Travel books bring vicarious excitement, enabling you to go places without packing suitcases or applying for visas, but you still have to decide on a route. You can choose Bill Bryson’s trail and laugh the entire way, or you can take one of Jeffrey Tayler’s daring paths, which sting the nostrils and chill the soul. Whether crossing the Sahara (in “Angry Wind”) or rafting down Siberia’s Lena River (in “River of No Reprieve”), Tayler does not see the mirth in faraway places so much as he sees the horror — and the glory — in them.

“Murderers in Mausoleums,” his sixth book, is unmistakably Tayler. He travels from Moscow to Beijing, passing through the Kalashnikov-littered Caucasus Mountains and energy-rich Central Asia. Corrupt cops, insolent officials, pop-crazed kids and populations seething with frustration line the route. It is little wonder that democracy has failed to take hold here, he muses: This land belonged to some of the bloodiest tyrants in history — Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong — and their authoritarian traditions live on.

Read the entire review here.

Samuel Palmisano’s call for greater investment in America’s power grid (“Let’s Spend on Broadband and the Power Grid,” op-ed, Jan. 13) evokes the network effect of the investment from the Interstate highway system begun in the 1950s. Indeed, one of the least remarked aspects of that national investment begun a half century ago is how the U.S. realized benefits far exceeding those that my grandfather and other champions of the system first envisioned: an estimated $1 trillion in gross-product cost reductions; the enabling of “just in time” delivery for more efficient production and the creation of a genuine national market for super-efficient retailers, among others.

Overall, it has been estimated that each $1 invested in the system has returned more than $6 in productivity gains.

With the myriad demands on the public fisc presently, and as we contemplate investments in smart grids such as Mr. Palmisano suggests, it is reassuring that the economic gains from such investment will likely far exceed what we can now foresee — and that private capital, not government funding, is willing and able to make these investments.

Susan Eisenhower
The Eisenhower Institute
Washington

For more than fifteen years, I have regularly appeared in the media as a foreign policy expert. I’ve always tried to be accessible to everyone from all ends of the political spectrum. Citizen dialogue and education, I believe, are the cornerstones of a vibrant democracy. Over the years, I have been interviewed by outlets of every ideological stripe, but recent experience tells me how far our public discourse has deteriorated.

In February of this year I announced my support for Barack Obama. As a lifelong Republican I decided to support this Democratic contender because he has, I believe, the energy, the intellectual capability, as well as the temperament and the steadiness to lead this country during this perilous time. Since then, I’ve appeared on many television and radio programs hosted by people who do not like Senator Obama. Compared to my experiences over the years, these interlocutors have been aggressive and the subtexts of their questions have inappropriately implied that anyone who supports the Illinois Senator is either unpatriotic, uninformed, or simply a fool.

On top of this the McCain campaign has engaged in incendiary “Robo” calls and misleading brochures, which promote baseless personal smears. John McCain says Obama is a socialist, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) actually suggested that Obama is a “Communist.” This is nonsense. Obama is advancing a tax policy that was first adopted by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, and the Obama proposals do nothing more than return us to Reagan-era tax levels.

People who share traditional Republican values have nothing to fear from Senator Obama, that’s why other distinguished Republicans like General Colin Powell, Senator Lincoln Chaffee, Congressman Jim Leach, Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein, Bush Defense Policy Board official Ken Adelman, and the iconic conservative names of Buckley and Goldwater are now associated with Obama’s campaign.

We have had many chapters in American history when fear has gotten the better of us and “guilt by association” or “guilt by race, ethnicity or gender” has prevailed. But we must be better than that. In today’s fractured and challenging times, spreading false rumors is not only divisive, it is downright dangerous. We will only survive if we pull together and unite as a nation.

As we vote on Tuesday, we should pause and look at our communities and be grateful that many fine, talented people want to serve our country in this period of dislocation and crisis. We must shrug off the fear mongers who have tried to sell us an election season of devils and demons who don’t exist.
____

Susan Eisenhower is a policy expert and author. She is the granddaughter of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Copyright 2008 by Susan Eisenhower. All rights reserved. Contact lectures@susaneisenhower.com for reprint rights to any materials on this Website, see the Terms and Conditions below for details.

The Consequences of No Consequences
by Susan Eisenhower

The nation held its collective breath these last weeks as the country waited to see if Congress would finally act on the emergency measures to “rescue” our economy, and what the impact would be. While it was understandable that ordinary Americans were skeptical of what the media termed initially a “bailout,” the majority of their representatives took this one step further. They refused to vote for legislation deemed, by their own party leaderships, critical for avoiding a global financial meltdown.

The reasons for this revolt have been analyzed extensively in the last week, and I am in agreement that ideology, poor communication and the complexity of the issues played a role. However, an erosion of trust—within the system and between the American people and their government—has become evident. Years of zero-sum partisan politics has taken its toll and for one spellbinding week, one could see this in all its transparent horror. “The [no] vote is a reflection of a lack of political capital, not financial capital,” New York University professor Mitchell Moss told the Washington Post on September 30. This week the market brought the problems we are facing into even sharper relief.

