Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility

Why is our society, our world, ignoring the warnings of climate change, destroying our environment, creating ever-larger inequality even as more people are lifted out of poverty?  Why is it that the U.S. middle class, which used to be such a strong, vibrant element of our society has become weak and stagnant?

The reason for all of this lies not with the mass of people on this Earth, who have no or little control of anything, even in their own lives.   The reason lies with those with ultimate power – the corporate titans of finance and industry.   

It is they who decide what is in their corporation's best interest, which is what will make the most money in the short run, and implement that plan of action without any concern for the plan's impact on the public good or the welfare of their workers.  And it is they who largely determine the regulatory scope of government, regardless which Party is in power, and so they are in most critical areas effectively unregulated.   

This is not an indictment of capitalism, as I made clear in my post, "Is the Problem Capitalism or Our Society?"  Regardless the economic system, it is the holders of capital – whether they be aristocrats, political dictators (Communist, fascist, or otherwise), or corporate titans – that have determined the fate of their economies, their workers, and the general public.   It is thus instead an indictment of man-made society going back millennia. 

Until the dawn of the 20th century, those who controlled capital pretty much had their way.   Whether it was the robber barons of the industrial revolution or the aristocrats of the old social/political order, these people could do what they wanted and treat people, whether their workers or cottagers, as they wanted.  Income inequality was huge with the large mass of people being both poor and illiterate.   Slavery may have been the most egregious example of this system, but it was definitely part of the system. 

It was only with the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, of all people – a wealthy Republican – that finally some people with political power felt the huge damage that those with unregulated power wreaked on the masses, while acquiring astronomical wealth.   And so the progressive era was born.   The trusts were broken up, anti-trust laws were passed, and workers were protected and empowered for the first time, both through protective laws as well as government support for the growth of labor unions.   This movement gained further momentum in the 30s because of people's reaction to capitalism during the Great Depression and the election of F.D.R. with his crusading New Deal. 

As a result, the middle class grew from a small segment at the turn of the 20th century (15 - 20%) to become the largest single bloc in the population (around 70%) and the backbone of the country's economic prosperity at its highpoint in the 1970s.  This increase came about because the lower working class had largely become middle class.   In 1970, 62% of the nation's aggregate income went to middle-class households, compared to 29% for upper-income households. 

Then Ronald Reagan was elected President and things started changing.   Central to that change was the famous Reagan line, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  

From that perspective, the dismantling of government regulations that had protected the public and workers began and gathered steam in the decades that followed.   Culminating perhaps most significantly in the repeal of the Steagall-Glass Act which was passed to regulate banks in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash.   

This repeal happened during an otherwise liberal Democratic administration (Clinton), but with wall street insiders in key cabinet positions and Republicans in control of both the House and Senate.   Efforts to reenact Steagall-Glass after the 2008 market crash and recession failed, as did efforts to regulate derivatives – all of this again under a Democratic administration with full control of Congress. 

The result of this disempowering of workers/empowering of corporations together with the forces of globalization, which began in the 1970s, resulted in the stagnation of worker's salaries.    While wages have risen (26%), their purchasing power has stayed the same during the 50 years between the 1970s and 2020; or said another way, salaries adjusted for inflation have remained the same.   While those in the top 1% rose 160% during the same period, unadjusted for inflation.

As a result of that stagnation together with many formerly middle-class workers falling back into the lower-class income category, the middle class in 2015 accounted for just under 50% of the population – a significant drop since the 70s – and accounted for only 43$ of the nation's aggregate income, down from 62% in 1970. 

The middle class was also the main victim of the finance industry's predatory lending schemes, made possible when Steagall-Glass was repealed, that were a major cause of the 2008 recession.   The recession cost the middle class not only jobs but also resulted in the foreclosure of millions of homes.   (I do not include the upper class as a main victim of the recession because although they lost heavily, they generally regained their wealth when the market rebounded.) 

Another measure of how the middle class have fared during this period is to look at income inequality.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

We have gone back to the future, with those with the control of capital being largely unregulated.   Yes, we don't have child labor anymore and various other controls remain in place.   But so many have been weakened or repealed that corporations have been empowered to consider almost no interests other than their own greed.   Workers are no longer considered an asset to be nourished and grown but as a cost center to be controlled. 

Clearly, if left to their own devices, corporate leaders will not do what is in the best interest of anyone other than themselves.   They only act as responsible members of society when they are forced to by government laws. 

