BIBI NETANYAHU'S WATERLOO

On October 7 the world woke up to videos of horrendous slaughter in Israel, executed by Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli occupied Palestinian territories. While branding Hamas a terrorist organization, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu proclaimed that the country was now engaged in a full scale war, not only to retaliate for the brutal murder of 1,200 of its citizens and the capture of more than 240 hostages, but, in essence, for the country's survival. What he neglected to tell his listeners was that, in a real sense, Mr. Netanyahu is now also engaged in a battle for his personal political survival. Even though Bibi Netanyahu is the longest serving Israeli prime minister in the country's history, his survival as the dominant political figure does not necessarily reflect his popularity. He has been adept at adjusting to changing domestic political realities over time. Moreover, he has been more than willing to callously manipulate skirmishes with mostly Palestinian opponents into life or death situations for the Jewish state. In the process he managed to continually reinvent himself as the savior of the only democratic country in the Middle East. Well before the October 7 attacks, Netanyahu's popularity had already plummeted across the political spectrum. The Israeli press excoriated him, and former security officials and activists opposed to his judicial reform agenda called for him to step down. The outbreak of war has led to increased dislike for the prime minister and his government because of the general belief that it failed to follow up on security and intelligence indicators that could have prevented the massacre. Recent polling indicated that 86% of respondents hold the country's leadership responsible for the security failures that led to the surprise attack, and 56% of Israelis believe that the prime minister should resign. Netanyahu has been under indictment for breach of trust, bribery and fraud since 2019. If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of 3 years for fraud and breach of trust. Politically, his right wing government has attempted to pass judicial reform intended to weaken the Israeli Supreme Court and to make it more difficult to remove him from power. These attempts have sparked some of the largest public demonstrations in Israel's history. Given the theoretical possibility that he could be forced out of office if his popularity continues to drop, his political crisis raises the question of whether he could view prolonged military intervention as a way to cling to political survival. Since Israel is relatively isolated in the conflict with Hamas, it would stand to reason that its government would pay heed to suggestions from a diminishing number of unwavering international partners. These not so subtle recommendations issued by major players like President Joe Biden, who visited the country arguably at his own political peril, have largely been ignored. It may be an overstatement to suggest that the Israeli government should pay attention to our advice. Israel is, after all, an independent country. However, we may be less inclined to protect it if its government remains unresponsive. The argument can be made that its survival won't just be dependent on the outcome of this war. The U.S. has been its dominant supporter since its inception. Between 1951 and 2022 we have provided $225.2 billion in aid - more than to any other country since World War II. We have also used our U.N. Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel. This is out of 83 times we used our veto. Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently refused to consider the advice of our most seasoned political operatives. He pointedly opposed the Iran nuclear deal pursued and agreed to under President Obama. The prime minister ran a multi-pronged sustained public campaign against it - not just in the international sphere, but inside the U.S. as well. (He managed to get President Trump to withdraw from it.) Our support for the establishment of a Palestinian state was also nixed. Netanyahu wanted a demilitarized Palestinian state and further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. President Biden's proposal to "pause" the unrestricted cataclysmic attack on Gaza is also being ignore. For decades, U.S. Secretaries of State, peace envoys and politicians of all stripes have expressed their belief that Mr. Netanyahu never had an interest in pursuing peace. In fact, he actively runs campaigns inside our country, manipulating our electorate for his personal political benefit. Many stakeholders in Israel and the U.S. are finally getting tired of Bibi's narcissistic indifference to well intended advice. Influential voices from across the political spectrum, uttered from multiple, well developed, platforms, are beginning to characterize Bibi Netanyahu as the "worst leader in [Israel's] history." (e.g. Friedman et al). Several have suggested that "the sooner Israel replaces Netanyahu and his far-right allies with a true center-left/ center-right national unity government, the better chance that Biden will not have hitched his credibility and ours to a Netanyahu Israel that will never be able to fully help us to help it." In the mean time Netanyahu will continue to pursue a war of devastation in Gaza, nominally to eradicate Hamas, but actually slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians who have nowhere to hide or go. He will likely continue this unscrupulous battle as long as he believes that the outcome may benefit him politically. The world is waiting for conscientious Israeli leaders to put a stop to this and to him. Like Napoleon a little more than two centuries ago, Israel's perennial prime minister might actually be fighting the battle that will ultimately end his imperial power. Theo Wierdsma

HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Many of us probably remember the old adage: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me." At a personal level, among kids growing up, there might be some truth to that. On a national level, however, evidence indicates that words, when inserted into inflammatory speech patterns can be dangerous and have historically preceded horrific genocides. We all had the unfortunate experience of suffering through the occasional uncontrolled rants from former President Donald Trump. For a while, after he left office, Mr. Trump's erratic behavior was masked, numbed and normalized by the political fatigue permeating the media and the public. But ever since he was issued multiple indictments, and since he decided to become the primary candidate for his party's nomination in next year's presidential contest, things changed. His words took a violent turn - like calling for former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to be executed, mocking a potentially fatal assault on a congressional spouse and urging police to shoot shoplifters - suggest a line has been crossed. For the bulk of the time after he was elevated to national political prominence, Donald Trump openly expressed his disdain for migrants at our Southern border. He referred to them as rapists and criminals, suggested they were not people, but animals from shit hole countries, infesting our country like rats, and he actually suggested that border patrol agents should shoot migrants who attempted to illegally cross the border. More recently, during an interview for "The National Pulse," he claimed that undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." This statement comes straight from Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," which led to a Nazi rallying cry that translates to "Blood and Soil," replicated by Neo-Nazis and white nationalists during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. His incendiary rants against judges adjudicating his multiple indictments in Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington have become daily occurrences. Mr. Trump routinely refers to prosecutors as "a team of thugs." He called one potential witness "a gutless pig," and accused African American judges of "racism." Apologists for the former president point to his First Amendment rights. However, "Freedom of Speech" is not unlimited. In "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the Supreme Court, in 1969, concluded that a call for violence or mob action could be punished if it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It seems reasonable to believe that many of Mr. Trump's utterances have crossed that line. Moreover, given his prominent position in our current political climate and the presence of his dedicated following, many of his public statements are outright dangerous. To quote well-known conservative attorney George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, who worked for Trump from 2016 to 2020: "Donald Trump is profoundly psychopathic in the way he expresses himself, and he is getting worse!" Let's revisit some historical cases. The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers, but with hate speech against a minority. Before Jews were driven out of their schools, their jobs, their homes; before the synagogues, shops and businesses were destroyed; and before there were ghettos and camps, words were used to stoke the fires of hate. Words were ultimately used as incitement to genocide. Six million perished. The Cambodian genocide was preceded by hateful discourse, systematically dubbing intellectuals, city dwellers, political opponents as well as ethnic and religious minorities as the enemy of the people. The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians during the time he was in power, from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 genocide instigated by the majority Hutus in Rwanda took place after decades of hate speech, exacerbated ethnic tensions by spreading unfounded rumors, and dehumanizing the minority Tutsis. More than one million were killed in less than three months. The Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was facilitated by constant nationalist propaganda demonizing the Bosnian Muslim population. Approximately 8,000 targeted Muslim men and boys were killed during a war which eventually ended up killing 100,000. The question often asked is: "Can it happen here?" People familiar with the historic backdrop to these and other genocides will most likely respond: "Unfortunately, yes, it can!" Verbal attacks on the judiciary have already resulted in a 400% increase in threats to federal judges - 4,000 reported incidences in 2020 alone. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the toxic combination of political polarization, anti-immigrant sentiment and the growth of technologies that help spread propaganda on line have grown the number of recognized hate groups to a historic high of 1020, a 30% increase over 2014. Some of us are still haunted by the Charlottesville rally during which torch bearing Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and members of the Ku Klux Klan were chanting: "Jews will not replace us." To which then President Trump responded: "There were fine people on both sides." You can't have it both ways. Respect for human dignity should not require a choice. Theo Wierdsma

