Jitesh Jairam, CFP®’s Post

Here on Day 23 of my official retirement, as I slowly accumulate a list of books to read, I think I might have stumbled across an old book to be the first I read in retirement - Profiles in Courage by JFK, written back in 1955. The PDF is available online (although not in Project Gutenberg.) Curiously, as old as it is and its focus on historical figures, it reads as if it was written for our current political moment. It was written just a year after the infamous McCarthy hearings but I don't know if the book was a reaction to them - they weren't even mentioned in the book. but it's very curious timing. It's always interesting to inquire into the greater context when a book is published. Two passages from excerpts from the book on the JFK Library website, which could as well have been written today: "Today the challenge of political courage looms larger than ever before. For our everyday life is becoming so saturated with the tremendous power of mass communications that any unpopular or unorthodox course arouses a storm of protests such as John Quincy Adams – under attack in 1807 – could never have envisioned. Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment... And thus, in the days ahead, only the very courageous will be able to take the hard and unpopular decisions necessary for our survival in the struggle with a powerful enemy – an enemy with leaders who need give little thought to the popularity of their course, who need pay little tribute to the public opinion they themselves manipulate, and who may force, without fear of retaliation at the polls, their citizens to sacrifice present laughter for future glory. --- We shall need compromises in the days ahead, to be sure. But these will be, or should be, compromises of issues, not of principles. We can compromise our political positions, but not ourselves... Compromise does not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents." #History #USHistory #PoliticalScience #USPoliticalScience #Geopolitical https://lnkd.in/eCzCcc4Y

Corporate influence over Democracy has rarely been so evident as during this year's Presidential election, all of the tailwinds of a forty year global economic expansion and increased capital market valuations, in the mania of AI's disruptive rollout, and likely on the cusp of a long-reinflated severe recession, if not depression. Rare as these highly polarized conditions may be, they very much echo the life story and capital avarice of Andrew Mellon. Mellon is known for being a constant booster of financial and monopolist interests, most often his own. His ultimate impeachment as Secretary of the Treasury was painstakingly orchestrated by Senator Wright Pattman. This biography is a suitable and perhaps prescient filter through which to view this year's Presidential campaign, which pits the naked capitalist avarice of Donald Trump against the prosecutor advocate of fashionably liberal politics and potential redemptive political centrist Kamala Harris. Efforts at corporate reform by the likes of Elizabeth Warren have been set aside in committee. But, these polarizing arguments are waiting in the wings and might very well reappear during the lifetime of most current crop of young-Turk billionaires.

@Thom Hartmann's insightful essay today asks, Is the "Reagan Revolution" over? Of course not! The total destruction of any opposition to the draconian visions of the conservatives in this country and beyond and a return to the grand OLD party's system of plantations, which I assume will be divided according to the states with a potentate administering his own fiefdom...after a civil war, of course. Watching the democratic convention on YouTube into the early morning, he and I reached different conclusions. I love triumphant elevation to agency stories, but these rarely, if ever, mean agency for all. Nonetheless, this is an admiral goal. https://lnkd.in/e9NvsPBB However, I would rather hear how the democrats are going to deal with yet another assault by #ElectoralCollege electors this time around. Texas, Hawaii, and perhaps Georgia, have no penalty if an elector changes their vote. At one of his recent campaign appearances,Trump identified several county election officials, which were later profiled in the media as #ElectionDeniers. This claim went viral after #RachelMaddow drilled down about it. Are there enough of them in position as bonafide officials to actually create chaos this November? And will it matter? We shall see. Meanwhile, cleaning up the mess Reagan and Trump have made of the US system of governance and its political parties is likely to remain unfinished business for decades. https://lnkd.in/e9NvsPBB

With a bold resolve, former Vice President Mike Pence is gearing up to reroute the Republican Party from its populist detour back to the ethos of Reagan-era conservatism. It's a fascinating development, particularly for those who see him as the steely anchor of traditional conservative values. 🧐 Let’s Read Between the Lines: Is this about philosophical alignment or preparing the battleground for political power struggles? Either way, Pence’s move to reinforce moral and economic conservatism feels almost quixotic in today’s volatile bipartisan wilderness. Populism has recently swayed the ranks, but could a Reaganesque resurgence be around the corner? 📈 Predicting the Future: - The GOP’s potential pivot back to Old Guard conservatism invites a larger question: Can classic Republican virtues resonate in an era of radical rhetoric and polarizing personalities? - The more intriguing twist is Pence’s strategic expansion of his organization, hinting not just at revival but also possibly aiming for reclamation of lost GOP integrity. 👀 What to Watch: - Watch how this initiative impacts Republican primaries. Will Pence’s blueprint win hearts or stir friction? - Monitor the evolving narrative among younger party loyalists trained in populism. Can the teachings of Reagan hold sway, or will they dismiss it as nostalgia? Food for thought: Economic stability, smaller federal government, and a strong national defense were Reagan-era hallmarks. The critical question is, are these principles still the lodestars conservatives yearn to follow? Whatever happens, it's clear that Mike Pence is determined to reshape the narrative. While this might seem like an impossible mission to some, let’s not forget – the political jungle is full of unexpected turns. Brace yourselves – the GOP chessboard just became way more interesting. https://lnkd.in/emdgfXDV

Excerpt: Blame was cast far and wide after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Obviously, the shooter was to blame, but depending on your perspective, you also blamed Democrats, Republicans or both for the highly charged partisan rhetoric that has heated up American political life and, for at least some people, made violence seem like an option. While the event was shocking, the underlying mood has been building for quite a while. The political times Americans are living through are increasingly described as a “crisis of democracy.” Much has been written about growing polarization, reduced public trust in small-d democratic institutions and long-standing principles of behavior often thought of as “democratic norms,” and increasing levels of public support for autocratic ideas and leaders. Differences over politics and policy have a long history of being divisive, of course. But it’s one thing to disagree over substantive matters such as tax rates or foreign aid and something very different to undermine the legitimacy of your opponents. It’s the difference between framing those who disagree with you as fair and equal competitors or as enemies who must be defeated. In that context, attempts at cooperation and compromise can be perceived as betrayal, and it becomes easier to rationalize ways that long-standing norms – including but hardly limited to the peaceful transfer of power – and even laws can be ignored or subverted. As a scholar of American politics and policy, I’ve studied the causes and effects of trends like these, which make it increasingly difficult even for the most dedicated public officials to govern effectively. It’s no secret that Congress has been growing more dysfunctional and less productive for many years. But how much are members of Congress themselves contributing to these problems with their own public rhetoric? As it turns out, quite a lot.

Once George Washington is elected to the executive branch, a new and important topic is considered. What title do you give an elected leader of the executive branch of a new government? We take it forgranted that he was our first president, a word that simply means someone who presides over a group. However in 1789, the use of the term for someone presiding over a country was wholly inventive. It was James Madison who suggested the title, a simple title reflective of the reasoned constitutional framework he had largely developed. However, Madison wasn’t the only one making suggestions. John Adams, who now led the new Senate, recommended a title with a little more flourish: “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of Their Liberties.” It was a title borrowing from an older framework of government, which Madison detested, and it was, frankly, too damn long. Let us pause on this moment in history and consider what excluding the words “His Highness” meant at a time when our fledgling government was in urgent need of leadership. Adams was placing emphasis on Washington’s position over the states. Madison was presenting a new vision for what leadership, under a federal democratic republic, looks like. Simple and cooperative; not reigning supreme. It was choices like this, easily overlooked today, that defined America. Imagine a world, then ruled by monarchs, dictators, and tyrants, learning of this newly elected head of government who merely presides over the people. Choosing the simple title of “president” sent a message around the world that these United States were working of their own free-will under a constitution fashioned by reason, voted in by a representative democratic process. It was new and exciting and terribly fragile, but in the end, it worked.

How Democracies Die (Levitsky & Ziblatt) Donald Trump’s presidency has raised a question that many of us never thought we’d be asking: Is our democracy in danger? Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have spent more than twenty years studying the breakdown of democracies in Europe and Latin America, and they believe the answer is yes. Democracy no longer ends with a bang—in a revolution or military coup—but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions, such as the judiciary and the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms. The good news is that there are several exit ramps on the road to authoritarianism. The bad news is that, by electing Trump, we have already passed the first one. Drawing on decades of research and a wide range of historical and global examples, from 1930s Europe to contemporary Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela, to the American South during Jim Crow, Levitsky and Ziblatt show how democracies die—and how ours can be saved.

In-depth interview in the New York Times below with J.D. Vance, Republican Senator from Ohio, author, and former Silicon Valley venture capitalist, who has become a leading Trump supporter. Most Americans have come to believe that big government and big tech (especially when they collude against the public and work as allies) have monopolized power and thereby impoverished the country's neighborhoods and its industrial heartland regions such as Ohio and the rest of the Midwest. It's ironic that it's the Trump Republicans -- hitherto seen as the "party of the rich" and "party of white people" -- and not the Democrats (where is Vice President Kamala Harris on this issue?) who are voicing the most strident critiques of the status quo. A key grievance Vance taps into is that big entrenched institutions have sucked the "oxygen" out of America's public arena and aimed to impose a form of thought and speech control over educational, research and media institutions: the suffocating weight of self-censorship. One of the biggest threats to the efficacy of democracies (such as the U.S. and Canada) is the incapacity to discuss disagreements honestly and the inability to use deliberation and incentives to reach consensus. That's politics. Its lack is cultural and political paralysis: "sorry, you can't talk about that." Or, "sorry now is not the time to bring up these issues." If you can't talk about a problem honestly, how can you solve it? "Is there anything you’ve said that you regret, in the course of refusing to be policed?" "There are a ton of things I can point to where I can say, “I wish I struck this balance a little bit differently,” but I think that the real danger in American society is not unfiltering yourself, it’s filtering yourself."

While progressives warned Republicans would usher in fascism or even a civil war, the past month has shown us they are the ones imploding and fighting each other. Of course, what Democrats should’ve done over recent decades was to try to understand what killed the golden goose -- the Cold War rise of “managerial governance”, an innovation-killing virus that was seeded in the ‘big science’ military-industrial-complex the Left so love to idolize; the fatal decoupling of basic research from product development, which saw the US lose its manufacturing supremacy to Japan and then China; the neoliberal order’s paradoxical ushering in of a new global order of patenting protectionism at the same time it waxed lyrical on free trade. But the energy is overwhelmingly on the progressive Left which, fixated by identity, thinks its main role is to fight for a larger slice of a shrinking pie on behalf of different voter blocs. It is not just a strategy for ignoring America’s challenges. It creates an inherently unstable coalition that few politicians are talented enough to keep intact. 

A worthwhile read from one of my favorite political thinkers in recent years, as many of us reflect on just how terrible the options are going into this upcoming presidential election. Perhaps it's my "child of immigrants" optimism, but I'm of the belief that precisely when things seem most chaotic is when necessary information is being heard and adjustments are being made; rarely quietly or calmly. Like muscle fibers tearing during strength training so that they can come back stronger, tension and conflict can eventually make a system far more robust. Pain in this sense is good. It's really easy to look at the American "system" and think - wow, so chaotic, disruptive, unstable. What's wrong with these crazy people? Read enough history and you'll understand that's a feature, not a bug. Problems? Yeah we've got problems. Who doesn't? But I know of few countries better positioned to actually deal with them, precisely because of how comfortable we are, relative to more genteel societies (looking at you, Europe), with turning sacred cows into steaks once in a while. America is the country of creative destruction. Not just in our markets, but politically as well. Embrace the chaos.