The Mueller Report--My Two Cents

I have spent about 3 hours reading the report. For what it is worth, here's my take:

1. It is extremely thorough and clearly presented. Balanced in its assessment.

2. While there are some redacted portions that one would like to see because of the context in which they occur, I come away believing we probably have enough information to form conclusions. 

3. The report convincingly established the direct and concerted involvement by Russia (GRU) in driving systematic interference in the 2016  Presidential election through a social media campaign favoring Trump and disparaging Clinton and by a computer-intrusion campaign against employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign. 

4.  While there were numerous points of contact between members of the campaign and various Russian leaders and while the members of the campaign did nothing to call attention to the Russian's interest in finding dirt on Hillary to be shared, I buy the conclusion that there is not evidence of outright collusion. 

5.  The instances of Trump trying to thwart the investigation and lying about doing it are numerous, intentional and deliberate and without pretending to render a legal judgment on criminality, they clearly show an intention by Trump to obstruct a proper investigation and therefore to obstruct justice. 

Viewed from the perspective of how I or any corporate leader would treat an executive who had done what Trump is shown to have done, the answer is clear. He/she would be terminated immediately.

Among the most flagrant actions, are these:

1. Repeated efforts made by Trump to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to remove the Special Counsel. This on top of this strong direction to McGhan to remove the Special Counsel in the first place. 

2. Trump's efforts to influence Manafort's testimony by offering him the prospect of a pardon.

3. Repeated efforts by Trump to have Sessions take control of the investigation, including by reversing his recusal, with the only logical intent being to achieve an outcome more likely to be in Trump's interest. 

4. Trump's efforts to have the investigation only concern itself with interference in future elections. 

It is hard for me to imagine facts emerging from further interviews with the principals that would materially change these conclusions.

Impeachment will not occur given the make-up of the Senate. Attempts to achieve it will not likely be productive against the main goal: getting Trump out of office in the 2020.  

I doubt if the general public will read this report in detail. 

I do not believe Trump supporters will change their  view of the situation based on any more information. 

Nevertheless, I believe that the cause of justice calls for doubling down through Congressional testimony on the one or two key areas of greatest Trump malfeasance which I would say are the interactions with McGhan. I would be focused. 

The candidates will be well served to stick as Biden has to the overall issue of character, a unifying vision for the country and the key issues such as health care and jobs and education impacting every day lives. 

Mind Opening and Challenging - Harari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

I’m literally amazed at the breadth of Harari’s knowledge and the number of mind-opening perspectives and insights he offers.  Some of them challenged my deepest beliefs and made me reconsider them. 

 

On the other hand, the book came to a disappointing close for me.  His final chapter on Meditation did little for me to offer a path forward that would accommodate itself to his virtual demolition of so many of the belief systems that, in many ways, he properly presents as our own mentally constructed stories.

 

As I say, there were many mind-opening perspectives for me in the book:  His illumination of the challenge that automation is going to provide to the number of meaningful jobs, the way this will impact everything from healthcare to truck drivers.  The need to, in one way or the other, do a better job of providing support to allow everyone to cover their basic needs.  The global challenge of nuclear proliferation and climate change which requires a global or near-global response.  The degree to which we overestimate the impact of terrorism, though it’s hard to mention that with what’s just happened in Sri Lanka.  (And Harari does note properly the altered dimension of the risk terrorism produced by nuclear capability.)

 

The chapters which I found most provocative and challenging were those on God and secularism.  While Harari makes the irrefutable case that it would be a supreme mistake to assert that there is only one valid religion, and while he makes the irrefutable case that many bad things have been done in the name of religion alongside good ones (and I must say, he makes this case very compellingly for every religion, including his own, Judaism), and while he acknowledges that religious beliefs have been an impetus to leading countless millions to pursue what he properly describes as the secular ethical code—a code which “enshrines the values of truth, compassion, quality, freedom, courage and responsibility,”— I believe he underestimates the degree to which religious beliefs have made the pursuit and activation of these values a reality.