DISCORD, DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

President Biden's recent change of heart about continuing the extension of the wall along the U.S./Mexican border raised a lot of eyebrows. During his presidential campaign three years ago, then candidate Joe Biden made it "perfectly clear" that during his administration not a single foot of wall would be built. A few weeks ago, he announced the release of funds to build up to 20 more miles of this controversial medieval barrier, claiming he had no choice but to release the money allocated during the Trump administration. When questioned about that decision, the president appeared openly uncomfortable. He confessed that he still believed that walls didn't work. Members of both political parties were quick to denounce his decision as hypocritical and politically expedient. However, social psychologists would refer to his reaction as a clear case of "cognitive dissonance," a mental conflict that occurs when beliefs don't reflect actions. The president displayed significant discomfort as he grappled with contradictory values, attitudes and perspectives about border control. As we move into next year's election cycle, many of us may experience similar uncomfortable episodes. Uncomfortable sensations which we will be motivated to reduce or explain away. To be clear, everyone experiences cognitive dissonance in their life. It happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. You may crave hamburgers, even though you love cattle. You want to be healthy, but you don't exercise or eat a nutritious diet. You recognize that smoking or drinking too much is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You know you should drink eight glasses of water every day, but you drink coke instead, since it consists predominantly of water, and it tastes better. The link to politics seems obvious. We essentially have a two party system. Not every point of view is represented in isolation, like, for instance, in a proportional representation system used predominantly in Europe. Many of us will vote along straight party lines, holding our nose, not necessarily agreeing with everything contained in our party's platform or proclaimed by its candidate. We find ways to reduce our discomfort by yielding to social pressure, by trivializing the importance of discordant opinions, by denying responsibility or by other means that help us feel better about our decisions. A pertinent current example is the dissonance experienced by observers who are asked to state a position on Israel's response to the slaughter carried out by Hamas terrorists inside their country on October 7. Many will agree that Israel has a perfect right, or even a responsibility to go after the assassins with lethal force where ever they maintain their base of operations inside the Gaza Strip. However, most will also acknowledge that these militants reside among 2.3 million Palestinians, 52.3% of which are children under 18, who are wedged in tight living quarters with nowhere to hide or go. Hamas callously and openly employs this population as human shields. A military incursion will likely kill many of them. Anyone unconcerned by this prospect lacks compassion. We should all feel extremely uncomfortable contemplating the outcome of this festering conflict. While this may be an extreme example of a situation creating incompatible thoughts about outcomes in search of morally and politically acceptable solutions, the upcoming election year promises to be filled with discordant thoughts. Politicians tend to specialize in identifying what makes us feel uncomfortable, and suggesting dissonance reduction solutions that involve their personal records, opinions or prescriptions. American social psychologist Leon Festinger originated the theory of cognitive dissonance around the middle of the twentieth century. His work has been the focus of over 60 years of research, which can offer insights into the growing divide between what many politicians say and what they later say or do. Whether resultant discrepancies amount to political hypocrisy, expedience or situational change depends on our comfort level with the messenger. Theo Wierdsma

ECO ANXIETY CUTS MULTIPLE WAYS

A recent well researched article, written by Jason Horowitz and published in the New York Times, identifies a condition increasingly detectable among a growing segment of the world's younger population. Identified as an emotional disorder, this condition is described by members of the Ecology Psychiatry and Mental Health division of the World Psychiatry Association as "Eco-Anxiety" - a chronic fear of environmental doom. While the United States and Canada experienced some of the worst wildfires on record, for instance killing close to 100 in Maui, Europe is a continent on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In Greece, out of control blazes burned 310 square miles, the largest conflagration in the E.U. since 2000. If that was not enough, the fires gave way to flooding that submerged villages, washed away cars and left bodies floating in the streets. The same storm hitting Greece gained strength over the Mediterranean and pummeled Libya with flooding that killed up to 20,000 people. Add to those statistics the memory of almost 62,000 heat related deaths during the summer of 2022; the 51,000 deaths incurred during the earthquake in Turkey; and more than 3,000 fatalities from the earthquake in Morocco. With extreme heatwaves proliferating, and the incidence of hurricanes and typhoons increasing in numbers and intensity, the affects of climate change appear irreversible. It is understandable why many have become frustrated, powerless, overwhelmed or helpless, anxiously waiting for the next shoe to drop, a sentiment reminiscent of the anxiety felt by many who grew up during the 1950s and 1960s who worried about the potential of the "cold war" developing into a nuclear holocaust. Anxiety has understandably led to ever increasing pressure on governments to get behind strategies designed to mitigate the proliferation of the climate crisis. The response from the European Union to these recurring catastrophes has generally been more far reaching than that in our own country. Under its Climate Law, E.U member states are now required to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 55% by 2030, and be climate neutral by 2050. While these are lofty targets, execution by national governments have consistently come under attack. Eco-Anxiety is not a one way street. Economic interests on the receiving end of some of these strategies, while perhaps sympathetic to the motivation behind them, are often seriously concerned about their own survival. A case in point was highlighted by what I observed during a recent trip to the Netherlands. From the time I landed at Schiphol Airport we were confronted by repetitive signs declaring: "No Farms No Food!" It became evident that the Dutch government had agreed to attack the country's methane and nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is many times greater than that in all other E.U. countries. After carbon dioxide, methane is the 2nd largest contributor to climate change. It is responsible for around 30% of the current rise in global temperatures. It has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. And 37% of methane emissions from human activity are a direct result of livestock and agricultural practices. The Dutch produce 34% more greenhouse gasses per capita than the average European. Scientists and policy makers have increasingly begun to recognize that methane reduction was crucial. So, for Dutch policy makers, this appeared to be a logical starting point. Among a number of measures to target a significant reduction of methane emissions, the government decided that it needed to achieve a 30% reduction in overall livestock numbers. This year it published a list of 3,000 of the most polluting farms, and threatens to close them forcibly. The E.U. assisted by approving a 1.47 billion Euro fund to be used to buy out Dutch farms located near nature reserves that committed to close shop voluntarily. Predictably, none of this sits well with the farmers that are affected. Many complain that the government wants to get rid of farmers all together. Strikes, demonstrations, and political opposition have been intense and unrelenting. Ultimately opponents of government policy succeeded in developing a new political party, known as the "BoerBurgerBeweging" (Farmer-Citizen Movement), also known as BBB, which, after provincial elections in March of this year, managed to become the largest party in the upper chamber of parliament. The affected farmers now have a seat at the table, potentially preventing the imposition of overly simplified government strategies that could drastically disturb their livelihood. This example illustrates that Eco-Anxiety cuts multiple ways. Extreme weather patterns have become the new normal. People are dying. Developing strategies and instilling habits to forestall Armageddon are essential. However, the process won't be as straightforward and free of resistance as many would like. Theo Wierdsma

PARADISE LOST

The August 8 blaze which decimated the town of Lahaina on the island of Maui was the nation's deadliest wildfire in a century, claiming at least 115 lives. This devastating event could also develop into having a climactic affect on the traditional Polynesian culture of the Hawaiian islands. Since tourism gradually replaced the island's historic economic structure based on subsistence farming for communal use, its continued viability is now almost entirely dependent on the travel industry. As a direct result of this catastrophic, all consuming, firestorm, Maui now sees 4,250 fewer visitors each day, losing $9 million tourist dollars every 24 hours. Hawaiian natives employed in the tourist industry, even those well removed from the burn site in West Maui, are losing their jobs. They will soon be unable to pay for rent and food. In the meantime, many locals are legitimately concerned that unscrupulous corporate real estate developers will attempt to exploit this dire situation by purchasing devastated plots of land to build more resorts on what used to be traditional grounds - further eroding the cultural core of the islands. The assault on the Polynesian culture of the islands began, arguably, with the initial contact between the native population and outsiders. Historically the most prominent incidence of this was the landing by Captain James Cook, an English explorer, and the first European to set foot on the Hawaiian islands. During his 3rd voyage to Hawaii, Cook and some of his men lost their lives in the course of a violent altercation with native warriors at Kealakekua Bay on the big island of Hawaii on February 14, 1779. A Hundred and twenty one years later Hawaii became part of the United States. Before annexation by the U.S. the kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation state under the authority of a monarch, globally recognized since the 1800s. A governmental takeover forced King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution - dubbed the Bayonet Constitution - which granted voting rights only to Americans, Europeans and land-owning Hawaiians. Most native Hawaiians were not land owners. Decades of colonial interference and coercion ultimately culminated in the forced abdication of Hawaii's last queen Liliuokalani. Outside business interests took over control of land and policy, disenfranchising local people in the process. The use of the Hawaiian language was banned, causing its near extinction. Schools and all government functions were conducted in English. Agriculture shifted from subsistence, community focused farming to cash crop plantations in order to produce exportable, salable goods. In the late 20th century use of the land would once again shift from agricultural crops to a focus on tourism. Today, tourism generates billions of dollars a year for the Hawaiian economy. It comprises 21% of the state's financial resources. In 2019 visitor spending was almost $18 billion, provided by more than 10 million visitors. The Hawaiian government reported $2.07 billion in tax revenue for that year. However, these economic gains don't trickle down to the native population. Tourism spurs land development and resort construction, funded largely by shareholders of American-Japanese investment companies. Buying up the land to resell and rent out to tourists drives up rent prices for the locals who have lived in these communities for generations. While Hawaiians are being hired, they often end up with the lowest paying service jobs. The average income of native Hawaiians is $36,989 per year. The median price of a home is well above $1 million. It is estimated that a single person who wants to live comfortably in Hawaii needs an annual income of $70,000 to $100,000. Residents are spending 42.06% of their income on rent - the highest of any state in the nation. (California ranks 2nd at 28.47%). According to a 2022 report by the Oahu Continuum of Care, Hawaii is ranked 2nd highest in the nation for rate of homelessness per 10,000 people. Fifty-one percent of these are natives. The state's poverty level grew from 9% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Native Hawaiians have the highest poverty level at 27%. In 2022, nearly half of Hawaii's youth population reside in households unable to afford basic life necessities. The tourism industry functions as a method of wealth extraction without providing benefits to the native Hawaiians on whose lands the industry profits. No wonder that an increasing number of Hawaii's native population is leaving, forced out by the high cost of living, the lack of job opportunities and career growth, and an economy moving at a slower rate than the continent. Many are "just exhausted from trying to make ends meet." They are being priced out of the Aloha state. For them and for those still hesitant to leave, even aside from financial considerations, it must be sad to see that: deforestation and construction for tourism are destroying sacred ecosystems and the habitats of thousands of wildlife species; major islands have lost nearly a quarter of their beaches during the last century, caused by seawalls and other barriers erected by wealthy homeowners; and perhaps even more than anything else, the marginalization of a once rich Polynesian culture. All of these factors contribute to the feeling that they no longer live in the paradise of their ancestors. Theo Wierdsma