And so, in one post, "Toward a Reformed Capitalism," I urged the laws of incorporation be changed to force companies to consider their workers' interest as well as the public good.   Let me quote from that post:

"We must reexamine what a corporation is.  What is its function in our economy and society?

Corporations are a creature of the law.  Corporations are allowed the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and of their workers.  They also thus meet a societal need.

So from a governmental/societal perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good.  Unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly ever since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and so have done much that harms, that is not in keeping with, the greater good.  And typically with full knowledge of that harm.    And they have been abetted by the government's action or inaction.

The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws under which corporations are organized by restructuring their governance.  The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision making process. "  Specific recommendations are made in the post. 

These recommendations are not unrealistic or totally novel.   Most countries in the EU require employee board-level representation.  They also require a number of "independent" directors; but these are not directors who are tasked with representing the public good, they are just tasked with preventing conflict of interest in decision making.   My recommendations go much further.

This will take strong political leadership and lock-step support from Democrats in Congress because this will certainly not be a bi-partisan effort, not in the current political climate. 

This may result in the end of corporations as we have known them, but they will still be strong and financially profitable.  As I noted in the post, this proposal does not in any way eliminate the profit motive in corporate decision making, nor the amount of profit they seek to make.   It just ensures that the public good and workers' interests are considered in the adoption of corporate plans, and so it will most likely impact the amount of profit.   

Republicans will scream, "socialism."  But this is not socialism in any form; government is not taking over the role of the private sector.   This is not even the government hovering over or involving itself in corporate decision making; it is just setting the law which corporations must follow.   

Clearly this is a change in the way things have been done.   But it is a change that is wholly in keeping with the reason why corporations are sanctioned by the government, why government gives corporations the benefits of incorporation.   And it is past due because of the havoc corporations have caused in the economy, the environment, and people's well-being due to the unregulated effect of corporate greed over the past four decades.   

It is important to note that in the period between the passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933 and its repeal in 1999, the U.S. suffered no major financial crisis – there were recessions but they were due to monetary policies or other factors.   Further, during the period of progressive corporate regulation and increasing government measures supporting low income families, income inequality decreased.   

Since the repeal of that act we have had a major financial crisis and economic downturn, major stuck market volatility.   That together with the decrease in regulation and lower-income supports since the 80s (pre-Biden) returned income inequality to its pre-Depression levels.   One measure of this is that in 1929, the richest 0.1% of Americans held 25% of the country's wealth.   By the 1970s, that percentage had fallen to below 10%.   Over the past 40 years, it has again risen to around 20%.

If we want to maintain a sound, stable economy and one that fosters greater income equality, then government must take this step to reform capitalism and our society. 

An Open Letter to Democratic Party Leaders

My fellow Democratic colleague:

In 2004, I warned in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, that our democracy was being attacked from within.  I stated that the new radical Republicans were seeking to destroy our historic values.   That the argument with them was not just about big v small government.   "At risk is the heart of our democracy, our historic values. "  A claim that found little support at the time; it was felt to be over the top.   And in that book, I set forth a vision for the Party that would counter that threat. 

Recently in The New York Times, there was an op-ed piece about whether Democrats were adding to the strength of the Republican take-over effort in 2022 and 2024 by alienating middle-class voters through it's policies.   

One commentator, expressing the same view as several others, said that "the Democratic Party over the past few decades has gotten into the position of appearing to oppose and scorn widely cherished institutions — conventional nuclear family, religion, patriotism, capitalism, wealth, norms of masculinity and femininity, then saying “vote for me.” Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me." 

The key word here is "appearing."  As I wrote in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, the Democratic Party doesn't take second place to Republicans when it comes to supporting the family, religion, patriotism, capitalism, etc.   The  record of the Party, both past and present, is clear. 

What has happened is that Democrats have for several decades allowed Republicans to successfully define them in these anti-American-values terms, distorting the essence of the Party's Liberal policies.   

There is nothing, for example, in our pro-choice policies or those supporting the LGBTQ community, that are anti-family, anti-religion, or other core historic American values; indeed, they spring from them.   They may be against what many people feel are traditional American norms, but they are not against our historic values.   And it is up to Democrats to explain this fact.

The question that I addressed in writing the book was how to combat this Republican assault and their distortion of the Democratic position.   It is not by back-tracking on Democratic support for the right to abortion, for the LGBTQ community, for fairer taxes, and other matters that are labeled by Republicans as anti-family and anti-capitalism.   

