The Lessons of Munich

Posted on September 1, 2025 by billmanzi

If there was ever an overused historical example it is the Munich Agreement that led to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938. This overuse has numbed people to the analogy and it is likely that the actual details of the agreement have been largely forgotten by most. So what actually happened at Munich? Why has it come to represent the worst of diplomatic results when dealing with an aggressor nation? Let us unpack what actually happened at Munich, and in so doing see if the “playbook” looks familiar.

Adolph Hitler did not begin his expansionist actions with Czechoslovakia. Hitler strove, from the beginning, to escape from the terms imposed by the Wold War I victors through the Treaty of Versailles. That treaty prohibited any political union between Germany and Austria. Hitler controlled the Austrian Nazi Party, and through that organization created enormous political chaos in Austria, including the assassination of the Austrian Prime Minister in 1934, (a failed Nazi coup) and through the diplomatic bullying that Hitler was a master of eventually absorbing Austria in 1938. This was not the first violation of Versailles undertaken by Hitler, and like the prior violations the western powers chose to ignore it and hope for the best. Hitler explained to the Austrian Prime Minister that no country would come to their aid, and said of France:

“France, he said, could have stopped Germany in the Rhineland ‘and then we would have had to retreat. But now it is too late for France.’”

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 327

Hitler saw the writing on the wall for France. It was a prescient observation.

After the absorption of Austria Adolph Hitler began preparing the fate of Czechoslovakia. The nation of Czechoslovakia was a creation of the Treaty of Versailles, and always considered by Hitler, on that basis, to be illegitimate. Czechoslovakia had a disparate population, including a large German minority. A German political party, in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia dominated by German speakers, quickly came under the control of Hitler, and like the Austrian Nazis, began making demands of the Czech government that could not be satisfied. Hitler’s political demands centered around the treatment, by the Czech government, of its German minority. Hitler’s true intent was the military liquidation of Czechoslovakia and its absorption into the German Reich. His plans for this included the preparation of Case Green, the military codename for a German attack on Czechoslovakia. The fig leaf of mistreatment of the German minority was never the real issue. Hitler, before provoking the Czech crisis, had prepared the German military for a lightning strike on Czechoslovakia. In meeting with the German Sudeten leader Konrad Heinlein Hitler gave specific instructions:

“Hitler’s instructions, as revealed in a Foreign Office memorandum, were that ‘demands should be made by the Sudeten German Party which are unacceptable to the Czech government.’”

“As Heinlein himself summarized the Fuehrer’s views, ‘We must always demand so much that we can never be satisfied.’”

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 359

The Czech state had security commitments from France and the Soviet Union that should have rendered military assistance in the event of aggression against it. The British had warned Hitler that if France honored that commitment the British would support the French militarily. The Czechs had a very formidable military and a very extensive set of fortifications that would have to be breached by the Germans in the event of a military confrontation while the French and Soviets would be supporting the Czechs. From a military perspective the Germans would have had a heavy lift if the mutual security agreements had been honored. So what happened?

The continuing pressure of Hitler on both the Czechs, and by extension the French and British, managed to pry the Czech allies away. It is easy today to condemn British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for his actions, but Chamberlain believed that Hitler had a legitimate grievance and that a world war over the Sudetenland was not worth the cost. He also believed the “assurances” received from Hitler on this matter. (Hitler told Chamberlain, and the world, that this was his last territorial demand in Europe.) Chamberlain was in error on both counts but that was not so clear at the time. The Hitler “playbook” on these matters was not fully understood.  Munich has become the focal point of this story, but in fact the “Czech crisis” drummed up by Hitler brought Chamberlain to Germany three times to meet with Hitler. (September 15, September 22, and finally at Munich September 29)Hitler’s core demand was that the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia be ceded to Germany and militarily occupied by the German army. In the run-up to Munich the Czech government had refused to accede to this German demand, realizing that to do so would place what was left of their country under direct military threat from Germany, as the military fortifications referenced above fell within the area to be ceded. When the Czech government finally gave way on the dismemberment of their country it was because the French and British abandoned Czechoslovakia to its fate. Hitler had managed to split the alliance, and neuter the security guarantees given to the Czech government by France. In so doing the British and the French managed to place responsibility for whether war broke out on the victim state. In a September 27 note to Czech President Benes Chamberlain wrote:

“…Chamberlain could not refrain from admonishing them, in the last part of his message, ‘that Bohemia would be overrun by the German Army and nothing which another Power or Powers could do would be able to save your country and your people from such a fate. This remains true whatever the result of a world war might be.’ Thus Chamberlain was putting the responsibility for peace or war no longer on Hitler but on Benes.”