REMEMBERING A DISTANT PAST

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of us, at an advanced age, may not remember what we had for dinner last night, but clearly recollect what we experienced during our youth. This occurred to me recently when I was searching for a topic to write about to take a break from commenting on politically contentious issues. A friend of mine revealed a photograph of himself in full altar boy attire. This revelation generated memories from a fairly significant time period in my own life. A history which has had an impact on my own childhood. I was born in The Netherlands, four months before the end of World War II. During my first few years, my parents struggled to get a grip on the cultural destruction the Nazis left behind after occupying the country for five long years. When I turned six years old and entered grade school, I had gradually become aware of my surroundings. Compared to today, life, for me, was very simple. Once we acquired a telephone, we were connected to a party line. Our access number contained only three digits. Sinterklaas and Black Pete were real and legitimate. And each Catholic family was obligated to contribute one male member to the priesthood. To build up the depleted work force, the government generously contributed financial support for families who produced multiple children. For Catholic families, prohibited from using artificial birth control, this was a blessing. I ended up being the oldest of eleven children. Within the chaotic post war environment, one of the stable, familiar organizations providing a sense of comfort and belonging was the faith community. My parents, especially my dad, were quite involved with the local Catholic Church. So, when I turned six years old, my dad volunteered my services as a prospective altar boy. The introduction to my first official function in my religious community is a bit fuzzy. I remember being scheduled almost daily to assist in a daily 7:30am mass in the middle of winter. Wearing my best shorts (I suppose my parents could not afford long pants at the time) I would walk to church and huddled against a wall waiting for our pastor’s housekeeper to unlock the door so I could get in and get ready. But the physical strain was only a minor inconvenience. Back then, mass was celebrated in Latin. For a six year old, who only recently began to develop a vocabulary in my parents’ language, this became a struggle. We had to learn latin responses to the priest’s prayers during the mass. This meant sheer memorization. I do believe we had cue cards of sorts, but we had no clue what we were saying. This was not essential. We just needed to pronounce each syllable in the right order. Most people in the pews had no idea of what was being said either. Our pastor - revered for his open opposition to the Nazi occupation forces - was stone deaf and stubbornly impatient. He had a habit of strutting towards the altar, whether we altar boys were ready or not. Since he could not hear our responses to his prayers, he would look around to see if we were done reciting our responses, and continue when our lips no longer moved. When we were too slow performing other elements of our prescribed ritual, he would, to our embarrassment, loudly exclaim his impatience. Since he could not hear himself, his voice carried. In subsequent years, after the old pastor passed away, and still well before the 2nd Vatican Council (1962-1965) decreed that mass could be translated into commonly used languages, there were two occurrences that helped to focus my ultimate development. Influenced by my early years as an altar boy, and encouraged by slightly older friends destined for the seminary, I decided that I had received the calling to become a priest. I wanted to become a missionary, since, early on, I wanted to travel. To be clear, I also had my sights set on, at some point, becoming a saint. Sainthood appeared to be somewhat complicated. However, once the word leaked out, at least once a month a tenacious recruiter from a regional seminary began to show up at our house. While hormones may have played a role in causing me ultimately to shelve these objectives, another developing issue caused me to cancel them altogether. My relationship with our new parochial priest gradually became confrontational. It did not take long before our disagreements reached a boiling point. There came a time when I had had enough, led an insurrection and called a strike. All of my fellow altar boys followed suit. The work stoppage lasted the better part of a full month. At some time during this period I realized that my pursuit of the priesthood was no longer tenable. After all, if I continued on that track I would certainly not become the first and only Dutch pope since Adrian VI, who only ruled for 20 months during the 16th century. As it was, even though he was nominated as a compromise candidate by Cardinal De Medici, he was considered to be the “Barbarian of the North” by the Italian clerical elite. All in all, I may have disappointed some of my friends and relatives at the time. However, the entire period taught me a sense of responsibility well beyond my years, and provided a bundle of memories that occupied a special place in my early life. I retained a deeper understanding of the religion I grew up with, something I might not have had had my dad not involved me at a very early age. While I may not remember what I had to eat yesterday, a simple black and white photograph generated scents, sounds and sights that were buried in a history I might have forgotten. Theo Wierdsma

WHITEWASHING THE HORRORS OF SLAVERY

On July 18 of this year, Florida officials issued new guidelines for a public school curriculum which required teachers to instruct middle school students that enslaved people actually developed skills from their situation that would later benefit them. These guidelines followed previously issued requirements mandating how to communicate a revisionist history of the Ocoee Election Day massacre in November of 1920, when a mob of white men killed an unknown number of African Americans attempting to vote in Ocoee, Fla, and ran others out of town, burning down houses. These instructions, which the state board of education approved on July 19, drew immediate backlash from educators and political leaders. The White House even sent Vice President Kamala Harris to the state two days later to issue an impassioned rebuke. Governor Ron DeSantis, who openly engineered the controversy, defended the new standards. However, his attempt to hide behind legitimate revisionist interpretations of history, implicitly claiming "alternate facts," fell flat. While professional scholars challenging orthodox views of history based on serious research is entirely legitimate, blatantly catering to the negative responses of a segment of the population to racial progress of other ethnic groups for political reasons is not. This is what social scientists refer to as "historical negationism." It is akin to propaganda. The latest effort in our enduring attempts at whitewashing the horrors of slavery. Slavery has been a hot issue since well before the establishment of our republic. While drafting our Constitution the topic was deliberately avoided. Our founding fathers understood that, if they wanted to have a chance that the slave states would help ratify the document, the only way they could really deal with the question of slavery was not to deal with it at all. The first time we see the words "slave" and "slavery" show up in official documents were, after the Civil War, in the 13th Amendment to our Constitution, which abolished slavery and which was ratified December 6, 1865. Our history is replete with apologists for slavery and the slave trade. The southern states defended slavery by using economic, historic and even biblical arguments. They were concerned that abolishing the practice would collapse their economy. Besides, they pointed out that the Greeks and the Romans possessed slaves, that Abraham had slaves and that Jesus never spoke out against slavery even though it was widespread during Roman times. They even argued that slavery was divine - that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean and was a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun, our seventh vice president (1825-1832), was adamant: "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day attained a condition so civilized and improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." Defenders of slavery in antebellum (pre-war) America maintained that slavery as practiced in the south was more humane than the system of wage slavery in the north. George Fitzhugh, a Virginia lawyer, in his book "Cannibals All! Or slaves without masters," argued that northern capitalists squeezed the greatest amount of work out of laborers for the least amount of pay, only to abandon them when they were no longer useful. By contrast, in the south, labor is capital. Slaves do the work, but they represent a substantial capital investment. "It is in our owners' interest to protect, not oppress them." He concluded that "the negro slaves of the south are the happiest and, in some sense the freest people in the world." Examples of similar opinions held by politicians and stakeholders inclined to comment about slavery are plentiful. Not all of these are restricted to the 18th or 19th century. The historian Donald Yacovone, in "Teaching White Supremacy," writes: "Until the mid 1960s, American history instruction from grammar school to the university relentlessly characterized slavery as a benevolent institution, an enjoyable time and a gift to those Africans who had been lucky enough to be brought to the United States." As recently as 2017, Dr. Ben Carson, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump administration, gave an inaugural speech in which he described slaves as "immigrants, who came here in the bottom of slave ships, but they had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons .... might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land." The application of historic negationism is by no means restricted to our continued attempts at downplaying the enormity of slavery and its defining feature, hereditary racial bondage. Holocaust denialism is still prevalent. Turkey continues to flatly deny that the Armenian genocide ever took place. Japan's educational system fails to mention heinous war crimes committed by the country during World War II. In the end, understanding history in its entirety is of paramount importance. Repudiating the events we find painful does not change the fact that they actually happened. Our present day political systems are built on historical events. In order to move effectively into the future, we must understand history in its totality - the good, the bad and the ugly included. Theo Wierdsma