But it is certainly not in the strident positions of AOC and her fellow progressives, which alienate not only the middle class but many liberals. 

The answer, I argued, is to frame the Democratic position on these and other issues in terms of American core values – our historic documents, and especially the Declaration of Independence.   These are the sole, the heart of our democracy; they are as American as apple pie, familiar to all.   I argued at the time that Democrats must win back the hearts and minds of the American people.   The need is more acute today than ever; I just pray it is not too late. 

James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly, urged Americans to read We Still Hold These Truths, saying it "is a systematic and serious effort to make [the national values and policy] debate as clear and valuable as it can be. Agree or disagree with his specific conclusions, the questions he is asking are the right ones for the public this year."

 

I urge you to read We Still Hold These Truths and watch the YouTube video, "We Still Hold These Truths: The Democrats' Vision", https://youtu.be/NNlt8hc7GM4.  For more information on the book, go to www.westillholdthesetruths.info. 

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Hirsch

www.westillholdthesetruths.com

PreservingAmerifcanValues.blogspot.com 

The State of American Democracy, the Body Politic

Over the course of almost 250 years, American democracy has often been a raucous place, both at the level of the citizenry and elected officials.   But throughout those years, despite the divisions caused in our country by racism, income inequality, and ethnic bigotry, when it came time for receiving the results of elections, they have always been respected.   Majority rule has prevailed.   

And despite many people, especially Blacks, having ample cause to be aggrieved by the physical, psychic, or economic violence they experienced, America has been a place of overwhelmingly peaceful coexistence, on the surface.   Yes, there have been riots and protests that have resulted usually from cataclysmic events, but these disturbances generally did not result in a hardening of the divisions among us. 

The centripetal force has been greater than the centrifugal force.   One could be cynical and say that the centripetal force was mostly due to the aggrieved's weakness.   While that was certainly a factor, I believe that the fact that people felt that we were all Americans, regardless of our backgrounds and place of origin, and that we shared a history even though it was not really ours, because we believed in the promise of America regardless how distant it was – this was the essence of the centripetal force.   There was at some level a belief in the good-hearted nature of the body politic, there was hope, despite all the nastiness that was observed at an individual or even group level. 

The threat to our democracy now is not coming from these traditionally aggrieved groups, the classic source of revolution, but ironically from those who have been privileged but feel threatened by the aggrieved groups. 

Starting during the Reagan years, the attitude of those on the right began to harden.   The sense of conviviality with their opponents, and later even civility, was lost.   People became angry.

Partly it stemmed from Reagan's famous line that, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  And so the division came to be not just the traditional liberal/conservative argument about big government v small government, but government v private rights, often the de facto rights of white privilege.   

The other factor was the advent of Lee Atwater and his combative, dirty tricks, form of campaigning.   This was the beginning of the Republican's national embrace of the big lie, racial fear-mongering, smears and winning at all costs. 

And so over the next three decades, the Republicans became obstructionists when they weren't in power because they saw that as the best way to win the next election, by making it difficult if not impossible for the Democrats to make good on their promises.   Bi-partisanship was out the door, except when they were in power. 

With the election of Obama, this principle reached a fever pitch.    The epitome was probably Senator McConnell's not giving Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing, flouting all precedent, the excuse being a presidential election 7 1/2 months off. 

The election of Obama did something else.   The election of a Black President enabled the Republicans to really put fear into the hearts and minds of their base – the fear of whites losing their privileged position in American society and workplace.   Now not only were legislators in Washington nasty, people on the streets became nasty. 

But that was all just rehearsal for the real "show" - the election and presidency of Donald Trump.   Trump was able to build on the long held-in-check fears and bigotry of many Americans – towards non-whites, be they Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims and their distrust of government, and Evangelicals' frustration at being excluded from the halls of power and not being listened to by the larger society – and turn his base and the majority of Republicans into a mob that hates liberals and distrusts the government as an agent of liberals.   He gave bigotry, distrust, and hatred legitimacy; people no longer needed to keep their voices to themselves.

The explosion of social media during this same period provided an unchecked petri dish for the expansion this animus, misinformation, and outright lies into the deepest recesses of the minds of most Republicans.   That this is no longer just the state of what was thought of as Trump's core base can be seen in the fact that 75% of Republicans surveyed by PEW Research in January 2021 believed that the election of President Biden was not legitimate; they bought the Trump argument, they bought the fake news. 

We have reached a point in the public arena where most Republicans will believe anything they are told by Trump, his allies, and FOX News, and will not believe anything the Democrats or the rest of the media says to the contrary.   What is up is down for them; there is no objective truth.  Irrationality has been mainstreamed.

This distrust has even impacted the legitimacy of government and science regarding efforts to control the pandemic.  The misinformation coursing through social media regarding the vaccine is beyond bizarre, yet that is what these people believe.   And when Republican leaders tell them that vaccine mandates and mask mandates are an assault on their Constitutional freedoms, they believe that too.

Trump said once during the campaign that "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters. "   That unfortunately might be true.   It is hard to imagine anything happening that would discredit Trump and his sycophantic allies in the eyes of their base, because all Trump has to do is label the truth "fake news" and his minions will believe him. 

The latest act of hypocritical mendacity by the Republican leadership is that they are calling President Biden to task for not meeting his campaign pledge to control the virus, when it is their stand against vaccine mandates and mask mandates that has removed the only power he potentially had to control the virus.   The large number of unvaccinated Americans, and thus the ongoing surges, is largely a product of their failure to support science and proven epidemiological methods.

Regardless whether Democrats manage to maintain power in the midterms and 2024, it is highly likely, given Republican gerrymandering and the situation I've described, that Congress will remain evenly and combatively divided.   I fear we will have reached a situation in which the electorate, the body politic, is divided more deeply than at any time in our history, except for the Civil War. 

And I can think of nothing that would turn the tide, barring a near-total turnabout by Republican elected officials.   But even when Trump at some point ceases to be in the picture,  and it is inevitable that that will occur, it is pretty clear that they will not lead but instead pander to their base in order to get elected.   They have created a monster and it must be fed.   They have no ethics and they have no shame. 

It seems likely that we are struck with this dynamic until there is a generational change or some major event occurs that shakes up the status quo.   How sad. 

The False Promise of the Future

We as a society/culture are very future-oriented.   Why?  Because we feel the future holds the promise of having better lives, often through advances in science and technology. 

This perspective was boldly stated 50-60 years ago by companies such as DuPont, "Better living through chemistry," and General Electric, "Progress is our most important product."  The common thought was that everyone's lives would be made easier, not just housewives', by advances in science and technology.   As a result we would spend less time working – it was expected that the work-week would shrink to 35 hours – and more time relaxing and playing. 

As we know, however, although women do spend less time, certainly less arduous time, in keeping house and clothes clean and cooking than they did pre-WWII, it is safe to say that no one's life has gotten easier, that our work time has reduced and play time increased.   In fact just the opposite. 

We live now in a world where everyone is constantly connected through technology and is therefore expected to be available at all times, whether for work or otherwise.   We live in a world where the demands of work have become more oppressive.   And where mothers, while they spend less time on certain tasks, have been given a whole new set of tasks which take up a huge amount of time and energy, e.g. soccer moms.

Everything has become more complicated, not easier, and with it, the frustrations of completing tasks, of knowing how to move forward has increased.   This is not how it was supposed to be.   This is not what the prophets of progress, of the future, had promised us. 

But it gets worse.   It's not only that the promise hasn't panned out, the whole premise is an example of wrong thinking. 

What would make our lives truly better than they are now?  Let me list a few things for starters.   Feeling secure.   Feeling good about yourself.   Feeling you are loved.   Feeling you can trust others.   Feeling you will be ok regardless what life throws your way. 

It is safe to say that for most people, the feelings I just listed would not be descriptive.   Yet what is life if one does not have these feelings/knowledge.   You can have all the material wealth in the world, and still not be happy, still not feel secure.   We see evidence of that all around us, both among the rich and powerful and those at the other end of the affluence/power scale. 

The problem is how our culture – and it's not just America's, it's now the world's – defines happiness.   Happiness in this scenario, as portrayed in countless movies, ads, and media, consists of having the financial ability to acquire the things that make for the "good" life.   To get what you want, to be successful, on any level.   If you do, you will be happy; if you don't, you will be frustrated and upset. 

From practical experience we all know this is not true.   Even when people get what they want, they still want more, they aren't satisfied, they worry about losing what they have.   Our masked insecurity gives us no peace.

What is needed to allow the vast majority of people to lead a meaningfully better life, to experience peace, happiness, and security, not necessarily materially, is a major shift in how our culture defines happiness. 