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 402

Blaming the victim of aggression, rather than the aggressor.

Hitler, in his diplomatic maneuvering against the Czech state, had pressured the Hungarians and the Poles to make their own territorial demands against the Czechs, which they did. Germany was the main driver, but not the sole actor, in this tragedy. It would turn out to be a most unfortunate decision by Poland.

Hitler’s real thoughts on the Czech state were not hidden. In a speech on September 26 that was described by William Shirer as the first time he had ever seen Hitler totally lose control of himself Hitler said this about the nation of Czechoslovakia: (Speaking of Benes at the Treaty of Versailles negotiation)

“He made his great appearance in Versailles, claiming that there was such a thing as a Czechoslovakian nation. He resorted to this lie to make his own people sound, despite their meager numbers, more important and to lend credence to its demand for greater influence. At the time, the Anglo-Saxon powers, renowned for their great lack of knowledge in geographic and volkisch matters, did not deem it necessary to investigate Beneš’ claim. Otherwise they most certainly would have realized that there is no such thing as a Czechoslovakian nation. All there is are Czechs and Slovaks and the Slovaks have little desire of being with the Czechs, rather . . . In the end, thanks to the efforts of Herr Beneš, the Czechs annexed Slovakia. Since this state did not appear to be a viable structure, they simply took three and a half million Germans in clear defiance of the rights and desires of the Germans for self-determination. Since that evidently did not suffice, the Czechs took another million of Magyars, adding a number of Carpatho-Russians and several hundreds of thousands of Poles.

That is the state that would later call itself Czechoslovakia. It exists contrary to the clear desire and will of the nations thus raped and in clear defiance of their right to self-determination. As I speak to you today, I naturally have pity on the fate of these oppressed peoples. I am touched by the fate of these Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, and Ukrainians. Yet I can only be the voice of the fate of my Germans.”

Hitler Speech Sportpalast September 26, 1938

We see the denial of Czechoslovakia as a legitimate state. We see the blaming of the victim of aggression for the aggression, with the rationale being that the Czechs would not stand a chance against the German army. And we see that the British and French undertook to “guarantee” the remaining borders of rump Czechoslovakia through the Munich Agreement. So after making territorial concessions demanded by its putative allies rump Czechoslovakia was now going to rely on those same allies to “guarantee” what was left of the Czech state. Hitler, with the Munich Agreement still drying, had other plans.

Hitler, using the by now familiar tactics of diplomatic bullying and blackmail, induced the Slovaks to declare independence from rump Czechoslovakia, further sealing the fate of the Czech nation. This was of course accompanied by the newly “independent” Slovakia sending Hitler a telegram requesting that Germany “take over the protection of the new state.” (Both the declaration of independence and the telegram were written by the Germans.) With rump Czechoslovakia further reduced Adolph Hitler summoned the President of what was left of the Czech State and brow-beat the hapless Dr. Emil Hacha into submission. On March 15, 1939 in the early morning hour Dr. Hacha signed a statement, while in Germany,  asking for the protection of Germany for what was left of the Czech state, which Hitler was more than happy to provide. The Germans occupied Prague as part of their final destruction of the rump Czech state on the same day. What about the British and French “security guarantees” to rump Czechoslovakia?

After the occupation of Prague Chamberlain took the position that the Slovak declaration of independence from the Czech state had nullified that guarantee.

“ ‘The effect of this declaration’ he explained, ‘put an end by internal disruption to the State whose frontier we had proposed to guarantee. His Majesty’s Government cannot accordingly hold themselves any longer bound by this obligation.’ “

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 451

That position of the Prime Minister came under vehement attack in Great Britain, where Hitler’s duplicity was now evident for all but the willfully blind to see. After some thought Chamberlain came to see the Hitler maneuver for what it was and he issued a new statement.

“Is this the end of an old adventure or is it the beginning of a new? Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in effect, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?”

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 454

The Prime Minister, his eyes now fully opened, would give the British guarantee on Poland sixteen days after the German occupation of Prague.