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FAIL TO INSPIRE

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently produced a piece titled: "Why Joe Biden gets none of the credit that he has earned." In it he, perhaps unexpectedly, enumerated a significant number of positive outcomes of Biden's policies: The Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act, designed to encourage the growth of the U.S. semiconductor industry. With the "misery index," which helps to determine how the average citizen is doing economically, at 7.7, the lowest it has been in decades, 13 million new jobs created, economic growth at 2%, inflation down to 3%, unemployment down to a historical low level of 3.6% and "a zillion positive indicators for our economy," Biden should be cruising to an easy reelection victory. But he is not! At least 74% of Americans still think the country is on the wrong track. Brooks blames some of this on a "moral injury" and "a collective loss of confidence" or faith in ourselves incurred during the Trump era. "We lost national self esteem and are assuming national incompetence." His diagnosis is that we can't argue people out of that psychological and moral state with statistics and fact sheets. President Biden needs to get out from behind the protective walls that were built around him and come up with "a national story that will give people a sense of coherence and belonging." In other words, Brooks and others are of the opinion that President Biden needs to begin exhibiting charismatic leadership. Thus far, candidate Biden, although a very competent technocrat, lacks the personality that inspires his audience. Joe Biden is by no means the only candidate running for the presidency next year who has projected deficient inspirational oratory skills during this election cycle. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who imagines himself to be the GOP's rational alternative to front runner Donald Trump, should be a shoo in, especially since he spews the same culture-war vitriol as his mentor. He is young, a graduate of Yale and Harvard law school. He won reelection with almost 60% of the vote, and he does not need to confront the looming criminal investigations that could turn away undecided voters. With his background, and a deliberately manufactured extreme right legislative record in Florida, his campaign should have expected him to deliver his speeches with all the conviction of a fire-and-brimstone preacher. Instead, he has been observed to speak with all the animation of bored teenagers annoyed they have to look up from their phone. One of the most recent tracking polls show DeSantis losing to Trump by 38%. Both examples emphasize a need which is well recognized by each candidate's own support group. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a staunch supporter of President Biden, downgraded his administration's first year's performance, because, in his words: "The glaring problem is that there is absolutely zero charisma in the Biden administration." He went on suggesting that " it may be unfortunate that it is even a consideration, but in a social media and sound-bite world where everyone is a performer, someone has to have the charisma that connects to people and overwhelms memes, headlines and sound-bites as a source of information." Ron DeSantis' staff complains that the governor looks awkward and shies away from Q and A sessions on the road. Again, the complaint is "zero political charisma - boring," and ineffective. Charisma is defined as "a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others." A personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure, or a person who possesses special traits that attract, inspire or fascinate people. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), a foremost theoretician of charismatic authority or leadership, identified three types of charismatic authority: personal, traditional - based on historic, cultural norms and conventions, and legal authority exemplified by statute and competence. Personal charismatic authority grows out of the personal charms or the strength of an individual personality. "Men obey him because they believe in him. The leader's actual power or capabilities are irrelevant, as long as his followers believe that such powers exist." President Biden and Governor DeSantis can both claim traditional and legal charismatic authority. But, arguably the only dominant candidate in the line-up for the 2024 election who can legitimately claim personal charismatic authority right now is Donald Trump. His followers seem unfazed by lies and innuendos. He keeps things simple. He does not confuse his audience with numbers and statistics, and he continues to draw crowds by effectively rehashing the same message. He did this successfully during the 2016 election when he defeated Hillary Clinton, a highly competent candidate, but one who lacked the necessary charismatic qualities. Ultimately, unless some of the qualified candidates can manage to relatively rapidly acquire the necessary messaging skills, the election battle may again be fought between a seriously unqualified candidate, who nevertheless inspires his following, and the remaining electorate resigned to chose among a limited number of unexciting, but highly competent candidates, no matter how boring. Theo Wierdsma

DOUBLE STANDARD

On June 18, "Titan," a submersible operated by the tourism and expeditions company OceanGate, imploded. The mini sub was on an expedition to view the wreck of the Titanic in the North Atlantic Ocean, about 380 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. On board were four paying passengers who each contributed $250,000 for the experience. Two of these were billionaire businessmen: a British subject Hamish Harding, a Pakistani Shahzada Dawood, Dawood's son Suleman, a French deap sea explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, and OceanGate's CEO Stockton Rush. For several days after the expedition's surface crew lost contact with the submersible the entire world appeared to be on pins and needles, holding its collective breath. All media outlets continued to feature every step of the rescue effort. The search and rescue operation was all encompassing. It included the U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the U.S. Air National Guard, a Royal Canadian navy ship, several commercial and research vessels and a number of underwater drones - ROVs - one coming from as far away as from France. After the Titan had been missing for four days its oxygen supply would have predictably been exhausted. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy reported that it had detected a sonar signature early on. Ultimately the rescue team concluded that the submersible had imploded during its descent, killing all five passengers instantly. Four days before the world became obsessed by round-the-clock media coverage of the effort to save these five billionaire tourists, off the coast of Greece, the Adriana, an overloaded fishing trawler with 750 migrants on board sank, killing more than 600. Most of its passengers were from South Asia and the Middle East, fleeing poverty and violence in search of new lives. Total revenue received by the ruthless smugglers who crammed these migrants onto shoddy vessels, sending them on their way to uncertain shores across the Mediterranean, might well have exceeded the revenue received by the Titan's parent company. However, while the billionaire passengers expected to enjoy their adventure and return to their comfortable lives, most migrants on the Adriana paid for their passage with all they owned, and expected to start their lives all over from scratch after completing their journey. Yet, this humanitarian disaster off the coast of Greece received little more than scant media attention across the world. Reports indicate that officials, using radar, telephone and radio, watched and listened for 13 hours as the migrant ship lost power and floated aimlessly off the Greek coast. Satellite imagery and tracking data obtained by the New York Times apparently showed definitively that the Adriana was drifting in a loop during its final six and a half hours. With dozens of officials and Coast Guard crews monitoring the ship as it drifted, one might legitimately assume that rescue ships would be employed to save its passengers. However, when the Adriana capsized, it sank in the presence of a single Greek Coast Guard ship. Of the 350 Pakistani on board, all of which were crammed onto the bottom deck, only 12 survived. The women and young children, which occupied the middle deck, went down with the ship. The top deck was reserved for Syrians, Palestinians and Egyptians, many of which survived. So, why did we see such dramatically less intense rescue and media coverage for this much greater calamity? According to some authorities, the lax response to this preventable maritime disaster in the Mediterranean is not because some people are indifferent. It is in the degree of familiarity. The United Nations International Organization for Migration (I.O.M.) estimates that the number of migrants who have died trying to reach Europe has so far this year already exceeded 2,000. Arrivals by sea to Mediterranean Europe has this year already surpassed 82,000 - against 49,000 last year. Many countries formulate their approach to the influx of unwelcome migration in terms of law enforcement, not rescue. Individuals attempting to facilitate this migrant movement are often criminally prosecuted out of fear that their actions could encourage future migrant movement. Judith Sunderland, Acting Deputy Director for Europe at the group Human Rights Watch, during an interview while comparing the two rescue operations, remarked: "We saw how some lives are valued and some are not. We cannot avoid talking about racism and xenophobia." Years and countless boat calamities later, the deaths are no less appalling, but attract much less attention. Aid workers call it "compassion fatigue." Theo Wierdsma

FOCUS ON FREEDOM

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" These words, uttered at the conclusion of a rousing speech by Patrick Henry before the Virginia Assembly convened at Richmond on March 23, 1775, became the war cry of the American Revolution. Although there are some slight definitional differences between "liberty" and "freedom", we tend to use both concepts interchangeably. "Freedom," according to Merriam Webster, is defined as the absence of necessity, or constraint in choice or action. In philosophy "freedom" indicates the power of any living human being to exercise its will. Most of us feel that we know implicitly what we mean by "freedom." We refer to "the land of the free and the home of the brave" in our national anthem. We memorialize the sacrifices of our military fighting for and protecting our freedom. And we identify an entire subset of freedom in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, freeing the slaves in Union controlled territory from previous restraint or legal disability. In short, invoking the word "freedom" has become an important trigger signal in our culture. The first amendment of our Constitution assures us five freedoms: speech, religion, press, assembly and the right to petition our government. As Americans, we expect to be free. The freedom to think and feel as we want, whenever we want. However, as what happens with many concepts that ought to be easy to understand, our politicians have managed to relegate the idea to a buzzword. While many candidates who are developing steam in the run-up to next year's election have made "freedom" the centerpiece of their electoral campaigns, few, if any, refer to it in abstract terms. Most identify freedom in terms of freedom from (whatever their competition is proposing) as opposed to freedom of or freedom for. President Joe Biden has made defending our basic freedoms the cause of his presidency. He has suggested that his 2024 campaign will involve a genuine philosophical debate about the meaning of freedom. The freedoms he has in mind include: "the freedom for women to make their own health-care decisions; the freedom for our children to be safe from gun violence; the freedom to vote and have the votes counted; and for seniors to live with dignity and have a shot at a good life." Governor Ron DeSantis, after he was reelected, used the word "freedom" twelve times in his inaugural address. His recent budget was dubbed the "framework for freedom," and his new book carries the title "The Courage to be Free." His campaign centers on freedom from the "woke ideology" and the "woke agenda." He never really defines what he means, other than anything proposed by President Biden. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) suggests that Americans need more freedom. "Freedom from [Biden's] crushing inflation, freedom from showing up at school board meetings to talk about your kids being considered domestic terrorists, and freedom from a wide-open, insecure, southern border." Donald Trump points out that "the left" wants to take away your guns, persecute Christians and push the transgender cult onto your children. Whatever Democrats and Republicans suggest the country needs, "freedom from" differs for either side. In his State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, FDR identified four principles of "freedom:" speech, worship, from want, and from fear. Most of us probably subscribe to these in principle. However, in practice they aren't all that simple. None of these work unless the vast majority of us agree to allow all of us to live up to these ideals. Freedom of speech and expression is a constitutionally protected right, legally restricted by constraints imposed by society, and politically eroding in a growing number of communities. Nationally, this right does not include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography or threats. In Florida the "Parental Rights in Education," a.k.a. "Don't Say Gay," bill, restricts schools from teaching students about sexual education and gender issues. Book banning, which used to be concentrated in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, are now reported in at least 32 states. Freedom of religion (worship) also includes freedom from religion. Besides, dangerous elements in our society appear to do anything they can to express their animosity to non-Christian beliefs. Freedom from want has become an economic football manipulated by our political representatives. Freedom from fear is pretty much meaningless as long as more of our kids are now killed with guns rather than by car accidents. And not to forget that we just commemorated "Juneteenth", a federal holiday depicting the official end of slavery in confederate states. A holiday which, unfortunately, is only legally recognized in 28 states. This event also drives home the point that the Emancipation Declaration, which nominally freed the slaves, was followed by Jim Crow laws introduced in many Southern states, specifically designed to enforce racial segregation, and, not so subtly, intended to reestablish another form of bondage for millions of Africans. Aside from our own struggles with freedom, it might be worthwhile to consider what freedom means to citizens from other parts of the world. What about Ukraine, where its citizens are desperately fighting to keep their country from being absorbed by cruel, criminal forces led by an internationally indicted dictator? And what about the tens of thousands of migrants from Haiti, Venezuela and elsewhere who are literally risking their lives every month to cross the Darien Gap between Colombia and Panama in search of freedom from persecution by criminal elements in their home country and desperate to find a way to support their families, no matter the cost? For us true freedom which nobody can deprive us of may be the freedom to think and feel as we want and when we want. Most of us probably believe that all our citizens ought to be free. Many of us comfortably subscribe to the notion that Americans ought to be free, no matter how they look, pray, love or live. For many others, to paraphrase the enduring words of lyrics composed by Kris Kristofferson and sung by Janis Joplin, freedom may just be another word for nothing left to lose. Theo Wierdsma