 

Harari notes that the degree to which “human violence” caused human deaths has dropped significantly in modern times from up to 15% of all deaths during early agricultural periods to, he asserts, 1% today.  I personally believe that the pursuit of religious beliefs, as imperfect as that pursuit has been, may account for a significant portion of that reduction.

 

Related to this, there are two of Harari’s view that I believe, sadly, are in error.  He asserts, referring to religious beliefs, that, “We do not really need such complex, long-term theories to find an actual basis for universal compassion.”  He goes on to explain, writing that “Emotions such as greed, envy, anger, and hatred are very unpleasant.”  My marginal note on this reads:  “That’s not true for some, not always.”  

 

In the same vein, he continues, “As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to lead a moral life.  Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.”  My marginal note here reads:  “I’m not so sure.” 

 In fact, I’d go beyond that; I doubt it. 

 In theory, yes, if lived faithfully by virtually all, the secular values would carry the day.  But they aren’t going to be lived that way, because humans aren’t built that way. I believe that properly founded religious beliefs, especially for me personally as expressed in the words of Jesus, can help us live these secular values which Harari properly celebrates. In fact, Harari acknowledges this at one point. 

 

In the end, each of us comes back to try to decide how to live a meaningful, purposeful life.  I’ve reached my age knowing that I like all of us occupy a sliver of time in an amazing, bountiful universe which we’ll never fully understand.  I’ve come to believe that ultimately the difference we make will lie in whatever positive contribution we’ve been able to make to others in their journey of life, especially those we’re closest to, our family.

 

Confronting the President's Fundamental Denial of Our Nation's Basic Values

I posted this just two weeks ago after the Cohen hearings.

I re-post it today following the release of the Mueller Report which, sadly but not surprisingly, confirms what we already knew about President Trump in yet one more context.

We must return the values of truthfulness and mutual respect to the Presidency.

Confronting the President's Fundamental Denial of Our Nation's Basic Values

MARCH 7, 2019

Last week, we witnessed a dismaying but utterly unsurprising seven hours of testimony of Michael Cohen before a committee of the U.S. Congress during which he delivered a barrage of first-hand, up-close observations of President Trump’s dishonesty, lying and racism.  Cohen offered compelling evidence of President Trump’s direct involvement of repaying Cohen for paying off his mistress, even while he was in office—a violation of campaign finance law.

The insult to the Presidency and to our nation’s values which Trump represents needed no amplification.  It received it, however, in this testimony from Trump’s closest lawyer for 10 years.

As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal of March 2-3, referring to Cohen’s testimony:  

“This is bigger than we think, and history won’t miss the import of this testimony.  None of the charges were new, precisely.  They have been made in books, investigations and interviews.  What is amazing though is that such a rebuke on the essential nature of a president and by an intimate has no equal in our history.  I don’t think, as we talk about Mr. Cohen’s testimony, we fully appreciate this.”

As I have written before, anyone who said and did the things which Trump has done—many of which he has admitted to—would have been summarily fired from any corporate or non-profit office in this nation.  Yet he remains as President, with the support of perhaps one-third of the nation’s voting public.

Some will disagree with my view that President Trump has no right to be the president of this country.  To be clear, I do not believe that an impeachable offense has yet been identified.  Nor am I saying that Trump hasn’t advocated some policies that are good for the nation.

My point is simpler.  And more important.  We are on very dangerous moral ground.  

Some will say that there have been other presidents who have done dreadful things, some of which actually led to impeachment.  That’s true.  Most recently, of course, President Clinton, who engaged in sexual acts with a young intern and then lied about it to his wife and to the nation, not once but several times.  Too many of us turned our back on that. Shame on us.  Yes, unlike Trump, he finally apologized.  But we lived with too low a standard.

We have to be careful.  We all do things that are wrong.  All of us should be granted permission to apologize and to change our ways. 

However, if Trump has apologized for what he has said and done—such as demeaning other people and lying—I have yet to hear it. That's because he hasn't said it. 