As stated above the “Munich analogy” has been vastly overused. But that should not stop us from recognizing the playbook used so effectively, and to such destructive effect, by Adolph Hitler. You do not have to “be Hitler” to utilize the same diplomatic tactics he used, and we should understand why the Europeans are so aware of that playbook, and why some now choose to try to rewrite the history of German aggression in the run-up to the start of World War 2. The details matter. Attempts by pseudo historians like Darryl Cooper to rewrite that history by portraying Churchill as the villain of World War 2 are simply attempts to erase the details that matter, and make comparisons to those using that playbook today harder to make. The essential elements of the Hitlerite diplomatic thrusts are fairly visible to all.

  1. Deny the historical legitimacy of the victim nation, as Hitler did to the Czechs.
  2. Use the presence of a minority that speaks the language of the aggressor state to make claims of repression, and whip up national outrage over the mistreatment.
  3. Seize land, either by military force or by having it ceded, (or both) and then dictate the terms of the survival of the rump state, and wait for further opportunity to finish the initial job. (Limitations on the rump state military are a favorite term)

The overuse of Hitler and Munich should not prevent us from seeing aggressor nations for what they are. The idea that aggressors simply wish to rectify a historical wrong and will be satisfied digesting only one nation inevitably leads to further carnage. German generals, in testimony at Nuremberg, said that the military position of Germany, in 1938, was simply not strong enough to win a two front war with Czechoslovakia and France.

Field Marshall von Manstein, at Nuremberg, said:

“If a war had broken out, neither our western border nor our Polish frontier could have been effectively defended by us, and there is no doubt whatsoever that had Czechoslovakia defended herself, we would have been held up by her fortifications, for we did not have the means to break through.”

Shirer, William The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich pg. 424

The West miscalculated, and everybody paid a horrible price. Standing up collectively to the aggressor in Czechoslovakia might have spared the world untold horrors.  Hitler had not, in fact, made his last territorial demand in Europe. After giving such assurances he was, six months after the occupation of Prague, knocking on Poland’s door. Allowing land disputes to be settled by military action is a sure fire way to ensure that aggression will continue. History, in this area, has taught us some hard lessons. I hope we remember them.

MunichAgreementDownload
Posted in Appeasement, Munich Conference | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Look at “Stuck” by Yoni Appelbaum

Posted on August 10, 2025 by billmanzi

Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity by Yoni Appelbaum

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The third book in what I would characterize as the “Abundance” trilogy. Author Yoni Appelbaum unlike the other two (“Abundance” by Ezra Klein, and “Why Nothing Works” by Marc Dunkelman) concentrates solely on the massive shortage of housing in the United States. The other two books did deal with the housing issues facing the country, and it is fair to say that the general conclusions of all three books are roughly the same. The housing market is so expensive, and so out of reach for so many, due to the rules and regulations (zoning) that we have imposed on the housing market. The author does point out, as with the others, that restrictive zoning that constricts housing supply, is especially prevalent in blue areas of the country. Progressives want housing, especially for those with affordability issues, but in practice enact regulation that provides the opposite result.

All three take some heavy aim at the California law CEQA, which, in the name of environmental protection, has created enormous roadblocks to housing development, and a host of other, non housing building (like high speed rail.) The focus on CEQA in these books has caught the attention of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has been pilloried on a podcast or two over the difficulty in creating housing in California. The Governor heard the message, and as part of the California 2025-2026 budget signed into law amendments to CEQA that would have, in the recent past, been unthinkable. The Newsom press release on the “groundbreaking reforms” contained the subtitle “Advancing an abundance agenda.” These books have, without question, stirred some heavy debate.

There are some obviously outrageous abuses of process highlighted in the book that support the author’s main argument. In Berkeley California the author reviews some arguments over additional student housing at the University. These arguments, in a progressive community, center on the opposition of some Berkeley residents to additional student housing.

“A few blocks farther down Piedmont Avenue sits the home of Phil Bokovoy. …he arrived in 1983, as a graduate student in economics, and bought a home six years later. …Bokoovoy is worried that too many people are now trying to crowd into the city with which he fell in love. In 2018 Bokoovoy sued the University through a non-profit he’s created, Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, , alleging that its decision to increase enrollment required an assessment of its environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that it had failed to perform. The case made national headlines in 2022, when appellate courts affirmed a ruling by a California judge that adding more students could produce an adverse change to the environment.”