Trust is an intangible commodity whose real value becomes evident only when the supply of it is scarce. And without it, as we have seen, the very underpinnings of a system that relies on it can be threatened. But trust alone cannot fully explain the reason the United States has been having such difficulty in coming to terms with the crisis and its remedy. I am convinced that there is a cultural element to this. At the outset of the crisis, many Americans simply couldn’t believe this was really happening to us. As events unfolded they wondered if we had a government of Chicken Littles who had misinterpreted economic acorns for a collapsing sky.

Was this an inability to see the dangers to our system, a form of class warfare or cocky reassurance that we will always come out on top? We do not fully know. But I suspect that some of the responsibility rests with the fact that as a society we have grown unused to significant downturns and in the process have forgotten some of the well-worn truths of the past. Mort Zuckerman, property developer and publisher of U.S. News and World Report, confirmed the crazy thinking: “. . . so much was based on the assumption that housing prices would not go down,” he wrote.

This failure to observe caution and restraint—something Alan Greenspan, we now learn, was counting on Wall Street to do—was a big part of the problem. But one wonders, what happened to erase decades, perhaps centuries, of prudent behavior? During the cold war, for instance, caution and restraint were served up to us in thick, hearty doses. On the personal side we were told that if you had sex you could get pregnant; if you took drugs you would get caught; and if you failed to pay your debts an endlessly humiliating and life-changing bankruptcy awaited you.

In international affairs, we were warned that action would bring reaction. Foolish or reckless moves could lead to all-out war and, after the advent of the ICBM, possibly nuclear annihilation.

But then some attitude-changing things began to happen. The Pill eliminated the threat of pregnancy; lax enforcement and a generation of defiant experimentalists ended the taboo on recreational drugs; and bankruptcy, for far too many Americans, became a financial strategy rather than a personal tragedy.

Even more significant, on the world stage, the USSR’s “Evil Empire” went out “not with a bang but with a whimper”—along with the idea that actions have consequences. What kind of a victory, or even a war, was it if your adversaries gave up without a fight? If the Communists threatened the world, why did they tolerate their country’s dissolution without moving forcefully to save themselves? If they were such pushovers, was the restraint and caution we were taught by our elders outdated and/or bogus? We began to act as if these values simply belonged to another time.

Since becoming the world’s sole superpower, we have operated unchecked, unhampered and arrogant in our belief that we are masters of our universe—and everyone else’s too. Many people believed that the old rules in a “new economy” simply no longer applied. The word “consequences” became, until this month, oh so 1950s.

The depths of the financial crisis have now fully sunk in. On October 6, a CNN/Research Corporation poll revealed that six out of ten Americans now think a “depression is likely,” meaning an unemployment rate of 25 percent and widespread bank failures.

It is not clear if this real-and-present danger will unify this country or rip it apart. But one thing’s for sure: hard lessons are now being relearned by American families and their overseas counterparts. We have rediscovered that choices, and the attitude we bring to them, shape a set of consequences; and before any action is undertaken, a hard-nosed calculation on a range of outcomes must be a part of any initial decision.

Until we have confidence that our policy makers similarly understand the power of consequences—even as they advance new solutions to our current problems—it will be difficult to restore our faith in them as stewards of the public good. Once trust is lost it is hard to re-earn. But the stakes are now clear, and we know that the hard work must now urgently begin.

Let me share a story, one that is tinged with regret. In the summer of 1952, when I was 30, the Army assigned me to an infantry unit fighting in Korea. Meanwhile, though, there was other news in my family: My father had become the Republican presidential nominee. As an ambitious young major, I refused any offers for other assignments. Avoiding combat duty was and is an unforgivable sin for a professional soldier.

As the time for my deployment approached, I discussed my intentions with my father. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

On looking back through the years, however, I now feel that I was being unfair and selfish and that my father was being far too conciliatory in giving me such permission. On the other hand, I don’t think that the Army should ever have given me an option in the matter.

Today the problem is worse than it was in my time.

I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American. The Eisenhowers came to this great country in the 18th century, settling first amid the hills of Pennsylvania and later on the plains of Kansas. Like many of your ancestors, they built our nation and served it in times of national crisis and war.

I grew up in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania where my parents and grandparents, Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower, chose to live after Ike’s retirement as Supreme Commander, Europe, and as President of the United States. It was also in Gettysburg where Abraham Lincoln gave his historic address.

On the killing fields of Pickett’s Charge our country came of age and assured our nation would survive as one. Yet today the divisions in our country are deep and wide. Our cohesiveness as a nation is strained by multiple crises in finance and credit; energy and health care.

At the same time, we have knowingly saddled our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. This is a moral failing – not just a financial one.

Overseas, our credibility is at an all time low. We must restore our international leadership position and the leverage that goes with it.

