Quotes for Today

Some quotes I hope may resonate with you.

Have a new Quotes for Today up on my Substack. As I've mentioned doing this as a way to thank those who have Subscribed. If you are a Subscriber - you should have received an email. Thanks!

Linky Linky

Stuff I found interesting or amusing and thought I'd share.

- Niall Ferguson: Forward to Genesis.

- Immigration is a mess. Here's how to fix it.

- Comcast doesn't want its cable TV networks anymore.

- Leaders cultivating those "light bulb moments"

Quotes for Today

Some quotes I hope may resonate with you.

"Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small." - Henry Kissinger

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." - Carl Jung

 "Every battle is won before it's ever fought." - Sun Tzu

"For myself, I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." - Winston Churchill

Quotes for Today

Some quotes I hope may resonate with you.

"Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small." - Henry Kissinger

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." - Carl Jung

"A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it." - Albert Einstein

 "Every battle is won before it's ever fought." - Sun Tzu

Alternate History - USSR vs China

We often engage in historical "what if's" such as "what if Robert E. Lee had won at Gettysburg?" Or "what if Hitler had never opened a second front against Russia in WWII?"

This post about Communist China got me thinking once again about one of my favorite historical "what if's" - "what if Nixon had never gone to China?"

Most forget but in 1969 Russia and China were very close to an all-out war. According to Henry Kissinger, it was this fact that spurred much of the US's policies towards both countries with Nixon supporting China because he "decided that it was against American national interest to have China defeated." The side benefit of such a strategy, again according to Kissinger, was that "the opening to China facilitated the opening to Moscow and vice versa."

The first few years after the opening to China the biggest fear on the part of the Chinese was still an attack from Russia which made the nascent relationship with the US all the more important as a counterbalance against Soviet aggression. But, again, what if Nixon had never made the opening to China and instead allowed a conflict between Russia and China to play out?

I'm convinced the US followed the correct policy in the late 20th century of standing on the sidelines as the Iran-Iraq war played out with both sides fighting each other to a bloody standstill. What if we had done the same here? I'm guessing that Russia would have initially had the upper hand but the sheer numbers of the Chinese could have bled Russia white the way they later were in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

With both sides focusing their country's resources on each other there also would have been little or no support for either North Vietnam or North Korea. The history of both of those nations also could have been vastly different. We may even have had a unified Korea today as a result.

Taiwan, aka the Republic of China, could been allowed to grow and prosper in relative security with US arms and the protection of the US Navy. A strong Taiwan might have even been positioned to pick up the pieces from a failed Communist China after the shooting war ended.

Instead we have our current situation.

Of course another "what if" that has to be considered is what if the USSR was losing so much men and material that they decided it would be easier to just nuke Beijing? That's a "what if" that doesn't have such rosy outcomes.

Flotsam and Jetsam

Miscellaneous thoughts and observations.

Serious question - in a secret ballot do you think the athletes of the MLB, NBA or NFL would vote to make Joe Biden the head of their players' associations or unions? Honestly do you think with their own financial well-being in the balance they would vote to elect Joe Biden as their leader of their unions?... How people view me... "Sir, there is nothing which has yet been contrived by man, by which so much happiness is produced as by a good tavern." - Samuel Johnson. I really miss going out to a bar... I wonder if on his deathbed it pissed Christopher Hitchens off that Henry Kissinger would outlive him. My guess is that Hitchens made peace with his situation but I always wonder... I want this painting... Saw that Bill Simmons was trending on Twitter and it turns out it is because of a lack of diversity at The Ringer (read the whole Twitter thread). Simmons has become increasingly political on his podcasts which has made them largely unlistenable. Zero black editors and zero full-time black writers covering either the NBA or the NFL reinforces the dictum of watch what a person does not what they say. It will be interesting if he goes the sackcloth and ashes route or goes into hiding like his friend Jimmy Kimmel. Don't get me wrong I give Simmons tons of credit for his success and that of The Ringer but his constant virtue signaling makes this schadenfreude train wreck tough to turn away from. I'm sure Bill is confused by all this I mean didn't people listen to his podcast with Jalen Rose? Somewhere Kyrie Irving is chuckling...

Kissinger on Kissinger

A review copy of Kissinger on Kissinger: Reflections on Diplomacy, Grand Strategy, and Leadership by Winston Lord was sent to me. Winston Lord is credited as the author but the book is really a compilation of some discourses between Kissinger and Lord who was Kissinger's right hand man for many of the events talked about in the book.

It was a short book, just 140 pages, but well worth the time as it gave tremendous insight into the period of time where Henry Kissinger was on center stage in world events.

One of the core tenets underlying much of the events and strategies laid out by Kissinger during the Nixon years was the Nixon belief that "since you pay the same price for half-measures, you should adopt bold moves." And that when it came to leadership that the qualities most needed are character and courage." And with the hindsight of history you can appreciate how bold some of these moves by Nixon and Kissinger really were.

The partnership between Nixon and Kissinger was partly remarkable when you consider that the two had never met prior to Nixon appointing Kissinger to the NSA in 1968.

One thing that is forgotten by history is the fact that in 1969 Russia and China were very close to an all-out war. It was this fact that spurred much of the US's policy towards both counties with Nixon supporting China because he "decided that it was against American national interest to have China defeated." The side benefit was that "the opening to China facilitated the opening to Moscow and vice versa."

The first few years after the opening to China the biggest fear on the part of the Chinese was still an attack from Russia which made the nascent relationship all the more important as a counterbalance against Soviet aggression. It is mind-blowing to wonder what would have been the course of history if Nixon did not open China to the West (a path made possible by the groundwork of Kissinger). Today we worry about China as an economic rival but if that Nixon trip never happened we could easily today be worrying about the possible military aggression from a nation of 1.4 billion starving people.

The summit between Nixon and Brezhnev in 1972 was a direct result of Nixon opening China to the US. The book also goes into some detail about the Paris Accords and Vietnam as well as Kissinger's Shuttle Diplomacy in the Middle East. Well worth the read.

Kissinger also makes an interesting observation about the incivility that has invaded politics. "When I was a graduate student in the fifties, Harvard was 90 percent Democratic, as it has remained and maybe increased, but when Republican Cabinet members showed up at Harvard, they were treated with respect. The political debate in America in the fifties and early sixties was about the adequacy of policies. Sometime in the sixties, the political debate turned into a debate about the motivation of leaders and their inherent moral adequacy."

We have gotten away from discussing policies and solutions to our current issues. That has to change and in a strange twist President Trump may be making that possible. He takes so many hits on the personal level but shrugs them off. His supporters point to his policies and accomplishments and the debate sooner or later has to turn to address those because discussion about Trump's many personal failings are falling on deaf ears. The majority have tuned those out "scandals" out.