We have to resist accepting a “new normal” like the plague.  We have faced moral challenges before.  We have had moral profligates in high office before though never one of this  

magnitude and at this level. 

 In my lifetime, Joe McCarthy was the only person I’ve seen deliver such venomous, untrue accusations about other people.  Many people of good character went along with McCarthy for too long.  Over a thousand people attended his wedding in 1953, including Senator John F. Kennedy, Vice President, Richard Nixon and Alan Dulles, Head of the CIA.   For a time, even President Dwight Eisenhower turned his head.  But eventually, the screw turned.    The blinkers came off. The bombast lost its power. More and more people began to see McCarthyism for what it was—in President Truman's words: the big lie and unfounded accusation.  A political ploy that shamed without evidence.  

The final nail was struck by a cutting question during a hearing in 1954 by Council Joseph N. Welch—“"Finally, sir, have you no decency?”

Millions opened their eyes. They turned to their better natures.   McCarthy died a rejected man and McCarthyism more or less died with him.

I don’t know how long it will take for the great majority of our nation to reject the uncivil, untrue, mean-spirited and disloyal behavior of President Donald J. Trump.  But it will happen.

The members of the Republican Senate and House have a big role in its happening sooner rather than later.  I feel certain that most Republican Senators and legislators must squirm when they go home and talk with their spouses about how difficult it is for them to support a president who violates their beliefs in such fundamental ways.  Through his almost daily actions and words, he contradicts what they expect and demand of their own children.

Well beyond my lifetime, historians will dig furiously into this chapter of our nation’s history.  They will try to identify the complex origins and causes of President Trump.  I suspect most will describe it as an astounding but not unique aberration in our history. They will write about it much as most historians write today about Andrew Johnson's presidency, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWI, the Dredd Scott decision, the Plessy-Ferguson decision and other chapters of our history which demonstrate that, despite our ideals, we sometimes get things very wrong. 

I believe the American people will eventually get this right. Why?  Because the great majority of the American public believe in the values of truthfulness, of mutual respect and of empathy.  We don’t always practice them.   In that, we are human.  But we have a moral compass.  We have it in our homes and with our families.  That we must never lose. With new leadership and the determined will of each of us as voters, we will return to it again in our Presidency. That is our highest responsibility to the future of our nation.  

Tiger Woods at the Masters--A Win Carrying Many Morals

I woke up very early Monday morning vividly recalling Tiger Woods striding up the fairway, a picture of unflappable, stoic discipline, red shirt, cap on, he looked no more than 30.

Striking his iron shot which slowly but surely curled to four feet from the hole on the 71st; the birdie followed.

Tapping in for a safe bogey to win by one stroke on the 72nd hole; millions roared. Off with his cap, revealing graying hair and the reality that, yes, this man is in his 40's.

Walking briskly to hug his young son and daughter and his mother with unbridled joy and love as we were reminded by TV footage of how he had hugged his now deceased father when he won this same tournament in 1997.

These are pictures in my mind. You may have your own.

For me, there is a good deal wrapped up in this win by Tiger Woods.

It is a story of redemption, as he came back incredibly from the physical and personal setbacks of the last 15 years.

It is a story of persistence and courage. .How many people could have survived four back operations and come back to win this tournament against players almost two decades younger?

It is a story of stamina and resolve. The practice was unending:  Even yesterday, Woods got up at 3:45 AM  to prepare for a 9 o'clock tee time.  The margin of victory was incredibly small: one stroke out of 275: less than 1%. Such is the difference between being first and second.

It is a story of forgiveness, as millions of fans, indeed the general public, looked past his earlier self-admitted personal mistakes to not only cheer him on but share in the joy of his recovery.

It is a story of artistic excellence. Great performance in golf seems to me to deserve the descriptive "artistic excellence". It requires a special combination of sheer talent and strength, finesse and boldness and discipline . And we observe all these things, as they happen in the instant stroke snd flight of the ball and then as we observe how the player reacts,  emotionally and physically, as he goes on to  next shot.