Applelbaum, Yoni, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. Pg. 111

So Mr. Bokovoy, having moved to Berkeley to attend University himself and staying to make it his home, has now determined that any additional influx of students would constitute an “environmental issue” under California law. A separate lawsuit over the same issue alleged a CEQA violation over the additional “noise” that would be generated by increasing the student body. That claim was initially ruled upon favorably by a California judge, forcing the California Legislature to amend CEQA so that “noise generated by people is not subject to CEQA review.” It is no wonder that CEQA has come under such scrutiny.

The author takes us through the history of how zoning came into existence in the United States, and that story is not a pretty one. The motivations of the original legal theorists who promoted zoning are shown to be borne out of racism. The aversion to “apartments” or multi-family housing, are not a recent thing. The Supreme Court, in an early legal test for zoning, said:

“When erected in neighborhoods of single family homes…’very often the apartment house is a mere parasite’, cashing in on the elevated value produced by its environs even as it erodes it, and therefore apartments come ‘very near to being nuisances.’ “

Applelbaum, Yoni, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. Pg. 162

Apartment buildings described as nuisances or parasites. The attitude has not changed much in the last 75 years.

All three books point to the progressive change in values that occurred after the enthusiasm for governmental action embodied by the New Deal. FDR’s determination to use the levers of government to blunt the impacts of the Great Depression eventually gave way to a deep cynicism about government from progressives. All the books point an accusatory finger at Robert Moses, and this author (and the others as well) points to all of the upheavals in the 1960’s as creating a desire within the Progressive movement to stop government from being able to act. This desire was borne out of some of the social disruption that created such a massive distrust of government in this period. All three books point to the long ago written Port Huron statement, issued in 1962 by the Students for a Democratic Society, as being a harbinger of this change. The Progressive movement was converted to thinking about the best ways to limit the ability of government to act. In many ways they have been successful.

The obstacles created for building sufficient housing supply to meet the demand, through zoning, as mentioned, are heavily covered. The author also shows us how the new housing realities have stopped mobility.

“The problem isn’t that we’re sorting ourselves out; it’s that we’ve ceased to mix ourselves together. Zoning has made our neighborhoods far less economically diverse, reducing the odds we will come into sustained contact with people of different backgrounds or with those who hold different perspectives. And regulations have separated areas with rental housing from areas with single family homes. When one in five Americans moved each year, neighborhoods were regularly infused with new arrivals, often bearing the views they’d adopted in their previous communities. Now, with only one in twelve Americans moving, that happens much less often. A more sedentary community will homogenize itself over time as social forces press longtime residents toward conformity and the flow of new neighbors bearing novel ideas and customs and beliefs slows to a trickle. The result is deepening polarization.”

Applelbaum, Yoni, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. Pg. 17

The author buttresses this point with a statistic that is eye opening. Speaking of the 2016 election:

“A month before the election, we found that among white voters who had moved more than two hours from their hometown, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a solid six point lead. Those living within a two-hour drive, though, backed Trump by nine points. And those who had never left their hometown supported him by a remarkable twenty-six points.”

Applelbaum, Yoni, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. Pg. 15


One last stat that is pretty damning for those on the progressive side of the aisle.

“A study of California found that as the share of liberal votes in a city increased by ten points, the housing permits it issued declined by 30 percent.”

Applelbaum, Yoni, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. Pg. 16


There is a lot to digest in this book, and in my view the author correctly highlights some of the obstacles, and yes hypocrisy, to getting our housing market right sized. Those obstacles are unfortunately created mostly at the local level, through restrictive zoning. But it must be pointed out that attempts to change zoning to accommodate new housing units, especially rental units, are usually met with the fiercest of resistance. Democracy does not always produce optimum results. It is hard to imagine a local official standing up and telling a majority of his constituents that they are wrong and voting to place housing in the teeth of determined political opposition. Massachusetts has 40B, and now the MBTA Communities Act, but local opposition has been fierce in many communities. Even Gavin Newsom, cited above for actually getting CEQA modified to address the obstacles created for housing, has taken a step back in Los Angeles. (This was written over several days, so Newsom, in response to severe pressure, waived the reform in a specific case.) As mentioned these decisions are not easy ones.

This book, like the other two, comes highly recommended and is contributing to a much needed debate on housing in the United States.