Luckily we don't have to look very far.   The teachings of Buddhism and that of the mystical traditions of all three major Abrahamic faiths (not the organized religions) all teach that happiness means to be at peace with oneself, to have good self-esteem, to know that you will be ok regardless what life throws your way.   That happiness comes from within and is not dependent on anything outside you. 

But how do we get to there from here?  The answer is back to the future.   Advances of science and technology are all well and good.   But they are meaningless, if not destructive, if people are not grounded in the past – not in the sense of their past, but the past of mankind.   And first and foremost, that involves a connection to and faith in a cosmic force larger than ourselves, and derivatively faith in ourselves.   

Whether it's the cosmic force of the Buddhist universe (Buddha is not a God, a deity, so the faith is not in him) or the Divine essence that the mystical traditions of the Abrahamic faiths teach is in each of us, or whether it's a more new-age concept of God, or the Universe or your higher power – humans must know that they are not put on this earth to fulfill some banal material or sexual desire. 

They are instead put on earth to be good human beings.   Human beings are born with the divine essence inside them.   And what is that divine essence?  It is light, love, faith, trust, compassion, humility, gratefulness, joy, contentment, strength, courage, and wisdom.   A human being treats other people with kindness, which is why inhumanity is defined as cruelty.   A human being has lived his life well if he has offered joy to himself and others and made a positive difference in the lives of others. 

If we were grounded in this faith in ourselves and the universe, we would have no fear of the future, of death, or of anything else.  We would do, commit our lives to, whatever we felt inside us that we were meant to do, not what our culture or our parents want us to do.  And we would be happy doing what we felt we were meant to do, regardless whether we were "successful. "  True happiness is derived from the doing, not by the outcome. 

And if we lived in a world where everyone was grounded in this faith, we would not be faced with the competitive forces we experience today.   Society would be more communal in nature with people helping others.   Everyone would have their acknowledged place at the table (not as in 'know your place").   And if people could not provide for themselves, government would provide the resources so all people could live a life of dignity and respect. 

There would still be the rich and the poor, but the difference would be far less and the poor would want for none of the essentials of life or of the equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. 

Does this sound like a utopia?   I guess the answer would have to be, yes.  But the sad thing is that man has it in his ability to create such a world.   He has been given a highly developed brain but has not used that brain to make human life better, on a higher plane, than animal life.   Instead, man's brain, his mind, has in many ways made his life worse; there is no such thing as a neurotic animal, unless he has come under the control of man; whereas neurosis in man, psychic suffering, is universal.   Animals are wise in ways which men have ceased to be. 

I don't know what the answer to these observations is.   But the observation, the truth, needs to be spoken.   If there is any hope for man, it is with people becoming aware of this truth, understanding its impact, and vowing to change their approach to life accordingly.   The change will come one person at a time.   Perhaps over the course of a generation, this movement will create a sufficient mass to have an impact on the rest of society. 

Are the Reborn Truly Reborn?

For years now, it's been a common experience to hear of people, even politicians, boast of being reborn; that they have a personal relationship with Christ.   Yet they never act very Christ-like.   What are we to make of this?

Buddhism teaches that we are all born with a luminous mind, with the true Buddha nature inside us.   But as in the Garden of Eden, we partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which is learned experience, and so are drawn into the world of conflict, insecurity, and suffering.

In Buddhism, spiritual rebirth is a mind-altering experience.  It takes you back to that time when you were freshly born and were free of all judgmental thoughts, all learned emotions and cravings – free of the products of your temporal mind – and were at one with Buddha nature, your divine essence.   While anyone can have this experience, few do because it means disavowing all one's learned experience, all one has learned from the prevailing culture.  It requires not just deep faith but great discipline.

To be reborn in Christianity means something quite different.   The Evangelical community is particularly rife with people saying they are reborn and have a personal relationship with Christ because it is a rite of passage.   But Evangelical rebirth means being saved; it is a commitment to Christ in the form they have been taught.   While they thus may no longer be "sinners" and have this personal relationship, and in that sense begin a new life and are reborn, they have not connected with their divine essence, with the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ, and so they are not spiritually reborn. 

The proof is in their actions.   The God they connect to, as they have been taught he exists, is a God who views with skepticism if not contempt those, including other Christians, who do not accept his truths as stated in the Bible, which they view as His word and inerrant.  They thus have a holier-than-thou, a self-righteous attitude towards both other Christians and other religions.   They are prideful.   

