My Amazon Review of George Packer's "Our Man:Richard Holbrooke and The End of the American Century"

A Man in Full

George Packer knows how to write. His 600 page (in print edition) biography of diplomat Richard Holbrooke kept my full attention throughout my reading, no mean feat. Packer fully benefited from Holbrooke’s papers given to him by Katie Marton, Holbrooke’s third wife and more than 200 interviews that put you into the room of a host of very important conversations that affected American foreign policy in every Democratic administration from Kennedy to Obama. Needless to say watching the sausage being made is very messy where personality too often dominates over policy.

Holbrooke was blessed by having met Dean Rusk as a college student through a friendship with his son and had the Harrimans, both Averell and Pamela Harriman as a patron early in his career and Hillary Clinton later on. His goal was to become secretary of state; he never achieved it, but you can find his foot prints on American policy from Vietnam to Afghanistan.

We see Holbrooke in the bush taking fire in 1960’s Vietnam as a young Foreign Service officer, where he realizes early on that the war was unwinnable and again see him taking fire in the Balkans in the 1990s and Afghanistan in 2010. He certainly had raw physical courage. He also knew how to dominate a room. Through the force of his personality he basically brokers the end of the Bosnian civil war with what became known as the Dayton Accords.

Holbrooke’s problem was that many of the coalitions he built were against him. Simply put, all too many people couldn’t stand him. Too be sure they respected his intellect and insights, but he had a way of annoying his best of friends. President Obama made him our Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009, yet after appointing him he refused to meet with him or even be in the same room with him. Even Hillary Clinton, his principal sponsor, grew tired of him. In fact he suffers a fatal heart attack in Clinton’s office while he was arguing for a negotiated solution to with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Holbrooke’s life was focused on foreign policy to the exclusion of practically everything else. Packer makes it clear that it was no easy task to be one of his spouses, where he had numerous affairs including with his best friend’s wife. That best friend was Tony Lake, who became national security adviser to Bill Clinton and a lifelong bureaucratic adversary.

His personal faults aside Holbrooke cared about our country and wanted our foreign policy to reflect the best of our ideals. He became a full-throated supporter of humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and he understood coercive diplomacy had a role in formulating foreign policy. Holbrooke was tough on our enemies and too often he was tough on his friends. He was truly a man in full and Packer’s writing brings that out.

The full amazon URL appears at: https://www.amazon.com/review/RQG5BWHYE8NK3/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv

My Amazon Review of Richard Florida's "The New Urban Crisis:......"

An Indictment of Urban Liberalism

I know urban planning professor Richard Florida did not intend it, but his new book represents an indictment of urban liberalism. To Florida the motive force in urban America is “The Rise of the Creative Class,” the title of a highly influential book he wrote in 2002. The creative class consists of occupations in the sciences, the arts, music, entertainment, media, management, finance, healthcare and education; in other words the educated elite. Sitting below them is the working class who represents blue collar workers and the service class consisting routine jobs food service, hospitality, maintenance and retail. In other words people like Florida, despite his humble roots, determine the destiny of a city. And to him the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the victory of Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election meant that the barbarians were at the gates. That may be true but the seeds urban liberalism failures were already planted well before the arrival of Trump. As an aside, my guess is that if Hillary won, Florida would now be sitting in a high post at HUD.

As Florida accurately notes the influx of the creative class into the cities of America brought with it rising real estate prices that exacerbated pre-existing income inequality, racial segregation and spatial segregation of the well-off from the  poor. This has been especially true in the super star cities of New York and Los Angeles and the education/tech hubs of Boston, San Francisco and Washington D.C. In those cities the demand-driven house price increases are exacerbated by the planning and zoning controls put in place by the very creative class that Florida champions. If you don’t believe me, just look at the over-the-top real estate ads that appear regularly in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times. As a result the creative class has been enriched and the middle class is being forced out. Thus in urban America zoning is the engine of economic inequality.

All of this was true from the 1980s on and most, if not all of it, were accomplished under the auspices of urban liberal regimes. Florida’s major error is that he conflates social liberalism with economic liberalism. While his creative class may largely support immigration, gay rights and a high degree of tolerance for different lifestyles; they do not necessarily believe that social liberalism requires them to make personal sacrifices with respect to their tax burden, the schools their children go to and the location of affordable housing in their neighborhoods. For example the liberal voters of Los Angeles just voted to tax themselves to provide housing for the homeless. However there are no neighborhoods volunteering to accommodate such housing.