EXPEDITED WORK PERMITS MIGHT BLUNT EFFECTS OF MIGRANT TRANSFERS

There is no question that migration patterns at our southern border continue to be a significant challenge for our border control functionaries. Some of the overwhelming consequences are filtering through to municipalities throughout the country. Political blame is readily doled out. However, its substance depends on which party provides the criticism. The Trump administration reduced legal immigration by 63%, but did not make a dent in illegal border crossings. (Cato Institute, Jan. 20, 2021). On President Biden's watch the average number of encounters at the border reached three times those experienced during his predecessor's presidency. The underlying reasons for this result are, again, politically charged and debatable. It is useful, however, to point out that this phenomenon is by no means unique to our southern border. Europe is experiencing a similar situation. Through April of this year, migration patterns from North Africa into the E.U. has increased 2.5 times over what they were just a year ago. Italy alone is confronting a 400% increase. And the U.K. has encountered a record doubling of the migration rate. All this on top of the 8.2 million refugees from Ukraine the continent had to absorb. Republican governors from states impacted by the migration surge have been sending migrants released at our border with Mexico to Democratic strongholds elsewhere in the country. Their barely concealed motivation appears to be to make political statements either for local consumption or to force the Biden administration to do something, whatever that may be. Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent more than 17,500 migrants to Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. These included several busloads to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris. Florida Governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis claims to have transferred nearly 11,000 migrants. And former Arizona Governor Dough Ducey prided himself on last year sending fifty busloads of migrants to Washington D.C.. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has lamented that "It is both a sad and a tragic day when a government official uses migrants as a pawn for political purposes." For cities forced to host this massive, unannounced infusion of asylum seekers comes at a significant cost. New York City is a case in point. According to City Hall officials, last year the city took in more than 60,000 migrants. City run shelters and emergency sites are overflowing, competing for space with an already sizable homeless population. Resources are dwindling. The city spends an average of $380 per household per day on migrants, and budgets for providing housing, feeding and other social services for an average 40 new households per day. However, recently, new daily arrivals topped 180. Thus far NYC has spent $1 billion, and it expects to need a budget of $4 billion by July 2024. The situation in other affected cities is not much different. Obviously, New York Mayor Eric Adams is not happy. His urgent request for federal assistance so far netted him $30 million, a drop in the bucket given the magnitude of the financial burden facing the city. On another front, however, Mr. Adams appears to be receiving the attention from a more receptive audience. When asked what he needed most, outside of financial support, he was adamant. "Allow people to work, which is one of the number one things we can do. Allow people to work!" Currently asylum seekers have to wait half a year after filing an application before being issued a work permit. This federal law was enacted in 1996. President Trump extended the waiting period to 365 days. This was implemented in August 2020, but overturned in February 2022. The argument is pretty straightforward. Asylum seekers don't come here to seek donated clothing and shelter beds. They want to find work, contribute to the economy and make a new life for themselves. Work would allow these migrants to get out of shelters and hire an immigration lawyer to help expedite the process. Besides, our country faces a workforce crisis. We have roughly 10.7 million job openings, and just 5.9 million unemployed Americans. Fifty mayors sent a letter arguing along these lines to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requesting it expedite the permit process. In March of this year, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2023 in the House of Representatives. This Act would allow work permits to be issued 30 days after filing an application for refugee status, and make permits valid for as long as the application remains pending. Many municipalities under financial strain are eager to see this legislation end up on the president's desk. The influx of refugees from the Ukraine into the European Union and elsewhere has forged similar work related responses in affected communities. Ukraine is not an E.U. member. However, its citizens no longer need a permit to engage in paid for activities throughout Europe. Even in the U.S. these refugees can work within the first 90 days following their arrival. They do need to apply for a permanent permit during that time period. The point is that this strategy is being implemented, and it appears to be working. Passage of this Act will undoubtedly face opposition from those who, erroneously, assume that immigrant workers ultimately increase labor market competition and drive down the the wages of native born workers. Many uninformed opponents will also assume that our refugee admissions place a burden on the country as a whole. However, numerous studies have pointed out that these assumptions are generally misguided. A ten year study covering 2005 to 2014 concluded that refugees who had been here from 1980 on contributed $63 billion more to government revenue than they used in public services. A similar study also showed that the proportion of refugee men working was 7% higher than among their U.S. born counterparts. And only 8% of refugees received Social Security or Social Security disability benefits, compared to 15% of the entire population. It does not appear to be a stretch to conclude that the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2023 deserves to be adopted. It will allow people to work, contribute to the economy, be less of a burden on society and blunt some of the overwhelming effects of unconscionable migrant transfers. Theo Wierdsma

RAISING RETIREMENT AGE AN UNPOPULAR SOLUTION

While we prepared for a recent trip to Europe, which included a week in Paris, we grew concerned about potential intrusion from encounters with persistent anti government demonstrations in the French capital. Our fears proved to be unfounded. However, the contentious issues involved remained palpable. More than a million residents have repeatedly taken to the streets to protest President Emanuel Macron's attempt to impose a largely unpopular policy change which would raise the age French citizens are eligible to retire with a full pension from 62 to 64. The president's reasoning has been that the increase is absolutely necessary to keep the country's pension system afloat. Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, afraid that her government might not have the votes to adopt the retirement bill, a key priority of Macron's second term, invoked Article 49:3 of the French constitution. This strategy allowed the bill to pass without a vote in the National Assembly, leaving protesters with a "fait accompli." Outsiders frequently appear puzzled about the regularity with which the French public openly expresses its discontent. Even when the increase in their retirement age to 64 takes effect, the French will still be able to retire earlier than citizens in any other European country. Most have raised their effective age to 67, and a few plan to take it up to 69. Some observers claim that protest is deeply embedded in French culture, dating back at least to the revolution of 1789. Alexis Poyard, a prominent youth activist, concludes that: "In France we protest whenever we are sad or when we are angry." It does not hurt that these popular outbursts have often been successful The mass revolt in 1968 caused President Charles de Gaulle to flee the country. In 1995, persistent protests and massive strikes pressured the government into backing down from its earlier effort at overhauling the pension system. And the "Yellow Vest" protests a few years ago forced Macron to abandon his effort to introduce a carbon tax. Justified or not, the popular uproar across the country highlights the need to pay attention to funding problems for retirement programs, anticipated to mature in a growing number of countries within the coming decade. These include our own country, where the funding for entitlement programs are getting in the way of debt reduction efforts. However, we have known for some time that, barring appropriate reforms, our Social Security Trust Fund will run dry by 2034. The underlying challenges are well known. The biggest one is "not enough workers!". The ratio of workers who pay into the system to Social Security beneficiaries taking money out is shifting from 2.8 workers for each beneficiary in 2022 to a projected 2.1 by 2035. Basic problems are: A rapidly aging population, longer life expectancy, and lower fertility rates. By 2031 there will be 75 million Americans over the age of 65. This is up from 39 million in 2008. By 2031, the youngest baby boomers - born between 1946 and 1964 - will have passed the Social Security full retirement age of 67. People are living longer. In 1935, when Social Security began, people at the age of 65 could expect to live an additional 12.5 years. Now, women age 65 can expect to live another 21.8 years, and men an additional 19.2 years. All of this places an additional strain on the system. At the same time, the fertility rate, the level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to another, is dropping rapidly. This rate should be 2.1 children per woman. In the U.S., by 2030, this replacement rate is projected to drop to 1.75. Our population is shrinking. While many European countries come in even lower, most still have growing populations because of immigration. The net result is ultimately that we end up with fewer workers paying into the system and a growing number of recipients who no longer contribute to the trust fund. To begin to address this imminent economic problem, politicians of all stripes appear to concentrate on postponing the inevitable by raising the retirement age from the current 67 - for people born in 1960 or later, to 69 or 70, and raise the age at which maximum delayed retirement credits are earned from 70 to 72. However, this approach would only reduce the Fund's deficit by 28%. While we may not express our displeasure with this solution in the way the French are, this is hardly a popular approach. The "solution" might be acceptable to professional groups retiring from cushy, highly compensated jobs. However, for those who have spent their working life doing heavy physical labor, being forced to work additional years before retiring will be less inviting. Alternative solutions, although politically less palatable because they involve taxes or immigration, are not only potentially more beneficial, they are socially more equitable and reasonable. Increase the pool: Admit millions of additional immigrants. They have proven to increase the number of start-ups, help the rate of economic growth, and offset our replacement fertility deficiency. Increase the tax base: Lift the payroll tax cap. Right now, Social, Security taxes only apply to the first $160,200 of a person's annual income. Completely eliminating the cap, without an increase in benefits for those who exceed it, would cut the projected deficit by 73%. Or, alternatively: Increase the tax rate: Social Security taxes account for 90% of the Trust Fund's income. The current rate stands at 12.4%. We could increase the tax rate to 16%, shared equally by employers and employees. In short, the problem is real. However, solutions, other than kicking the can down the road, are available to those with the political will to entertain them. Theo Wierdsma