But rather than focus on the critical strategic issues, our national discourse has turned into a petty squabble.

Too many people in power have failed us. Belligerence has become a substitute for strength; stubbornness a substitute for leadership; and impulsive action has replaced measured and thoughtful response.

Once during the Eisenhower administration, Ike was under fire from his critics for moving too slowly in responding to political pressure. After a visit to the Oval Office by Robert Frost, the famous American poet sent the president a note of support. “The strong,” he wrote, “are saying nothing until they see.”

I believe that Barack Obama has the energy, but more importantly, the temperament, to run this country and provide the leadership we need. He knows that we can either advance on the distant hills of hope– or retreat to the garrisons of fear. He can mobilize and inspire all of us to show up for duty. Discipline will be required; as will compromise, flexibility and quiet strength.

The task before our next President will be overwhelming. But no undertaking can be more critical than bringing about a sense of national unity and purpose, built on mutual respect and bi-partisanship.

Unless we squarely face our challenges, as Americans—together– we risk losing the priceless heritage bestowed on us by the sweat and the sacrifice of our forbearers. If we do not pull together, we could lose the America that has been an inspiration to the world.

On December 1, 1862, in his Annual Message to Congress, Abraham Lincoln immortalized this thought when he said: “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

Let us respond this November to President Lincoln’s challenge. Let us restore the hope, and bring the change, that our nation so desperately needs.

Yes we can!

###

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY BE UPDATED.

August 21, 2008

I have decided I can no longer be a registered Republican. For the first time in my life I announced my support for a Democratic candidate for the presidency, in February of this year. This was not an endorsement of the Democratic platform, nor was it a slap in the face to the Republican Party. It was an expression of support specifically for Senator Barack Obama. I had always intended to go back to party ranks after the election and work with my many dedicated friends and colleagues to help reshape the GOP, especially in the foreign-policy arena. But I now know I will be more effective focusing on our national and international problems than I will be in trying to reinvigorate a political organization that has already consumed nearly all of its moderate “seed corn.” And now, as the party threatens to trivialize what promised to be a serious debate on our future direction, it will alienate many young people who might have come into party ranks.

My decision came at the end of last week when it was demonstrated to the nation that McCain and this Bush White House have learned little in the last five years. They mishandled what became a crisis in the Caucasus, and this has undermined U.S. national security. At the same time, the McCain camp appears to be comfortable with running an unworthy Karl Rove–style political campaign. Will the McCain operation, and its sponsors, do anything to win?

This week, I changed my registration from Republican to independent. The two political parties as they exist today, and the partisanship that they foster, reflect the many fights of the cold war, the Vietnam era, the post–cold war and the 9/11 periods. Today we are in a different place altogether, where our security as a nation is challenged not just from abroad but also close to home. The energy, health-care and financial crises threaten our national prosperity and well-being, just as surely as any confrontation overseas or an attack by radical terrorists.

As an independent I want to be free of the constraints and burdens that have come with trying to make my own views explainable in the context of today’s party. Hijacked by a relatively small few, the GOP of today bears no resemblance to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Eisenhower’s party, or many of the other Republican administrations that came after. In my grandparents’ time, the thrust of the party was rooted in: a respect for the constitution; the defense of civil liberties; a commitment to fiscal responsibility; the pursuit and stewardship of America’s interests abroad; the use of multilateral international engagement and “soft power”; the advancement of civil rights; investment in infrastructure; environmental stewardship; the promotion of science and its discoveries; and a philosophical approach focused squarely on the future.

As an independent I will now feel comfortable supporting people of any political party who reflect those core values.

It was not easy taking this step, since politics, like religion, is something learned on the knee of one’s parents and grandparents. And like anything else inherited, it is imbedded in one’s own identity. This makes leaving even harder.

But there will be some joy for me in my new status since I will be able to speak for myself, and not as a member of a party that has, sadly, lost its way.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term “military-industrial complex,” and he offered advice that is still relevant today. “As we peer into society’s future,” he said, we “must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America’s heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather’s did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation’s impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first — ahead of our own selfish interests — must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency — with the indispensable help of a “Democrats for Eisenhower” movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama’s candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America’s greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama’s support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

As the 20th century recedes, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain to younger generations the peculiar combination of idealism, naivete, cynicism and brutality that was the hallmark of that century’s totalitarian states. Ethan Pollock’s “Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars” looks at this phenomenon through the lens of Soviet science policy in the immediate postwar period to explain Josef Stalin’s determination to articulate and demonstrate “the compatibility of its ideology with all fields of knowledge.” While savage dictatorships in Nazi Germany and China played at the edges of harnessing science and its theories for the advancement of their ideological dogmas, nowhere was the attempt more comprehensive than in the Soviet Union. And nowhere before or since has a national leader involved himself in such detailed analyses of science and philosophy to assure their affinity with the conceptual underpinnings of his political power.

Read the entire review here.