Now Florida to his credit understands all of this. He offers several commendable proposals to offset the income inequality generated by his creative class. I fully agree with him that urban/suburban densities ought to be substantially increased, additional density bonuses ought to be issued to allow for an affordable housing component in major developments, property taxation should build on the ideas of Henry George by taxing site value alone rather than land and improvements, transportation infrastructure should be expanded to accommodate higher densities, and low income earners need an expanded earned income tax credit. Further he sensibly understands that rent control is not part of the solution.

Where I would disagree with him is that he advocates a substantial increase in the minimum wage on metro-area by metro area basis. The problem here is that substantially higher minimum wages may worsen the problem it seeks to solve and recent research out of the University of Washington on Seattle’s minimum wage tends to support my skepticism. We are also in an age of artificial intelligence and that will work to obliterate routine task jobs in food service and retail.

Where I really differ with Florida is that he thinks that his creative class will support substantially increased urban densities. Here I am very skeptical because it is the legally savvy creative class who has refined protesting new developments to a high art. Listen, I hope he is right, but I am not holding my breath. Three last points, he leaves out a discussion on self-driving vehicles which might work to decrease urban densities by making long distance commuting far easier. He fails to even mention the underbelly of every major city in America, unfunded pension liabilities largely created by that bulwark of urban liberalism, the public employee unions. And third he is silent on the state sponsored child abuse that takes place in all too many urban school systems. I am hopeful he will discuss these three items in a future book.

Despite my critique, Florida’s data driven analysis told us how we got to this place in urban America today and for that he deserves much credit.

The Amazon URL is: https://www.amazon.com/review/R3G3AN9RIMTDM0/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv

Why This Republican is Voting for Hillary Clinton

I will vote for Hillary Clinton in November. I will do this knowing full well that Hillary Clinton has more baggage than United Airlines and that she would nominate Supreme Court justices that would do violence to the First, Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. She flat out lied about her home brew server and was careless with the classified information on it; thereby imperiling national security.  I recognize that she is owned in fee-simple by one of the most reactionary groups in America, the public employee unions. Further I assume that the SVR, the foreign intelligence service of the Russian Federation, will cause to be released documents showing a very unsavory connection between Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation.

Had Trump not been nominated, I would have proudly voted for Marco Rubio, John Kasich or Jeb Bush and would have supported Scott Walker, Chris Christie and yes, Mike Pence. But compared to these candidates Donald Trump lives on another planet. Simply put he is not a Republican or a conservative as we have known those terms to be defined.

So you might rightly ask, why will I vote for her? The reason is simple. Hillary Clinton, as cynical as she sometimes can be, believes in America and its values. Trump does not by wanting to establish religious tests for immigration and ethnic tests for judges. She is open to the world; Trump is not. Donald Trump believes in only himself. As Khizr Kahn, the Muslim father of a slain U.S. Army captain noted at the Democratic Convention of Trump: “You have sacrificed nothing.”   And hopefully we will soon know the contents of Trump’s tax returns which will demonstrate that he is not as rich as he says he is, has given only pittance to charity and has played the tax code like an aria by paying a minimal amount of taxes. The media should think about not covering him until he releases his tax returns, like every modern candidate for the presidency. Why do they let him get away with it?

Trump represents a steak of authoritarianism that goes back to the proto-fascist America First movement of the early 1940s championed by Charles Lindbergh. He doesn’t have a clue about foreign policy and has no advisers of stature, military or diplomatic. This is evidenced by his “bromance” with Putin and his playing fast and loose with our commitments to NATO. In contrast Hillary Clinton is a tough minded foreign policy realist who understands the dangers we face with Putinism and ISIS.

As I wrote in two prior blog posts (http://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2014/05/reliving-1930s.html and http://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2014/08/reliving-1930s-part-2.html )  we are in the process of reliving the 1930s where Russian expansionism in the Ukraine is analogous to Hitler’s moves in central Europe and the rise of antisemitism in Europe today has a parallel to that dark era. Similar to the 1930s, Trump wants to close America off from the rest of the world. He doesn’t realize that we benefit from trade and immigration. To be sure there are losers in the process and we as a society have to do much better for them going forward.

