As I write this, very important people in Iowa--people far more important than you and I--are deciding who deserves starting momentum as the candidate who receives the coveted delegates, which, in recent tradition, has gone on to become the nominee for president. Everyone feels this is the most important caucus ever because they will be challenging that guy who somehow became our president. Who would want to sit in the Oval Office after him, right? Some heroic people who would need to truly clear the mechanism to tamp down their imagination of what went on in that room.
While they're deciding, I figure I could expound on that book list I just posted the other night.
Each time I read a book, I simplify exactly what my brain should retain when it wants to recall the main theme. I bought them, so I can always go back for details, but I like to have certain ideas on the ready for guidance when I need some.
So here goes:
I hadn't mentioned this before, but the first book I actually read this year was a spy novel: John Le Carre's The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. I got the idea from reading Modern Library's 100 Greatest Fiction Books of the 20th Century "Reader's List," and saw that it had been lauded by some as the greatest spy novel of all time. I recently read a Guardian article by the author after he received a prize, and he seems like a stand up guy.
I chose to read this 1963 novel about a British spy working in East Berlin because I'd just had quite a few servings of Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, and I thought I could use something fictional yet still on topic, and from the other side's point of view. The thing is, I'm not sure it was. I don't think many with access to information would choose to live in a walled off city under the control of an authoritarian system, no matter how much they claimed to be about helping the poor. But the main protagonist poses as a double agent, only to get caught up in a ring of double triple super quadruple agents or something, where ideologies are tossed around, and it pretty much shakes out that both systems tend to treat their citizens as expendable pawns in a game of chess whose ultimate purpose isn't quite clear. Apparently Le Carre was working on it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I finished reading the book on New Year's Day after yet another visit to the book store, where I bought many of the books I've read on this list.
After that I read David McCullough's 1776. The quick take: revolutions aren't easy. They take supreme courage, perseverance, and belief that what you're fighting for isn't worth it just for you, your family, or your nation, but for generations to come. I view the war to save Earth as a more important fight than the American Revolution. Also, George Washington was awesome, which I already knew, but now I know even more than before.
Having completed that, I figured I should get to know presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren a little more. I read her memoir A Fighting Chance, which was more specifically about her policy fights with the financial world a decade ago. To learn more about broader policy proposals, I still need to read This is Our Fight. Right now she isn't doing as well in the polls as she was when I read her book, but she's still got a chance. I wish that when that story about Bernie saying a woman couldn't win had leaked, that she had simply said "It was a private conversation" instead of confirming it and then confronting him onstage. I wish that because I was still rooting for her, and had a hunch that voters wouldn't like the optics or the "he-said/she-said," and sure enough he went up in the polls and she went down a few points. Maybe she'll recover, but I thought it would have been savvier just to let the story be, because it was already out there, and she could appear to be taking the high road by refusing to talk about a private meeting as opposed to opening herself to attacks that she imagined women couldn't think for themselves and would naturally all flock to her. I don't think she thought that way, and I don't think she was making anything up, but it distracted from the larger issues. Hopefully she recovers.
Speaking of Bernie Sanders, I read Our Revolution immediately after the aforementioned tiff, and I understood why he gained such popularity and why he was surging in the polls. I'm not sure about his policy prescriptions, I'm less sure about their political viability given the three branches of government and the way gerrymandering makes liberals underrepresented in the country, and I'm even less sure that he can finesse and corral Democrats into making policies into any kind of reality. Which is really a shame because most of these policies are just what I would like the world to have to make it a kinder and fairer place. The reason I'm starting to get excited about his candidacy is that with respect to climate change, a serious Green New Deal is the only shot we've got! Regardless of his history, when considering his actual policy proposals, he isn't a socialist, and he isn't proposing a revolution. He's a solid New Deal Democrat, who has more in common with Dwight Eisenhower than the current GOP. FDR did pretty well when we needed to save civilization. He had more charm to woo voters and soothe the egos of political adversaries, but anger seems to be more appealing these days. I guess we'll see what the voters want. To be fair, I think anger is an appropriate response to the destruction of Earth.
Which brings me to Bill McKibben's Eaarth. Summary: climate change is already here, we're already past the point of no return on irreparably damaging our planet, but if we do everything right in the next ten years, we still have a chance to reduce the destruction. Unfortunately, it was written ten years ago. Thus, I give wholehearted support to candidates who prioritize fighting against climate change, ocean acidification, reduced biodiversity, a warped nitrogen cycle, depleted aquifers, and so on and so forth.
The next logical choice was to read Naomi Klein's On Fire, which is a collection of her writings about climate in the past decade. Whereas I don't have an ideological horse in the race between responsible capitalism/democratic socialism, or whatever it is that divides Warren and Sanders, I understand that our economic models are unsustainable. Although the marketplace has helped renewable energy become more cost-effective, the market isn't fast enough to sort it all out in time. The invisible hand we need must become visible. I don't know how many fingers need to be working for the government, but it needs to be more than we have now.
I switched gears to John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society because it was on Modern Library's 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books of the 20th Century. I enjoyed the book: less money for wars, more money for schools and education. Sounds right. Then I read his Wikipedia page, and saw that Paul Krugman had criticized Galbraith because he was more of a celebrity economist than an academic, so I decided to buy a Krugman book, which I am reading now. Apparently a Green New Deal is a great idea, and Medicare for All is indeed a worthy goal. Then again, they're both wars in the political trenches, given how much people have always delighted in profiting off the misery of their fellow human beings.
After Galbraith I read John Dewey's book about education because it was on that same modern library list, Noam Chomsky had cited him as his main influence in his approach to education, and he came up in a TOEFL reading about famous 20th century American philosophers alongside William James, whose Varieties of Religious Experience overlapped nicely with some of my own experiences. Guide them, but allow them to learn, experiment, and be guided by their own curiosity and creativity.
With only a few days left in the month, I was able to squeeze in Doris Kearns Goodwin's Leadership in Turbulent Times. I'd already bought her FDR/Eleanor book during my large book haul in September, and I plan to read it before the election, but I saw Leadership when I went to Northshire Books with my sister and brother-in-law after Christmas. I used some of the money I'd won back in the previous night's friendly low stakes poker game, figuring it would be perfect to read during the month of 1/20.
Even though all of the issues I've been reading about are pressing and some are existential threats, solutions will only come if we have the right leadership. I'm sure it didn't feel this way for many people who were living through these turbulent times, but they really got lucky when Abraham, Theodore, Franklin and Lyndon were there to free the slaves, resolve the coal miner's strike, respond to the banking crisis in the Great Depression (not to mention the Second World War) and finally get something done with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. None of them were perfect leaders, and they all learned from their mistakes. They overcame adversity, suffered blows to their confidence, experienced depression, weakness and defeat. But they grew through these experiences and came back stronger, wiser and better positioned to lead the United States of America. Most importantly, they weren't timid when it came to attempting things which hadn't been done before and they knew would meet with terrific resistance. That's why they ended up being such good stories.
All this understanding is served by hindsight, and that's one thing the voters in Iowa don't have tonight. I must admit, I am happy I won't have to choose until the end of April.
Whatever happens tonight, I think this one is going to be close for a while. Just like you, I have no way of knowing exactly who the best candidate is going to be, which is always the case in an election. But I would remind voters, based on my recent reading of presidents, that you only win when you are in it to win, instead of just hoping you don't lose. Centrist Democrats have done well running for other offices, but when it comes to the presidency, voters want to be excited about their candidate. Just look at all the elections since 2000, and tell me how many times the Democrats have won while playing it "safe." If you're registered to vote in the primary elections, I encourage you to vote for the candidate you think will be the best president and whose policy goals will give us the best chance to enable humanity's beautiful experiment with existence to truly thrive
While they're deciding, I figure I could expound on that book list I just posted the other night.
Each time I read a book, I simplify exactly what my brain should retain when it wants to recall the main theme. I bought them, so I can always go back for details, but I like to have certain ideas on the ready for guidance when I need some.
So here goes:
I hadn't mentioned this before, but the first book I actually read this year was a spy novel: John Le Carre's The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. I got the idea from reading Modern Library's 100 Greatest Fiction Books of the 20th Century "Reader's List," and saw that it had been lauded by some as the greatest spy novel of all time. I recently read a Guardian article by the author after he received a prize, and he seems like a stand up guy.
I chose to read this 1963 novel about a British spy working in East Berlin because I'd just had quite a few servings of Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, and I thought I could use something fictional yet still on topic, and from the other side's point of view. The thing is, I'm not sure it was. I don't think many with access to information would choose to live in a walled off city under the control of an authoritarian system, no matter how much they claimed to be about helping the poor. But the main protagonist poses as a double agent, only to get caught up in a ring of double triple super quadruple agents or something, where ideologies are tossed around, and it pretty much shakes out that both systems tend to treat their citizens as expendable pawns in a game of chess whose ultimate purpose isn't quite clear. Apparently Le Carre was working on it during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I finished reading the book on New Year's Day after yet another visit to the book store, where I bought many of the books I've read on this list.
After that I read David McCullough's 1776. The quick take: revolutions aren't easy. They take supreme courage, perseverance, and belief that what you're fighting for isn't worth it just for you, your family, or your nation, but for generations to come. I view the war to save Earth as a more important fight than the American Revolution. Also, George Washington was awesome, which I already knew, but now I know even more than before.
Having completed that, I figured I should get to know presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren a little more. I read her memoir A Fighting Chance, which was more specifically about her policy fights with the financial world a decade ago. To learn more about broader policy proposals, I still need to read This is Our Fight. Right now she isn't doing as well in the polls as she was when I read her book, but she's still got a chance. I wish that when that story about Bernie saying a woman couldn't win had leaked, that she had simply said "It was a private conversation" instead of confirming it and then confronting him onstage. I wish that because I was still rooting for her, and had a hunch that voters wouldn't like the optics or the "he-said/she-said," and sure enough he went up in the polls and she went down a few points. Maybe she'll recover, but I thought it would have been savvier just to let the story be, because it was already out there, and she could appear to be taking the high road by refusing to talk about a private meeting as opposed to opening herself to attacks that she imagined women couldn't think for themselves and would naturally all flock to her. I don't think she thought that way, and I don't think she was making anything up, but it distracted from the larger issues. Hopefully she recovers.
