On the night of 3/16/20, C-SPAN aired a talk on Populism's Politics given by Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and currently, holding the position of Executive Chair, the Institute for Global Change. The talk was recorded the previous Thursday.
He started off by citing the many social and political problems that the movement attempts to cope with--immigration, low wages, and the preservation of our environment--for which it claims the traditional parties have failed in their promise to overcome for the sake of our off-springs' better days.
But he insists that at least the traditional parties have attempted to bring in modern technology into the picture of the brave new world that we must prepare for because it is in our future. Indeed, it is a weakness of populism to attempt to hold on to a glorious remembrance of the good old days--without the need to contend with the presence of a workplace of computerized machines and automated processes that are in the forefront of today's rush toward a future where mankind must fight to maintain his very dignity and worth!
Change is what threatens and dispels the message of hope that populism heralds to its listeners and fellow citizens. And it is change that is an inherent characterization of our future. Therefore, populism has no way to ward off the forces that make our future perilous for our very survival as a people.
Blair urges us to embrace the very technology that makes change the necessary feature of our future.
We must see technology and its A-I features as some things we can draw upon from our environment, that we can use to make our world a better place to live in than our forefathers had in their day.
Indeed, Blair suggests, we ought to be using medical technology to solve the problem of coronavirus we now face. Technology is the means to bring about new solutions, solutions we must find to lead a better life! The change that the future holds for us can have therefore beneficial ramifications. Above all, for our children, teaching them technology that is currently extant, prepares them for the jobs of the future.
Indeed, in my opinion, we must learn to deny populism its romantic qualities that makes its political appeal to the general public so cunningly deceptive as to lull hearers to ward off preparing for the changes inevitably it will mean to us in our years to come and to those of our offspring.
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Friday, March 13, 2020
Brookings: Rep. Mac Thornberry reminiscing on his years in the Armed Services Committee, Congress
The title of his talk "Congress and defense policy" was introduced by Mike O'Hanlon of Brookings on Mondaay, March 2, 2020 at the Brookings.
Though Representative Thornberry presented much to reflect upon and mull over, I picked up on two points he raised and will discuss herein. He's obviously done a lot of thinking on the topic assigned him.
1. The military is a-political.
That does not mean, the military doesn't have a culture of its own. He pointed out that the F35 is packed with an intelligence system that is super-armed with knowledge and capabilities of a full-scale combat-ready planning system for any ontoward event. That it is housed in a fighter-plane bespeaks the Air Force's culture that casts its fighting and planning capacities within its flying orientation to prepare a though-going defense of the country.
But he also pointed out that as a branch of the military, it is a-political--neither Democratic nor Republican in a political arena. This feature has long been established in Turkey in years past, as the mechanism whereby when a particular government could no longer function in an administrative capacity, the military would step in, temporarily, before another government could be formed. Be it noted that the Egyptian government in power a few decades ago was replaced through military intervention. Then too, several other countries, e.g., in Africa, have used the military to act as interim government from time to time.
2. It is prudent that military alliances establish an institutional organization lasting over time that guards and protects its member states.
One that comes to mind because of its many years in service is the African Union that intervenes in political conditions of unrest, extending its area of service to the entire continent of Africa. NATO provides the same degree of protection to the countries of Europe, but is also supported by the United States.
Along this line, the OAS--Organization of American States--could establish a military arm to handle political disputes in countries of the Americas. Something like NATO, only in this hemisphere, might be called upon to cope with political stalemates, as in Venezuela, today.
With countries in the region of Indo-China and Japan becoming involved in increased international trade the world over, some new institution, a-poliitical in orientation, could serve the security needs of protection and promote the cause of peace in situations of political unrest arising in that region of the world.
Though Representative Thornberry presented much to reflect upon and mull over, I picked up on two points he raised and will discuss herein. He's obviously done a lot of thinking on the topic assigned him.
1. The military is a-political.
That does not mean, the military doesn't have a culture of its own. He pointed out that the F35 is packed with an intelligence system that is super-armed with knowledge and capabilities of a full-scale combat-ready planning system for any ontoward event. That it is housed in a fighter-plane bespeaks the Air Force's culture that casts its fighting and planning capacities within its flying orientation to prepare a though-going defense of the country.
But he also pointed out that as a branch of the military, it is a-political--neither Democratic nor Republican in a political arena. This feature has long been established in Turkey in years past, as the mechanism whereby when a particular government could no longer function in an administrative capacity, the military would step in, temporarily, before another government could be formed. Be it noted that the Egyptian government in power a few decades ago was replaced through military intervention. Then too, several other countries, e.g., in Africa, have used the military to act as interim government from time to time.
2. It is prudent that military alliances establish an institutional organization lasting over time that guards and protects its member states.
One that comes to mind because of its many years in service is the African Union that intervenes in political conditions of unrest, extending its area of service to the entire continent of Africa. NATO provides the same degree of protection to the countries of Europe, but is also supported by the United States.
Along this line, the OAS--Organization of American States--could establish a military arm to handle political disputes in countries of the Americas. Something like NATO, only in this hemisphere, might be called upon to cope with political stalemates, as in Venezuela, today.
With countries in the region of Indo-China and Japan becoming involved in increased international trade the world over, some new institution, a-poliitical in orientation, could serve the security needs of protection and promote the cause of peace in situations of political unrest arising in that region of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)