Perhaps most simply, it is a story of how the world loves a hero,  especially a come-back hero, a hero who shows his humanity and love of family, especially today when cynicism and examples of flawed standards surround us. Stories like this remind of what is possible and in their own way of what we at our best can accomplish.

A Book That Spoke to Me on Many Levels: "Becoming" by Michelle Obama

One of the finest memoirs I have ever read.  And already reputed to be the #1 bestseller of all memoirs ever.

I relished it for its candor, intimacy and plain-spokenness.

It is the kind of memoir my wife, Francie, would write if she brings the time to it.

In many ways, it reminds me of Francie.

Here are a few of the insights Michelle offered which I found moving.

Referring to her mother she writes “she loved us consistently but we were not over-managed.  Her goal was to push us into the world.  ‘I’m not raising babies, I’m raising adults.’  She and my dad offered guidelines rather than rules.  It meant that as teenagers we would never have a curfew.”  

Just like Francie with our children.

There is this luminous description of the challenges minority students face.  “Minority and under-privileged students rise to the challenge all the time but it takes energy.  It takes energy to be the only black person in a lecture hall or one of the few non-white people trying out for a play or joining an intramural team.  It requires effort, an extra level of confidence, to speak in those settings and own your presence in the room.”  This is why, Michelle writes, that she and other black young people relish the opportunity to be with other black people.  They felt comfortable, safe.

I admire the openness with which Michelle reveals her relationship and marriage to Barack.

At one point she wrote in her journal “I am so angry at Barack.  I don’t think we have anything in common.”  

She writes that they had to pursue marriage counseling, and it helped!  “Like any newish couple, we were learning how to fight.  We didn’t fight often, and when we did, it was typically over petty things..but we did fight.  And for better or worse, I tend to yell when I’m angry.”

I guess every couple has its "fights". It's our underlying love and respect which keep us together. 

Like Francie, Michelle was very confident, conscious of the stereotyped role of being a “wife.”  She writes, “wife” can feel like a loaded word.  It carries a history.  If you grew up in the 60s and the 70s, as I did, wives seemed to be a genus of white women who lived inside television sitcoms—cheery, coiffed, corseted.  They stayed at home, fussed over the children, and had dinner ready on the stove.”

Michelle pushed back against that. She did so much good in so many career undertakings.

Michelle is honest in saying how as a Senator’s wife she began to feel sublimated “at the heart of my confusion (in Washington) was a kind of fear, because as much as I hadn’t chosen to be involved, I was getting sucked in.  I had been Mrs. Obama for the last 12 years, but it was starting to mean something different.  At least in some spheres, I was now Mrs. Obama in a way that could feel diminishing, a Mrs. defined by her Mr." 

That sounds very familiar. 

Michelle had a revealing and in many ways chilling experience during the campaign when she was asked to look at the talks she was giving without any sound, just the visual.  What she saw was that she was “too serious, too severe.”  She needed to lighten up.  Examining how we look without the sound can be very instructive. I found that to be true as I looked at myself giving talks. 

As First Lady, Michelle knew she would be measured by a different yardstick.  She found herself as she had before “suddenly tripped by doubt.  Confidence, I learned then, sometimes needs to be called from within.  I have said the same words to myself many times now, through many climbs.  Am I good enough?  Yes I am.”

Toward the end of her memoir, Michelle writes in a way that articulates my own experience:  “The important parts of my story lay less in the surface value of my accomplishments and more in what undergirded them—the many small ways I had been buttressed over the years, and the people who helped build my confidence over time.  I remembered them all, every person who had ever waved me forward.”  

For me, there have been so many.  I recorded many of them in my paper, “If It Weren’t For Them,” and there are many more I have met since writing that paper. I have been lifted by the confidence of others, above all Francie. 