Speaking of Bernie Sanders, I read Our Revolution immediately after the aforementioned tiff, and I understood why he gained such popularity and why he was surging in the polls. I'm not sure about his policy prescriptions, I'm less sure about their political viability given the three branches of government and the way gerrymandering makes liberals underrepresented in the country, and I'm even less sure that he can finesse and corral Democrats into making policies into any kind of reality. Which is really a shame because most of these policies are just what I would like the world to have to make it a kinder and fairer place. The reason I'm starting to get excited about his candidacy is that with respect to climate change, a serious Green New Deal is the only shot we've got! Regardless of his history, when considering his actual policy proposals, he isn't a socialist, and he isn't proposing a revolution. He's a solid New Deal Democrat, who has more in common with Dwight Eisenhower than the current GOP. FDR did pretty well when we needed to save civilization. He had more charm to woo voters and soothe the egos of political adversaries, but anger seems to be more appealing these days. I guess we'll see what the voters want. To be fair, I think anger is an appropriate response to the destruction of Earth.
Which brings me to Bill McKibben's Eaarth. Summary: climate change is already here, we're already past the point of no return on irreparably damaging our planet, but if we do everything right in the next ten years, we still have a chance to reduce the destruction. Unfortunately, it was written ten years ago. Thus, I give wholehearted support to candidates who prioritize fighting against climate change, ocean acidification, reduced biodiversity, a warped nitrogen cycle, depleted aquifers, and so on and so forth.
The next logical choice was to read Naomi Klein's On Fire, which is a collection of her writings about climate in the past decade. Whereas I don't have an ideological horse in the race between responsible capitalism/democratic socialism, or whatever it is that divides Warren and Sanders, I understand that our economic models are unsustainable. Although the marketplace has helped renewable energy become more cost-effective, the market isn't fast enough to sort it all out in time. The invisible hand we need must become visible. I don't know how many fingers need to be working for the government, but it needs to be more than we have now.
I switched gears to John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society because it was on Modern Library's 100 Greatest Non-Fiction Books of the 20th Century. I enjoyed the book: less money for wars, more money for schools and education. Sounds right. Then I read his Wikipedia page, and saw that Paul Krugman had criticized Galbraith because he was more of a celebrity economist than an academic, so I decided to buy a Krugman book, which I am reading now. Apparently a Green New Deal is a great idea, and Medicare for All is indeed a worthy goal. Then again, they're both wars in the political trenches, given how much people have always delighted in profiting off the misery of their fellow human beings.
After Galbraith I read John Dewey's book about education because it was on that same modern library list, Noam Chomsky had cited him as his main influence in his approach to education, and he came up in a TOEFL reading about famous 20th century American philosophers alongside William James, whose Varieties of Religious Experience overlapped nicely with some of my own experiences. Guide them, but allow them to learn, experiment, and be guided by their own curiosity and creativity.
With only a few days left in the month, I was able to squeeze in Doris Kearns Goodwin's Leadership in Turbulent Times. I'd already bought her FDR/Eleanor book during my large book haul in September, and I plan to read it before the election, but I saw Leadership when I went to Northshire Books with my sister and brother-in-law after Christmas. I used some of the money I'd won back in the previous night's friendly low stakes poker game, figuring it would be perfect to read during the month of 1/20.
Even though all of the issues I've been reading about are pressing and some are existential threats, solutions will only come if we have the right leadership. I'm sure it didn't feel this way for many people who were living through these turbulent times, but they really got lucky when Abraham, Theodore, Franklin and Lyndon were there to free the slaves, resolve the coal miner's strike, respond to the banking crisis in the Great Depression (not to mention the Second World War) and finally get something done with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. None of them were perfect leaders, and they all learned from their mistakes. They overcame adversity, suffered blows to their confidence, experienced depression, weakness and defeat. But they grew through these experiences and came back stronger, wiser and better positioned to lead the United States of America. Most importantly, they weren't timid when it came to attempting things which hadn't been done before and they knew would meet with terrific resistance. That's why they ended up being such good stories.
All this understanding is served by hindsight, and that's one thing the voters in Iowa don't have tonight. I must admit, I am happy I won't have to choose until the end of April.
Whatever happens tonight, I think this one is going to be close for a while. Just like you, I have no way of knowing exactly who the best candidate is going to be, which is always the case in an election. But I would remind voters, based on my recent reading of presidents, that you only win when you are in it to win, instead of just hoping you don't lose. Centrist Democrats have done well running for other offices, but when it comes to the presidency, voters want to be excited about their candidate. Just look at all the elections since 2000, and tell me how many times the Democrats have won while playing it "safe." If you're registered to vote in the primary elections, I encourage you to vote for the candidate you think will be the best president and whose policy goals will give us the best chance to enable humanity's beautiful experiment with existence to truly thrive
No comments:
Post a Comment