WORLD’S LARGEST DECENTRALIZED MEMORIAL

International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the day on which we pay tribute to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, is an annual event, always scheduled for January 27, which marks the anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau by Soviet troops in 1945. The horrific activities leading up to this event will also be in the minds of those participating in liberation day activities routinely observed across Europe throughout the month of May. These commemorations may be designed to highlight the Allied victory over the forces of evil, but many of us won’t be able to erase the memories of what took place during the Holocaust. Yet, the lessons the world should have garnered from the gruesome activity perpetrated by Hitler’s goons in pursuit of a “final solution” are increasingly lost on a growing segment of a younger generation. Antisemitism is on the upswing. In the U.S., incidents are at the highest level recorded since the 1970s. They nearly tripled during the past six years. This worrisome increase coincides with an alarming decrease of basic Holocaust knowledge, especially among adults under 40. According to a national survey, in the U.S., 63% of respondents did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered; 20% believed that the Jews caused the Holocaust, and 23% believed that the entire thing was a myth. In The Netherlands, home of Anne Frank, a country where out of 140,000 Jewish citizens prior to World War 2, 102,000 were killed; 23% believe that it is a myth and 12% have said that they never even heard the word. Sadly, slightly more than 78 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, two-thirds of the world’s population does not know the Holocaust happened, or they deny it. In 1990, German artist Gunter Demnig decided to counter the degenerating interest in keeping Holocaust memories alive. Born October 27, 1947, Demnig belongs to the generation questioning the role their parents played in Hitler’s Germany. Operating from the conviction that a person is not forgotten until his or her name is forgotten, Demnig set out to commemorate Holocaust victims at the last place of their residency before they became a casualty of Nazi terror, forced euthanasia, eugenics, or were deported to a concentration or extermination camp. His idea was to place a 10X10 centimeter (3.9”) concrete cube, bearing a brass plate inscribed with the victim’s name, date of birth, deportation date and the date they were murdered - if known, embedded flush in a sidewalk or street exactly in front of his or her last known residence.

Demnig named his memorial plaques “stolpersteine,” meaning “stumbling stones.” The name generated from an antisemitic saying in Nazi Germany. The Nazis destroyed Jewish cemeteries throughout Germany and frequently repurposed gravestones as sidewalk paving stones. So, when someone accidentally stumbled over a protruding stone on the sidewalk, one might often hear that: “a Jew must be buried here.” Placement of the stones is often inconspicuous. They are discovered by chance, in contrast to central memorial places that can easily be avoided or by-passed. The intention is to “trip up the passer-by” and draw attention to the memorial. The idea is to symbolically bring the victims back to their neighborhood. Aside from Jews, the memorials include all groups victimized by Nazi slaughter: Jews, Roma, Communists, Sinai, Yenish, members of the resistance, homosexuals, Jehova’s Witnesses, and the disabled. While the concept may have been simple, its execution was a massive undertaking. The project involved a significant investment in research and coordination across myriad locations. However, it caught fire. As of January 2022, more than 90,000 stones have already been placed in more than 30 countries and 2000 places in Europe. Demnig produces the plaques by hand, which slows down the process. He can create 440 of them each month. Every one features the language use in the intended location. And thus far the artist has personally installed 95% of them. While extremely successful, there was bound to be some opposition to the project. Some German locations are still refusing to allow placement of the stones. Although, cities like Frankfurt am Main, for instance, already installed 1000 of them. There is also the notion that placement on regular sidewalks is not respectful. However, the desecration of the memory of the dead was implicitly intended. Since people had to walk on the gravestones and tread on the inscriptions, the stones invoked antisemitic remarks of the past, while intending to provoke thoughts about a serious issue at the same time. And then there is the issue of context. In countries like Poland, the call is for clarification. The need to clarify that most of the perpetrators of the Holocaust were Germans, not Poles. Gunter Demnig seems overwhelmed by the scope of the Holocaust he attempts to confront when he suggested from the outset that “I can’t even imagine the six million murdered Jews and the whole inception of Auschwitz.” However, he unmistakably hit a chord and developed an antidote to creeping ignorance by installing the world’s largest decentralized memorial - still a work in progress. Cambridge historian Joseph Pearson sums up what he sees as significant about “stolpersteine”: “It is not what is written which intrigues, because the inscription is insufficient to conjure a person. It is the emptiness, void, lack of information, the maw of the forgotten, which gives the monuments their power and lifts them from the banality of a statistic.” Theo Wierdsma

TRUMP PROSECUTION HISTORIC BUT NOT UNIQUE

Former President Donald Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on more than 30 counts related to business fraud. While the case, overseen by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, may be historic and unprecedented for our country, globally this kind of judicial activity is hardly uncommon. Since 2000, in at least 78 countries, leaders who have left office have been charged, prosecuted or jailed. This is not a phenomenon limited to so-called "banana republics." Many of the cases transpired in countries routinely ranked among the world's freest, most democratic and wealthiest nations. Since 1980, not counting impeachments or coups, almost half of the world's countries have at least prosecuted one such case. Examples literally span the globe. In France, two former presidents, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac were each charged with corruption and found guilty. Sarkozy received a three year prison sentence, of which two were suspended; Chirac was sentenced to two years - both suspended. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who served as prime minister in four governments, was charged multiple times with embezzlement and tax fraud, which earned him four years of confinement. He apparently never learned his lesson and was ultimately again sentenced, this time to seven years in prison and was banned from holding public office for paying for sex with an underage prostitute. However, as leader of the “Forza Italia” political party, he was recently reelected to a seat in Italy’s senate and is now an active participant in the country’s right-wing government coalition. Israel’s former President Moshe Katsav, the country’s 8th president, serving from 2000 to 2007, spent seven years in prison for raping a former employee. Ehud Olmert, prime minister from 2006 to 2009, received a 27 month prison sentence for accepting bribes. And its current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been on trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Many suspect that his attempt to change the judicial system is an attempt to get him off the hook. In Japan, former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was convicted of bribery and spent four years in prison. Two of South Korea’s former presidents were indicted and convicted: Lee Myung-bak received seventeen years for corruption; Park Geung-hey got twenty-two years for bribery. Ex President Ron-Moo-Hyundai committed suicide while on trial for corruption charges. Argentina’s ex-President Jorge Rafael Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment - where he died. In Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva earned nineteen months behind bars. He was released, and now serves as that country’s president. In South Africa, former President Jacob Zumba was convicted of corruption. The same goes for Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian (2000-2006) who received twenty years for the same crime. And the list goes on. Scholars insist that it is important to hold the powerful legally accountable. However, there are likely going to be charges - well founded or not - that prosecutors have political motives. Harvard professor Steven Levitsky is adamant: “Political systems have to handle it. They have to. Because the alternative - saying some people are above the law - is much worse.” Many people will immediately assume that the charges are issued for political reasons, and it may be impossible to persuade them that they are legitimate, non political, prosecutions. Italian political scientist Nathalie Tocci chimes in with: “ I don’t think you can get it right. If you think, legally speaking, there was a crime and you have to proceed, just do it. There is always a justice story and a politics story, and one should try to keep them separated. But it is impossible. If there is an acquittal, it can be proof that the justice system worked. But people will claim that it was all about nothing and it was politically driven." What is clear is that ex President Trump is far from being the only world leader ever facing criminal charges. With multiple prosecutors apparently preparing additional cases against our 45th president, we could be in for a long hot summer. Theo Wierdsma

PUTIN INDICTED - SYMBOLIC JUSTICE?

After more than a year of international outrage at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and open display of shocking atrocities being perpetrated by Russian military forces, there finally is an arrest warrant out for Russian President Vladimir Putin. On March 15, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced the charges against Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, his "Commissioner for Children's Rights", for the war crime of unlawfully transferring thousands of children from occupied Ukrainian territory to Russia. ICC judge Piotr Hofmanski, in a video statement, asserted that "it is forbidden under international law for occupying powers to transfer civilians from the territory they live in to other territories. Children enjoy special protection under the Geneva Convention." The International Criminal Court was created in 1998 by a treaty called "The Rome Statute." It operates independently from the United Nations. As of November of 2019, its jurisdiction is recognized by 123 countries world wide. The ICC is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The institution empanels 18 justices serving nine year terms. However, as a judicial institution, the ICC does not have its own police force or enforcement body. It relies on cooperation with member states for support, especially for making arrests, transferring prisoners to the ICC detention center in The Hague, freezing assets and enforcing sentences. While the Court appears to have significant support from most of the world, important exceptions are conspicuous. The U.S., Russia, China, and India, among others, have refused to ratify the Rome Treaty. This means that none of these countries formally recognize the Court's jurisdiction and are not bound to follow its orders. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the U.S. signed the treaty but did not submit it to Congress for ratification. In 2002, George W. Bush revoked the signature, ostensibly afraid of the possibility that American soldiers would be targeted by the international community. Russia signed the treaty in 2000 and ratified it in 2002. However, Putin decided to withdraw Russia's membership in 2016 after ICC prosecutors began to focus on his country's invasion of Crimea and on accusations of war crimes committed by Russian forces in Syria. China and India reject the Court's jurisdiction, charging that it violates state sovereignty and permits it to judge whether a state is willing or able to try its own nationals. Be it as it may, the Court has managed to handle 31 cases, with some cases having more than one suspect. The judges issued 38 warrants. Thanks to cooperation from member states, 21 people have been detained in the ICC detention center. Fourteen people currently remain at large as "fugitives." All in all there have been 10 convictions and 4 acquittals. Some of the more notorious defendants charged under its mandate include: Omar al-Bashir - president of Sudan - who is still listed as "fugitive"; Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi - who died before being apprehended; his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - who is still a fugitive; former president of Liberia Charles Taylor, who was convicted and received 50 years in a British prison; and criminals from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990's: Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who each received life in prison, and Slobodan Milosevic, who died from a heart attack while in detention. In other words, Vladimir Putin is joining the company of some of the most notorious criminals of the past century. This is the first time that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for a head of state from a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Although, for practical purposes, the indictment might end up being largely symbolic, there are consequences. Putin is now officially a wanted man. His new status as an international pariah will severely limit his ability to travel outside of Russia. And while this case was essentially a slam dunk, since Putin and Lvova-Belova publicly flaunted their crime, this may not be the end of it for the Russian president. Hundreds of war-crime accusations have already been filed before the Court. While some may be difficult to prove, some are likely to move up the chain of command in the Russian Federation, potentially ending up with Putin himself. Theo Wierdsma

THE "WOKE" ENIGMA

Politicians have a tendency of reducing complex concepts to simple catchphrases designed to mystify rather than clarify. Many of these ultimately become so-called "dog whistles," coded messages communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a candidate's political base and intended to solicit unquestioned support. The objective is to appeal to the greatest possible number of electors without alienating those in the margins. Australian political theorist Robert E. Goodin argues that this process undermines democracy, because voters often have difficulty understanding what they are voting for or against during an election. In other words, a political base may be conditioned to react a certain way to the catchphrase, without actually understanding what it stands for. Throughout the course of our political history, politicians have repeatedly employed "dog whistles" to cement a following and instill a subtle fear of their opposition. Richard Nixon invoked "law and order," "thugs" and "welfare queens" among others. Donald Trump equated Mexican immigrants with drug dealers and rapists - a characterization he continued to use to depict migrants when defending the building of his wall. In addition he incorporated "thugs" and "looters" to demonize African Americans protesting in the wake of George Floyd's killing. "Cancel culture" and "critical race theory" come to mind of "dog whistles" which were generally misunderstood but which were used, more or less effectively, in political campaigns during the past few years. A recently emerging concept, decades old but freshly anointed, is "WOKE." Even though most struggle to define what they mean when using the term, many of our current politicians appear to have little trouble uttering the word and adopting the mantra. At a basic level, the word "woke" simply refers to the past tense of "wake." It is not an acronym. Use of the concept dates back to the 1930's when African American songwriter Lead Belly used the phrase near the end of a recording of his song "Scottsboro Boys," which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, suggesting: "Best stay woke, keep [your] eyes open." "Woke" became an adjective meaning "well informed or aware of racial discrimination or injustice." As such, the word was eventually added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017. It became entwined with the Black Lives Matter movement, and developed from just signaling awareness to becoming a word of action . Conservative politicians rapidly latched onto the "woke" mentality in a crusade to "deliver America from the scourge of a host of progressive ideas" they oppose. They turned "wokeness" into a pejorative synonymous with the demise of everything good and white about America. Somehow, to be pro-woke became anti-American. In 2022, a modern-day blend of McCarthyism and white grievance became the focus of the current right-wing campaign. Leading the charge is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. In anticipation of his expected run for president in 2024, the governor used his January inaugural address to warn of "the woke mob," and its "woke ideology." "We fight the woke in the legislature ... the schools ... the corporations." "We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where woke goes to die." He authored the "Stop Woke Act," a legislative prototype that would prevent educational institutions and businesses from teaching anything that would cause anyone to "feel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress" due to their race, color sex or national origin. DeSantis is by no means alone. Conservatives of all stripes are hitching onto the bandwagon. Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee on Military Personnel, blames military recruitment challenges on the "Left woke agenda." Newly minted Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, while delivering the Republican Party's response to the State of the Union, accused President Biden of surrendering his presidency to the "woke mob." Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, while announcing her 2024 bid for president, tweeted: "Strong and proud - not weak and woke - that's the America I see." Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) described "Wokeism" as "cultural Marxism," but projected a murky notion of what that actually meant. A Newsmax reporter recently asked White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: "Is President Biden woke?" And during the budget battles unfolding in Congress, GOP leaders are taking aim at, however ill-defined, "Woke spending" and "Woke waste." This newest dog whistle is obviously intended to weaponize a concept used to undermine efforts of social movements, to demonize Democrats and to unify some of the Republican base. Nevertheless, participants in focus groups have displayed difficulty defining the word even in the most general terms.This appears to be a strategy intended to cater to the most gullible, those most easily indoctrinated and too lazy to think for themselves, among us. We should not be so ambivalent debating salient issues on their merits, rather than have these manipulated catchphrases define them for us. Theo Wierdsma

"NEVER AGAIN" - AN EMPTY PROMISE

January 2023 will go down into U.S. history as the worst month for mass shootings. Well in excess of 40 incidents were recorded during a four week period. In the course of virtually every eulogy delivered during funeral services for victims of these now, unfortunately, routine events, including those for solitary murders like the recent one for Tyre Nichols in Memphis, we would hear the call: "Never Again." These simple words resonate as a dominant plea, often interpreted as a pledge, but more frequently than not followed by a resigned: "Once Again." The phrase "Never Again" was initially used by Holocaust survivors, and was particular to Jews. The outcry insisted that "never again can we allow Jews to be victims of another Holocaust." The expression, although associated with the lessons of the Holocaust, may have originated from a 1927 poem by Yitzhak Lamdan, which stated: "Never again shall Ramadan fall." Its exact meaning is debated, including whether it should be used specifically as a command to avert a second Holocaust of Jews, or whether it is a universalist injunction to prevent all forms of genocide. Meir Kahane, a far-right rabbi and his Jewish Defense League, introduced the phrase as a Jewish slogan, making it the title of his first book: "Never Again: A Program for Survival," published in 1972. It was used to fight antisemitism and justifying terrorism against perceived enemies. Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel paid homage to the term as well, as did many others. Today the phrase is widely used by politicians and activists, and it appears on many Holocaust memorials. In August 1989, Louis Farrakhan, an avowed U.S. anti-semite, arguably committed blasphemy by co-opting the expression when he delivered his eulogy for Yusef Hawkins, an African American youth killed by a white gang in Brooklyn. Since then, in response to multiple mass murders, the clarion call was repeatedly invoked by victims and observers alike. Between 1992 and 1995, 8,000 men and boys endured summary executions and torture by Serbian paramilitary forces in Srebenica, in what was considered the most extensive genocide in Europe since the Holocaust. "Never Again?" Obviously, nobody listened. Atrocities in Baathist Iraq, Cambodia, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan followed. "Never Again?" Once a rallying cry, rapidly began to sound hollow. Aside from Farrakhan and multiple others delivering eulogies for the plethora of victims of gun related deaths - more than two million since the liberation of Auschwitz and Buchenwald - some organizations still thought enough of the expression to adopt it for their specific campaigns. Case in point was the crusade developed by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, after Nikolas Cruz and his AR15 killed 17 students and faculty on February 14, 2018. The student "March for Our Lives," which brought thousand to D.C. a month later, adopted "Never Again MSD" as their motto. Shortly thereafter, the Jerusalem Post published interviews with Israeli citizens expressing concerns about what some considered cultural appropriation. Some felt that it was "very uncomfortable to watch a term you've used to talk about your family and people's own heritage and history be taken overnight." However, most doubted that the kids knew this or did it intentionally. Either way, the expression had entered the realm of universal usage. Nevertheless, although some thought that this student movement, which appeared to be gathering strength at the time, might actually be different - irrespective of its powerful rallying cry - ultimately fizzled as well.The Parkland shooting was one of 119 school shootings that year. Since then, more than 900 shootings in K-12 school settings have been recorded. These include mass casualty events like the massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. "Never Again" expresses the aspiration of a civilized world. It is a powerful rallying cry, but it is no longer much more than that. The presumed necessity to proclaim it over and over again, does not really strengthen it. It diminishes its effectiveness. Politicians frequently express the same sentiment as well. However, more frequently than not, they stick to the catchphrase, raising expectations, but stopping well shy of constructive follow-up. Many no longer even dust off their stock responses to calamitous events. They, as are many of us, appear resigned to be frustrated and feeling impotent. "Never Again," as a slogan, no longer carries the same weight as it did right after the Nazi extermination camps were liberated. Theo Wierdsma