And on moral/cultural issues, anyone who argues against their view of God's truth is viewed with prejudice and hatred for they are not just against God, but they are trying to influence others in their belief, which is a threat to the Evangelical's duty to spread the word.  This threatens the salvation of those who as a result, in their view, walk in error.

Thus the reborn Evangelical will typically express emotions that are not reflective of divine essence.   It is quite astounding to a non-Christian, and I'm sure disconcerting to many Christians, to see people who claim to be fervent followers of Jesus Christ act and think in ways that are massively contrary to "what Jesus would do" as evidenced by his teachings and actions as related in the New Testament. 

On one level, you could say, "So what."  To each his own.   But Evangelicals feel it is their duty to spread the word, which has come to mean forcing others to follow their belief in God's truth through the force of law.   

For example, in the abortion debate, from their perspective, any threat to the mother's health by not having an abortion is irrelevant; saving the unborn fetus, not murdering it, predominates in importance.   Thus right-wing pro-life legislation of late does not provide for an exception if the mother's life is endangered.   

To be convinced that you have a lock on the truth, and that those who disagree are not only wrong but therefore against God, anti-Christ, is a dangerous state of mind.   Certainly if one is a leader with enormous power, such as President George W. Bush.   

His religious conversion, being reborn, was a major influence in his life; he thought that God wanted him to run for President, and he thought in the Presidency that he was doing God's work.   There was thus no ambivalence; there was a moral certainty to his actions that was scary.   And he brooked no disagreement .   As he famously said, "You're either with us or against us."

This feeling of moral certainty among the religious Right is one reason why the current political divide in our country is so deep.

Last Month in Afghanistan - The Month that Could Have Been

This post is not about the last 20 years in Afghanistan and all the wrong policies that have been implemented.   Nor is it about the fact that the Taliban wanted to surrender after several months of American bombing in 2001, but the Bush administration said that the U.S. does not negotiate surrender.  That is, the Taliban would have to surrender; no terms.  Nor is it about Trump's terrible decision to negotiate our withdrawal with the Taliban.

This is about what could/should have happened in the last month or two leading up to the departure of U.S. troops.  Everyone, including The New York Times, says that regardless what Biden would have done, the pullout would have been a mess.   I respectfully disagree. 

While our forces did not have the advantage in the wilds of Afghanistan - it never has the advantage in a guerrilla war - it still had the advantage in the plains around Kabul.   What the President should have done, before the collapse of Kabul security, was announce that he has ordered the military to redeploy in order to:

1. secure the airport,
2. secure the road to the airport
3. secure Kabul until all Americans and Afghans [situated in Kabul] who helped our effort and wanted to leave were evacuated. 

Only then, would U.S forces withdraw and leave.  

This last phase should not have been left to the Afghan security forces.   Yes, American intelligence thought they would hold on for a few months, but that wasn't a chance they should have taken

This would have been a conditioned withdrawal, rather than time-certain, which Biden has rejected.   But it would have been a pullout in which the U.S. would have been in control and it would have been orderly.   No repeat of Saigon. 

Instead, it appears to the world as if the Taliban is in control, which they are, and the greatest military force in the world is running around like a chicken with its head cut off, depending on the Taliban to protect them from ISIS.   Not pretty. 

Trump and the Vaccine Conundrum

Where is Trump when you need him?  Did I really say that?

Unfortunately, yes.  There is only one person who could convince most of the rest of the country to get vaccinated – Trump.  If he came out with a strong PSA, stressing his role in getting the vaccines developed and approved ASAP to stop the virus from crippling our country, and urging his supporters to do their patriotic duty and get vaccinated, that probably would make a major difference. 

Between his personalizing the issue and making it an act of patriotism, his supporters would probably march lock-step to the vaccination clinics. 

This is really our only hope.  There is no chance that the federal government, or most state governments, will follow the example of New York City and San Francisco and impose vaccination passport mandates.  That and a renewed mask mandate would have sufficed to get the virus under control again.  But that's not going to happen. 

So someone must appeal to Trump.  This is no time for politics or self-righteousness.  Right now, we need Trump.   

President Biden can't make that appeal because Trump doesn't recognize him.  And it can't be one of his allies.  It must be someone from the other side who comes to him asking for his help. And who better to make the appeal probably than Dr. Fauci?  Someone Trump respects despite past disagreements.