Michelle goes on:  “My early successes in life were, I knew, a product of the consistent love and high expectations with which I was surrounded as a child, both at home and at school.  I had been lucky to have parents, teachers and mentors, who had fed me with a consistent simple message:  you matter.”

Magic words--as my daughter punctuated them for me--"YOU MATTER". 

Underlying Drivers for the Brexit Controversy in the UK and "Trumpism" in America

“The Road to Somewhere:  The New Tribes Shaping British Politics” – by David Goodheart

An insightful, penetrating book analyzing the cleavage between different groups in Britain (the so-called “tribes”) which account for Brexit.

Goodheart sums up the cleavage by describing the two tribes as “Anywheres” and “Somewheres,” denoting the relative contrast between the commitment to a global-European world view contrasted to a commitment that is more locally, nationalistic, and family-driven.

The cleavage he talks about also fairly describes a fundamental difference, in my view, between Trump supporters and Trump haters.

He analyzes the several key factors of differentiation.  They include ones' relative commitment to free trade, to immigration, to family, and the depth of one’s commitment to his or her nation. 

It was an eye-opener for me to realize how the ECM has evolved from initially being essentially a tariff-free customs union to what became the common economic space of a single market with the unified Euro currency (Maastricht in 1992) and the provision that the citizen of every European country is a citizen of every other European country. Particularly with the expansion of the ECM to Eastern and Central Europe, this resulted in a massive increase in immigration to Germany and to Britain. Thus immigration became the underlying issue which probably drove the positive Brexit vote.

The political elite, better educated and higher income, failed to recognize and adequately respect the views of those who felt they were being left behind by this high rate of  immigration. They also felt decisions which should be made at the national level had been abrogated by a very loosely formed and weakly governing European administrative structure.

Goodheart develops his analysis and argument in very insightful terms.  For example, asserting “the moral equality of all humans is taken by many Global Villagers to mean the national borders and boundaries have become irrelevant and that any partiality to one’s fellow nationalist is morally flawed.  But this is two completely separate things.  It does not follow from the idea of human equality that we have the same obligations to all humans.”  

We must recognize that “all humans are equal but they are not all equally important to us; our obligations and allegiances ripple out from family and friends to stranger fellow citizens in our neighborhoods and towns, then to nations and finally to all humanity.  This does not have to be a narrow or selfish idea.  People from Somewhere can be outward looking and internationalist, generous in their donations to charity..and concerned about the progress for the world’s poor countries but they also think it is perfectly reasonable that most European countries put their own citizens first and spend about 10 times more every year on domestic health services than on development aid."

Nor is this kind of particularism morally inferior to the more universalist views of some “Anywheres.”  If everyone is my brother, then nobody is—my emotional and financial resources are spread too thin to make a difference.  The novelist Jonathon Franzen puts it like this:  “Trying to love all of humanity may be a worthy endeavor but, in a funny way, it keeps the focus on the self, on the self’s own moral or spiritual well-being.  Whereas to love a specific person, and to identify with his or her struggles and joys as if they were your own, you have to surrender some of yourself.”

I cannot imagine it being said better than this.  

There are good reasons why we should resist an overly atavistic sense of “exceptionalism” when it comes to the pride we take in our nation.  We have a history loaded with events (slavery, treatment of the Native American) that we cringe at even as we recognize the reality such is the sad stuff of human history. However, that should not mask or discredit the rightness of having a strong, confident national identity.  That in itself won’t solve our social and economic problems but it provides a set of values through which discussion can take place.  It assumes certain shared norms and interests.

We have such a template perhaps greater than any other nation in the world in the founding words of the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Even as imperfectly lived, this commitment calls on us to do what we think is right based on all we have learned over time.

How Much Immigration is Too Much and What Kind of Immigration Should We Have?

I read two important pieces of literature over the weekend:  David Goodhart’s “The Road To Somewhere:  The Tribes Shaping British Politics” and David Frum’s article in The Atlantic “How Much Immigration is Too Much?”  

