++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it not Camelot in Kamala Land?
Is Joe Biden setting up Kamala Harris to fail?
Joe Biden handed Kamala Harris the job of “point person” for the border crisis on March 24, and for three weeks now, she’s...
And:
When capitalism has to wait until everything is run through a racial atomic accelerator some strange things are going to happen as they cause matters to boomerang:
| |
Rioting has become a national past time in cities controlled by Democrats.
Breaking: Seconds After Minneapolis RIOTS ERUPT, The Governor’s Response Says It All
And:
What are suburban women voters going to do now that their little sweet daughters may get roughed up playing soccer against men-women?
| 6:43 PM (3 minutes ago) |  | ||
| ||||
Politics Is
Risky Business for CEOs
It’s
imprudent to weigh in on issues that don’t directly affect the company.
By Harvey Golub
A few CEOs have expressed their point of view about the new
Georgia voting law. They have issued statements indicating their opposition on
the basis that the law will suppress voting. Other senior executives, retired
and active, have joined them. I know most of them by reputation and some
personally. They are people of goodwill, who sincerely care about the nation,
their companies and their employees and customers. Most have done excellent
work as leaders of their companies. All have my respect and I believe have
earned the respect of the public. But I believe they are wrong to take public
positions on this law.
I believe both that voting ought to be relatively simple for
citizens and that verification of eligibility to vote should be strict as a
matter of principle. It is clear that any verification of ballot integrity will
increase difficulty. In my view, the Georgia law reaches a reasonable trade-off
between those two objectives.1x
But the reason I think CEOs should be silent on this issue isn’t
because I disagree with their judgment on the merits. It’s because I think it
is wrong for executives to take a company position on public-policy questions
that don’t directly affect their business, for four reasons.
First, while these CEOs have the right to their own opinions,
they can never speak merely as individuals; they always speak for and represent
the companies they head. As CEOs they have the right, and perhaps the
obligation, to speak out on matters affecting their organizations, but unless
they have asked their boards for approval before speaking, they don’t have that
right on unrelated matters.
Second, inevitably their announcements on purely political issues will alienate many of their employees and customers. Those positions will always lead to unintended consequences. In the Georgia situation, it immediately prompted Major League Baseball to move the All-Star Game to Denver, which then brought on charges of hypocrisy because of baseball’s close ties to two dictatorships—Cuba and China. It also generated calls to boycott two major Atlanta-based companies. This won’t be the end of the backlash.
Third, these and other executives will be pressured in the
future to comment, pro or con, on other states’ voting laws. That will lead to
further charges of hypocrisy, more boycotts, more publicity, more ill will. At
the end of the day corporations and the idea of capitalism will be in lower
repute.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, there is no limiting
principle to this problem. If business heads can be pressured to comment on
issues unrelated to their businesses, they will be compelled to weigh in on
more current events and issues and will have no basis for refusing to respond.
What do you think of catch and release at the border, what do you think of
no-bail laws in New York? It will go on and on.
Mr. Golub was CEO of American Express, 1993-2001.
And:
Having said how dumb it is for CEO's to wander off into politics I am going to wander off into foreign policy where I have no expertise. I believe China and Russia have drawn closer and are plotting against Biden with simultaneous actions which should create a conundrum like a move against Ukraine by Russia simultaneously by a challenge by China against Taiwan.
A double whammy would create two responses on the part of America that would strain our abilities. It would also throw the gauntlet down to NATO. Failure on the part of Biden and/or NATO to stand up to both adversaries would send chilling message to unaligned nations in Asia throughout the world. Failed responses to send an ever worse message.
I just finished reading the latest Issue of The Naval War College Review and one of the articles described the various types of blockades and conditions that must exist for them to be successful. China's proximity to Taiwan and our distance advantages China and certainly Russia having already gained access to a Black Sea warm port would be further enhanced by a victory over Ukraine.
Both Xi and Putin have issues of their own and nothing rallies a country's people than a good military endeavor.
Xi is feeling his oats as demonstrated by the Chinese negotiating team in Alaska and Biden calling Putin a killer could prove provocative enough to cause him to try and rub Biden's nose in his own accusation. I can think of not better territory to try your robot and militarized army than in Ukraine. Stay tuned.