Further, if you think Hillary has a problem with the truth, she doesn’t hold a candle to The Donald’s prevarications. Simply put, as the old adage goes, “How can you tell when Trump is lying? Answer: When he is moving his lips.”  You really can’t tell from one day to the next what he will say and whether or not he will say the same thing again the following day. He is an unstable egomaniac who is unfit for public office, any office. That is why I will be voting for Hillary.

Now I will close with some internal Republican Party dynamics. We brought Trump on ourselves. The Congressional leadership, K-Street lobbyists and public policy intellectuals (save a few) only talked to themselves. They had no clue as to what was going on out in the country and became completely out of touch with the working class base of the Republican Party. Instead of the toney restaurants of D.C., I suggest they visit the fast food joints and bars of the Midwest and South. Simply put a whole lot of soul searching is ahead of us.

Hillary Bumper Sticker - Not Indicted,Vote Hillary

F.B.I. Director  James Comey walked right up to the line of recommending a charge of criminal negligence against Hillary Clinton, but he did not cross it. Instead he declared that she was "extremely careless" with the handling of Top Secret  information. There goes all of her prior denials about sending and receiving classified information. He further noted that she "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." Indeed Comey noted how lax Hillary's State Department was with the whole process of handling classified information. Hardly the hallmark of a good manager.

Although she was not charged criminally, if she were still Secretary of State it would be grounds for impeachment. Further, if any government employee with a Top Secret clearance were so cavalier in handling such information, at minimum that employee would have had their clearance suspended, more likely would be fired.

As a result, this issue ain't going away.

Hillary Gives a Speech

Yesterday Hillary Clinton delivered a major foreign policy speech in San Diego. It was certainly a speech that Bernie Sanders, crybaby Donnie Trump and yes, Barack Obama would not have given. Although the press picked up all of her criticisms of Donnie Trump, what was really important was her full throated endorsement of American exceptionalism and the internationalist foreign policy our country has engaged in since the late 1940's.

Her words included such phrases as "And if America doesn't lead, we leave a vacuum," (so much for leading from behind) "Stick with our allies," and "Israel's security is non-negotiable." She also bashed those who would start a trade war with China. Not a bad speech, and one one that former Defense Secretary and CIA Chief Bob Gates could have delivered along with several of the also ran Republican candidates for president.

Of course she didn't, and couldn't, go into the foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration in which she played a major role. Nevertheless she made an important start towards both a general election and governing strategy. Let's hope she keeps it up.

Reversals of Fortune

With the polls now indicating a tight race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a far cry from the blowout predicted for Clinton two months ago, the focus will now turn to the July conventions. Where in early April it appeared that the Republicans were on the road to suicide, it now appears that the Democratic Convention will be far more raucous. To the chagrin of the Clinton's, it now appears that Bernie is a bitter-ender. After all Bernie Sanders, despite his Jewish background, is really a member of The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage. Simply put, Bernie is looking for a fight. My guess as the Republicans line up for Trump, the Democrats will make their Nevada convention look like a dress rehearsal for the real thing.

The other reversal of fortune is that while the Obama Administration was busy in taking Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, off the $20 bill a new Jacksonian was on the rise in the person Donald Trump. Recall that Jackson was the richest man in Tennessee, believed in democracy for white Americans only, supported the "tariff of abominations," removed the Cherokee Nation from Georgia and Tennessee and though his foreign policy was isolationist he believed that when attacked the U.S. should use the full might of its military to defeat the attacker. This sounds awfully like The Donald.

I know it is early and there will be more reversals, but we are living in an extraordinary political year where the two leading candidates are disliked by a majority of voters, myself included. To mix metaphors batten down the hatches and fasten your seat belts!

The French Lion and the American Poodle

It has been five days since the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris. During that interval we have learned much about the character of the President of France and the President of the United States. It is clear that French President Hollande is a decisive leader ready and willing to act to defend his country. In contrast President Obama, of the squishy red-line, appears to be more hostile towards his domestic opponents than ISIS. With his typical debating style he argues he doesn't allow for a middle ground between an all-out intervention and doing nothing. 

Perhaps he should talk to his former Secretary of State who is now advocating a no-fly zone and committing considerably more special operations forces. Mrs. Clinton is obviously way more clear eyed than her former boss. For whatever reason President Obama has become the American poodle to the French lion.