This reading underscores for me how complex these questions are, how difficult getting the right answers to them have been, and how important it is to the future of our nation and indeed Western civilization that we do so.

There is no question that the rate of immigration has increased significantly over the last 50 years in the United States, in Europe and in developed countries generally.  From a low in 1970 representing about 5% of our population in the United States and 5 million immigrants, the numbers have increased to 15% of our population and 45 million immigrants.

The causes of the change are multiple, including the elimination of what had been very restrictive immigration policies, new family friendly policies allowing more relatives of U.S. citizens to come in, the entry of Eastern and Central Europeans to Western European countries (particularly Germany and U.K.) following adoption by the ECM of European-wide citizenship and the sharp increase of immigration into the United States from Mexico, Central America and, most recently, China and Southeast Asia.

Unless we change our immigration policies, particularly as they apply to family relationships and the definition of “asylum,” there will be a continued increase in immigration in the United States with a continuation of the political and economic pressures this represents.

There are familiar and altogether correct arguments for immigration in this country.  After all, we were all immigrants in the beginning.  And as you look at the last century and more, a large percentage of our entrepreneurs, Nobel scientists, etc. were first-generation immigrants and, of course, welcoming immigrants has become part of the country’s ethical morae.

Today, being for or against immigration has become a bumper sticker carrying broad-based ideological implications touching on one’s openness to cultural diversity, openness to free trade, as well as the feeling of being “left behind” or not.  Immigration likely was the defining issue in the election of President Trump and for the Brexit vote in the U.K.

There is the risk that liberals (like me) can embrace an unthinking broad immigration policy without thinking practically and specifically about what constitutes the right amount and what kind of immigration for the years ahead.

It is a tragedy that our federal government has been unable to come to grips with reaching sensible decisions on these issues.

In  my mind, these decisions will include:

1. Recognizing that for the close to 11 million undocumented workers who are in the country (most of whom for more than 10 years), we must define a legitimate path to permanent residency and then citizenship.

2. We must provide an immediate path to citizenship for the so-called “Dreamers.”

3. We must have a disciplined, sound basis for distinguishing between individuals and families seeking asylum based on genuine threats to life and those who are simply, if understandably, seeking a better way of life.  Like it or not, we cannot accommodate all the people in this latter category.  Making this distinction will admittedly not be easy.

4. We probably need to limit the degree to which extended family members can immigrate.  They should be limited to the closest members of the family, certainly spouses and likely children.  I do not believe siblings or more distant relatives should be covered.

5. We should look at some form of “merit” system of the kind Canada uses to assure that a large percentage of immigrants will be able to achieve a sustaining economic life.

6. We should invest prudently in helping countries provide healthy sanctuary in their own countries or nearby countries for people who are displaced by civil war as in Syria.

Similarly, we should invest to improve the rule of law and living conditions in those countries where large numbers of individuals are seeking to leave for good and valid reasons.  Central America probably ranks highest on that list.  I recognize this will not be easy and needs to be done in concert with other nations.

I am sure the particulars I am identifying here are incomplete and may be incorrect in some cases.  But they articulate the nature of the decisions that we must address to confront this genuine, overarching issue.

The Most Consequential Geo-Political Events in My Lifetime--And How I See Them Being Threatened

I have lived for 80 years.

I have asked myself what have been the most consequential geo-political events of my life time.

Here they are:

1. The defeat of Nazi Germany and the Imperial Empire of Japan.
2. The coming together of most of Europe in the European Common Market.
3. The peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of communism as an ideology competing actively with capitalism for world domination.
4. The rise of China as a preeminent economic and political power.
5. The emergence of global warming as an existential threat to our planet.
6. The immediate, individually directed and global inter-conneted communication enabled by the internet and social media.

I see significant threats for the future in how several of these events are evolving today.

The threats arise in my view from four insidious elements of human nature:

1. The challenge of putting ourselves in the shoes of the other party when it comes to working together.

2.  The human tendency to lift ourselves up by comparing ourselves to what we come to see as a somehow inferior or less deserving"other".