Can Biden’s
Resolve Weather Putin and Xi?
He
needs to rally not only allies but dovish Democrats against Beijing and Moscow.
By Walter Russell Mead
The global storm clouds are darkening. Last week a Chinese aircraft carrier strike group patrolled the waters east of Taiwan as U.S., Taiwanese and Chinese warplanes flew sorties. En route to Israel, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin conferred with his Filipino counterpart over the refusal of Chinese vessels to leave waters claimed by Manila. In a televised interview Secretary of State Antony Blinken again characterized China’s policy toward the Uighurs as genocide, blamed Chinese errors for making the pandemic worse, and warned Beijing against attempts to invade Taiwan.
Meanwhile, as Alexei
Navalny’s health continued its mysterious and dramatic decline, Russian forces
ostentatiously maneuvered near the contested Donbass region of eastern Ukraine
and in the Russian-garrisoned Transnistrian enclave on Ukraine’s western
frontier. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned of the possibility of
“full-scale hostilities” as Vladimir Putin informed an alarmed Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about what the Russian president called
Ukraine’s “dangerous provocative actions” in the Donbass. Two American
destroyers have been dispatched to the Black Sea; retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges,
a former U.S. Army Europe commander, warned that Mr. Putin’s goal may be
control of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast.
Compounding tensions with Washington, last month the Chinese and
Russian foreign ministers announced their intention to deepen their
relationship. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hailed China as “a true
strategic partner of Russia.” The Chinese government-backed newspaper Global
Times sees “no upper limits” to Sino-Russian cooperation.
The question for Americans is what all this means. Is Mr. Putin
merely attempting to divert domestic attention away from his falling poll
numbers and the ravages of Covid? Is Xi Jinping playing the nationalism card to
assuage restless public opinion at home? Is this all a move to frighten the
Biden administration away from its hard-line rhetoric and to drive it toward
what China and Russia hope is its real agenda: looking dignified, purposeful
and concerned while retreating from global leadership?
Since 2008, when Russia’s invasion of Georgia was met with a
weak and ineffectual response from the distracted George W. Bush
administration, Beijing and Moscow have serially tested American resolve. Mr.
Putin conquered and annexed Crimea, suffering only eloquent lectures and
eminently survivable sanctions in return. He went on to establish Russian
influence in Syria, making a mockery of the Obama administration’s pompous and
vain declarations that “Assad must go.” Mr. Putin trolled the entire U.S. over
the 2016 election, launched cyber hacks, sent assassination teams to operate on
the territory of America’s European allies and helped crush the democracy
movement in Belarus. Mr. Putin is currently assisting the junta in Burma. In
return, he has been subjected to a succession of irritating pinpricks that
accomplish nothing beyond demonstrating the weakness of Western unity and
strategy.
Meanwhile, China used the U.S.’s lost decade to tighten its hold
on Tibet, launch what American officials in two administrations have
characterized as a genocide in Xinjiang, crush Hong Kong’s autonomy, attack
India, intimidate its maritime neighbors, and conduct a massive buildup aimed
at Taiwan—all without encountering a proportionate or effective U.S. response.
Not since the 1930s, when Washington met Japanese and German
aggression with uplifting lectures and ineffectual gestures, has American
foreign policy been so inert for so long in the face of a gathering storm. And
with U.S. public opinion both polarized and inward-looking, foreign leaders may
believe the time has come for even more daring tests of American resolve.
The picture isn’t entirely bleak. The deepening cooperation
between China and Russia amounts to a backhanded compliment. In Russian eyes
the U.S. remains a much more formidable power than China—otherwise Mr. Putin
would be siding with Washington in an effort to counter Beijing’s rise.
There is more good news. Beginning with the Obama-era “pivot to
Asia” and continuing more energetically if sometimes erratically under
President Trump, American foreign policy started, slowly, to adjust to a more
dangerous world. In the Indo-Pacific at least, U.S. allies have been swift to
respond.
Even
so, world order has eroded much further than most Americans yet understand.
Reversing the momentum will be hard. The Biden administration must strengthen
U.S. alliances while revamping defense planning and doctrine for a more
turbulent era. But it also must convince a dovish Democratic base that national
defense, strategic thinking and a forward-leaning foreign policy offer our only
hope of preserving the peace.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment