle East that assumed a successful counterterrorism campaign would pave the way for a democratic transformation of the entire region. Turning Fanon on his head, the Bush administration saw violence as a way to bring order back to decolonized locales where disorder—and, to Bush and his supporters, violence—now reigned supreme.
Contemporary critics, of course, voiced their concerns. Not long after the national trauma of 9/11, journalist Chris Hedges contemplated American notions of war as a cleansing force that gave them meaning. Hedges wasn't convinced. He found the language of violence hollow, the implementation of it repugnant.
I think Hedges's doubts were (and are) justified, and not just for Americans. Do Israelis, for instance, who see themselves living in a besieged state consider their lives more meaningful for the violence they both support and endure? Do Palestinians judging themselves victims of a violent settler colonial project feel their world has been cleansed?
If Fanon remains relevant so long after his death in 1961, then perhaps policymakers and publics alike should question their enduring embrace of violence and war as cleansing forces. Historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt certainly did, arguing that the "most probable change [violence] will bring about is the change to a more violent world." Current events in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe seem to be bearing Arendt out.
To his credit, Fanon believed that violence leading to "pure, total brutality" could undermine the very political movements employing violence in the first place. But when policymakers and their people seek to use violence as a cleansing force, brutality itself seems to be the point.

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
















































































































































































































































































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}





I'm
a political scientist—with an emphasis on the science.  I've viewed my role in the public sphere as inserting
into debates what political scientists have learned about political processes
and institutions—and to try to keep both sides faithful to the empirics. At
heart, I've always been a skeptic and my training as a political scientist
makes me even more so. I'm not one to join partisan frays. It's not my style. I just go where data lead.



The election of Donald Trump, someone who had zero political
experience, certainly sent my skepticism into high gear given the data. Limited
political experience does not often equate with political success. One major
exception is Dwight David Eisenhower, but he is the exception who proves the
rule. Eisenhower was an exceptional student of leadership and, as Supreme
Allied Commander in Europe, developed a well-honed ability to convince,
negotiate and compromise with many talented, egoistic generals as they fought
the Third Reich to rid the world of Nazism.


During the fall campaign, a video of historian David
McCullough made the rounds on social media. I've long admired McCullough's accessible
and well-written history, especially his biography of Truman.





In the video, McCullough draws our attention to Eisenhower's
four qualities of leadership, noting that Trump exhibited none of those
qualities. He had neither character, ability, experience, nor responsibility. In
short, McCullough did not believe Trump was suited for the presidency. He
was especially not suited to articulating a clear moral purpose and acting as
the conciliator in chief in times of national sorrow and crisis.



Trump's repeated failure as a leader over the past eight
months should not surprise. He was as prepared for the presidency as I am to do any kind of home or car repair.



Yet the president can be a poor leader and the nation can survive:
We managed the ineptitude of Hoover and Carter. What is most troubling is that
Trump himself, through apparently carefully contrived acts, may be encouraging
values antithetical to the Republic itself.



That causes me great alarm and concern, as it should every
American regardless of party.



There are certain moral certainties, bright lines in the
sand, that are not debated in civilized society. Racism, white supremacy, and support
for Nazism are among them. No race, no people, no ethnicity is superior to any
other. Advocating violence against someone else because they are different than
you is wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Full stop.



An easy test of leadership, methinks, is denouncing
yesterday's terrible events in Charlottesville with clarity and precision. "Nazism,
racism, and violence are acts of terrorism, and have no place in our Republic
and receive my strongest condemnation" would've been a good start. Perhaps you might have taken a cue from Vice President Pence, who had no problem naming who was the blame for yesterday's events: "We have no tolerance for hate and violence from white supremacists,
neo-Nazis or the KKK," said Pence, calling them "dangerous fringe groups" today in Colombia.



Instead, the President issued a statement that was ambiguous
at best, but spoke volumes: Calling out racism, Nazism, and white supremacy wasn't
on the table. Best case? He's a coward and inept. I'm less inclined to believe this is the case: He's spoken out clearly concerning acts of terrorism undertaken by Muslims in the past. And Trump certainly has no trouble telling us what he thinks most of the time. That leaves the worst case: He's sympathetic
to their cause.


Many Americans voted for Trump because they were angry at
what they believe our country had become. Others voted for Trump simply because
he was the Republican nominee. Still others voted for him because they couldn't
stomach Hillary Clinton. It is not for me to judge a person who voted for
Trump. That's their business, and frankly, that's water under the bridge



We've seen Trump can't stomach doing what's right when the
path is clear, and may be conspiring with forces seeking to undermine the very
foundation of our Republic. It doesn't matter how you voted, but how you answer
the question: "What now?"



If you are troubled with what you've seen, at least we have
a constitutional system with multiple points of access. Write to the president;
tell him how you feel (although I'm skeptical that would matter). Write to your congressional delegation: Remember,
ambition counters ambition in our system of separated (but shared) powers. Write
to your state parties and tell them to make changes to the primary system that
will make it more likely better candidates survive the nomination process
(ironically, that may mean a little less democracy in the primaries and more
control to party elites who were overwhelmingly opposed to Trump). But do
something. Be heard, while you still can.



We have a democracy. That is, as Ben Franklin said, as long
as we can keep it. We've kept it for more than 200 years.



Whether we keep it for another 200 depends on the choices
you make now.



Just in case you need a refresher course on leadership, here's
how great leaders should behave:



1.      
Responsibility. Eisenhower, on the eve of D-Day,
prepared this statement should the landings fail:









"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed
to gain a satisfactory foothold and I

 have  withdrawn
the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on  the  best information available. The troops, the
air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches
to the attempt it is mine alone."



2.      
Character. George W. Bush after 9-11.





3.      
Ability and Experience. LBJ and the Voting
Rights Act.





4.      
Fortitude. Ronald Reagan in Berlin at the
Brandenburg Gates.





5.      
All of the Above. Churchill. 1940, as France
fell and Britain stood alone.





Ask our members of Congress to display the leadership our President will not.