3. The human tendency to take advantage of power without adequate regard for the common good.

4. Our human tendency to have to face a really catastrophic situation before taking decisive action.

What are the threats I see?

1. The significant loss of political and economic strength in Europe and in Britain if Britain abandons the European Common Market.  While obviously a subject of intense disagreement, I believe that Britain and the ECM will be stronger by Britain being a fully participating member.

Yes, it is correctly pointed out that Britain sends hundreds of millions of pounds annually to support the ECM administration.

Yes,  being part of the ECM has opened Britain to a significant influx of immigrants that many understandably find objectionable.

Yet, being part of the ECM offers Britain the long achieved benefit of being a major financial capital for Europe; of having its citizens cross borders easily for employment; and of having equal trade terms with other European countries.

But, there is another benefit of Britain's remaining a key member of the European community which I  do not believe has been adequately recognized.

The ECM is still relatively young. Its rules and form of governance will and should be subject to continued improvement--in areas including  immigration policy and common currency.

What decisions should rest with individual countries as opposed to those being decided at a European level will be subject to continued debate and resolution, just as has been the case in the United States with respect to which rights should be reserved to the individual states and which to the national government.

The chances of that debate reaching a constructive result for the countries of the ECM will be greatly enhanced in my judgment  by Britain's being part of that debate as opposed to looking on from the sidelines.



2. The emerging view that Russia and China are existential enemies of the United States-- not just economic competitors but ideological enemies-- is in my view a dangerous distortion of reality.

Yes, there are differences in our theories and practice of government: the degree of authority invested in the senior leader; the balance accorded to individual rights vs. collective rights.

Yes, there is rampant corruption in both countries, just as there is in many others including our own.  Note, I am not saying these are equivalent.

Yes, Russia has worked to interfere in our elections and China has worked to co-opt our technology.

Yes, these countries insist on being recognized as legitimate key players on the world stage.

But these realties should not be conflated to suggest that these countries are seeking to forcefully convert the world to their system of government as the Soviet Union was under communism or, for that matter, radical Islam is.

 Above all,  these realities should not mask the reality that we must work with these countries on those issues which if we don't work together on the future of the world--the very future of our own nation-- are at stake.

I refer particularly to the risk of nuclear annihilation (let us never forget Hiroshima) and disastrous climate change.

 Working with your competitors, even sometimes your enemies, isn't a new thought. We worked, for example, with the Soviet Union to establish treaties to control nuclear proliferation. Dangerously, we now see those treaties being allowed to end.

3. The long term threat of of global warning continues to grow.  Sadly, I believe things will have to get worse before they get better. I believe we will need even more evidence, though plenty is already available, of the catastrophic impact of global warming before the world finally takes the action to confront it decisively.

I have no idea how long this will take. I don't know how much time we have before irreversible effects occur. I am optimistic that technology will continue to advance to enable us to provide cost effective energy without the use of fossil fuels once we muster the will to do so.

4. It is way beyond the scope of this short piece to assess the multiple implications of the final element I cite, i.e. the immediate, individually-directed snd inter-connected communication enabled by the internet and social media.

But there is one aspect of this which presents a particular challenge to our future which I want to underscore. That is the degree to which it enables and encourages us all to receive news and communicate with others who already share our views, thereby deepening partisan divides and making constructive dialogue and action much harder to achieve.

Take television: fifty years ago most people got their news on three national channels; each of them with varying degrees of success aimed to present the news in a balanced fashion. Today, most people get their news through cable channels, each of them, with little exception, presenting the news through their own political frame.

I see the need for public and media forums which bring people of different views together to respectfully share their views and seek areas of common agreement. There is also the need for political leadership which without ducking key issues,  presents and activates a common, uniting vision which is founded on respect for all people. We also need to address systemic issues, such as gerrymandering, whose very design encourage candidates to adopt and run on far-right or far-left positions, making it far harder to engage in constructive dialogue and debate.