THE FLIP SIDE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." This partial iteration of an important component of the First Amendment to our Constitution is universally known, although not always understood. Initially, this amendment referred only to what the federal government could or could not do. State constitutions had their own "Bill of Rights." Over time the declaration, which was revolutionary in 1791, assisted by Supreme Court interpretations of the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, gained legitimacy in all states. Today, "Freedom of Speech" is accepted as a principle which supports the freedom of individuals or communities to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal action by the government. Internationally, the right to freedom of expression has been recognized as a human right in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. While the concept may have principally and generally been accepted, it certainly was not always universally popular. No sooner did Johannes Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1436, facilitating the dissemination of heretofore alien ideas and challenging viewpoints that used to be the purview of the clergy, or the Roman Catholic Church reacted defensively. It published an index of forbidden texts, "to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books." Our national experience was not terribly different. The scope of the amendment changed over time, influenced by historical and political situations. As early as 1798, when our country envisioned war with France, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed the "Alien and Sedition Act" which made it a crime to publish any "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. These laws were unpopular from the outset, and were gradually repealed after the party's defeat in the election of 1800. The "Red Scare" periods following the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the tumult surrounding the "McCarthy" inquisitions during the early 1950s generated similar legislation. During the 1960s and 1970s much of the debate about "free speech" took place on university campuses. Mario Savio's "Free Speech Movement" at U.C. Berkeley in 1964 was a case in point. Savio's objective was to abolish all restrictions on students' free speech rights throughout the University of California system. He ultimately won out. Half a century later, the university was confronted by a planned "free speech week" featuring ultra conservative Milo Yiannopoulos. After numerous protests and more than 100 faculty signed a letter stating: "We support robust debate, but we cannot abide by harassment, slander, defamation and hate speech," his invitation was ultimately rescinded. The point is that exercising "Free Speech" rules does not necessarily refer to allowing a debate between politically opposing ideas, it is an integrity issue. We will listen to anyone supporting our point of view. We are uncomfortable and often unwilling to even consider unpopular contrary ideas. In the case of "Free Speech Week," the university administration essentially censored its students' right to listen to non-conforming perspectives. And while shouting down speakers we don't like, a tactic frequently employed, may arguably be an expression of "free speech," it also censors the right of an audience to receive information. All speech is not equal. Some things are true - some things are not. Figuring out how to tell the difference requires the freedom to listen. As pundits have pointed out, America has no problem with speech. It has a problem with listening. Some would go as far as suggesting that we have an obligation to listen. Speaking and listening do not mean much without each other. Today, "Freedom of Speech" does not only refer to the right to express or disseminate information and ideas. It also includes the right to seek, to receive and impart information and ideas. The notion that freedom of speech on college and university campuses is "under siege," as reported by the Goldwater Institute in 2017, is no longer a liberal or conservative conviction. The freedom to hear or debate speech with which students disagree, or protect speech which some may find bigoted or offensive, is an essential part of academic freedom, and an indispensable element in fostering critical thinking skills. Off campus the same holds true. Our unwillingness to at least listen to viewpoints we don't agree with lies at the core of our national proclivity for mental rigidity, our obstinate aversion to consider each other's perspectives. It appears that many of us prefer to live in a homogeneous space where we hear plenty of speech, safely filtered through the congenial viewpoint of our chosen cable-news channel, social media group or newspaper. Many of these implicitly employ a form of Orwellian thought control on the premise that much of their audience is either ill equipped or too lazy to engage in an intelligent thought process. Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die. If we as a people are to be the master of our fate and of our elected government, we must be well informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny. Theo Wierdsma

POLITICAL PARALYSIS ON THE POTOMAC

So much for planned dialogue and carefully considered discussions. Given the discord exhibited in the House of Representatives struggling to agree on a parliamentary leader and presiding officer for the 118th Congress, it feels imperative to pay some attention to this process. It seems clear that many of us are perplexed about what is taking place at the pinnacle of political power only two years after the insurrection of January 6, 2020. In a way, the process, while constitutionally mandated, represents an outgrowth of what led to that inauspicious day. All but two of the group of far-right republican members opposing the selection of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker were election deniers in 2020. They, essentially, want to function as a third party and upset our entire system. Most of us seem to have committed to preserve our democratic traditions and values. However, not all of us agree on what that means, and how we get there remains contentious. The impasse in the House, which left the institution paralyzed until it selected a new Speaker, reverberated throughout our government. Article I, section 2 of our Constitution mandates that the House of Representatives needs to choose its presiding officer before it is allowed to transact business. The Speaker chairs the institution's Rules Committee, is responsible for administering the oath of office to its members, giving them permission to speak on the House floor, appointing members to committees, sending bills to committees and signing bills and resolutions that pass in the House. Besides, the Speaker of the House is also second in line, behind the Vice President, to become president should the latter be unable to fulfill his or her duties. So yes! Selecting a Speaker is a big deal. The office originated in the British House of Commons during the 14th century. In the British system the Speaker had allegiances to the legislative body as well as to the sovereign, serving in that capacity as the monarch's representative in the Commons. Ultimately, the American speakership followed this example and became a product of politics, claiming sole authority to run the House's business.Typically, the leader of the majority party will be elected to this position. His or her election requires a majority vote of seated members. What we observed during the past week was not a debate over policy, but a struggle for power within the majority Republican party, which gained a slim majority during the last election. Kevin McCarthy ultimately won the battle for Speaker on the 15th ballot, with no votes to spare. However, he lost the contest for power, since he had to agree to significant concessions to get the votes he needed. His tumultuous ascent was on full display when, after he failed to succeed after the 14th go-around, reminiscent to a violent incident that took place in 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina entered the Senate chamber and repeatedly struck Senator Charles Sumner over the head with a cane, Mike Rogers of Alabama took a swing at Matt Gaetz of Florida who was blamed for failure on that vote. This drawn-out balloting is not entirely unprecedented in our history. Since 1789, the House has selected a Speaker 127 times. Only 14 times did the election require multiple ballots. Thirteen of these occurred before the Civil War when party divisions were more nebulous.The most notorious of these was the election of Nathaniel Prentice Banks, who, in 1856, won by two votes after 133 ballots, taking two months and a resolution to decide by plurality of the votes. The previous record was claimed by Howell Cobb in 1849, who won in 63 tries. The last time a Speaker election required two or more votes was in 1923 when Speaker Frederic Huntington Gillett managed to secure the position on the 9th ballot. I suspect that Representative McCarthy's success will become part of history as well. However, completing this round of balloting won't resolve the paralysis. The Republican Party only has a ten vote advantage over Democrats in the House. Margins are slim. Besides, Speaker McCarthy bargained away much of his power to secure the votes he needed. One of the most ominous rules he agreed to adjust is the "motion to vacate," essentially a vote of no confidence, allowing any member of the House to offer a request for the Speaker to step down. This procedure was instrumental in shortening the tenure of former Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner. Upon taking charge in 2018, Nancy Pelosi changed the rule to limit its use. However, Mr. McCarthy's right-wing opposition forced him to agree to reduce the threshold back to one single member. This essentially forces the Speaker to constantly walk a high-wire act. Any one representative in his party will hence be able to start this paralytic procedure all over again. This change and other adjustments to the rules of the House insure that Kevin McCarthy is slated to become the weakest Speaker of the House in modern days, beholden to a small group of defectors in his party. He will likely be more of a constitutional figurehead than a powerful party leader. The paralysis is far from over. We may be in for a long two years. Theo Wierdsma