Gavin Newsom scored by the WSJ Editorial page for retreat on CEQA reform.





View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Town of Seabrook 2024 Water Sewer Financial Reports

Posted on July 25, 2025 by billmanzi

The review of the 2024 Water and Sewer accounts is complete and has been submitted to the Seabrook Board of Selectmen. These two reports are significant for the results shown through effective Board action to eliminate the deficits in both accounts and move both to true enterprise status. The changes made in late 2023 did not include formally separating the budgets. That change was implemented in 2025.

Water Report 2024 DraftDownload
Sewer Report 2024 draftDownload
Posted in Seabrook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Look at Apple in China by Patrick McGee

Posted on June 22, 2025 by billmanzi

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company by Patrick McGee

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


A fairly timely book as well as a very important one as trade and U.S. manufacturing come front and center with the Trump Administration making major changes to U.S. tariff policies. This effort comes from Patrick McGee, an Apple coverage veteran.

The book is important, in my view, because it brings a much fuller understanding of several key issues that frankly have not been well understood in the United States, though they are very well understood in China. Can the United States, simply by imposing tariffs, shift Apple manufacturing back to the United States? What is the nature of the Chinese manufacturing edge, beyond labor costs? How did Apple become so reliant on Chinese manufacturing and is it now possible for them to simply shift manufacturing back to the U.S.?

The author gives us a short history of Apple, including the exile and return of Steve Jobs, and how the old Apple actually manufactured what they sold themselves. Jobs initially believed this to be a necessity, as Apple created products that were not simply utilitarian but designed in a way to make them stand out. Apple’s designs did indeed create “beautiful” products, with that beauty creating significant engineering challenges. Jony Ive did in fact create magnificent designs, and Jobs fought hard with his own engineers to ensure that these designs became real Apple products. Within that Jobs fixation lay the seeds of the ultimate move of manufacturing to China. Jobs believed that this complexity forced Apple to manufacture its own products, and they actually owned factories in the U.S. The author shows us how the turn came, and how big of a turn in was.

The slow turn came after Apple dipped its toes in the contract manufacturing water in Japan and Taiwan and recognized that there were both cost savings and the expertise to build ever more complex products. How did contract manufacturers in Taiwan and China become able to handle the complexity of Apple products? The author shows us that the main way they learned was from Apple itself. Apple had selected Quanta of Taiwan as a back-up manufacturer of Powerbooks:

“At first the quality and capabilities Apple found were subpar. ‘Treachery, ineptitude, sloppy, negligence on every level,’ are the words used by one senior engineer to describe Taiwan at the time. ‘Quanta was not a very good development partner whatsoever,’ says another. ‘The talent to take on manufacturing, part fabrication, assembly, design challenges-the talent to do that with Quanta in Taiwan was not there.’ The role of Apple engineers was to change all that through extensive training. This strategy soon proved to have a profound impact on the country and its neighbors, where Apple sourced many of the components. Apple wasn’t, by any stretch, the largest computer maker working in Taiwan, but its penchant for complex designs and intolerance for defects was unique and over-the-top, necessitating a form of intellectual investment shared by none of its rivals. Apple veterans from the time can’t stress enough that nobody else was embedding dozens of engineers into Taiwanese suppliers, then consistently pushing the envelope on what was possible. ‘Apple is single-handedly responsible for bringing quality into Southeast Asia,’ says Robert Brunner, the director of the ID studio from 1990 to 1997.”

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company McGee, Patrick pg. 77
You take that excerpt and simply magnify it by a very large factor, and that is what happened in China. As Apple had success, that success required a significant increase in manufacturing capacity, which required more manpower. In China, at the time, there was no limit to manpower, or any concern about working conditions. The inexorable move to contract manufacturing, and of contract manufacturing to China, began. Andy Grove, of Intel, had a prescient observation:

“The cofounder of Intel, Andy Grove, would later diagnose the problem as ‘a general undervaluing of manufacturing-the idea that as long as ‘knowledge work’ stays in the US, it doesn’t matter what happens to factory jobs.’ But as Grove warned: ‘our pursuit of our individual businesses, which often involves transferring manufacturing and a great deal of engineering out of the country, has hindered our ability to bring innovations to scale at home. Without scaling, we don’t just lose jobs-we lose our hold on new technologies. Losing our ability to scale will ultimately damage our capacity to innovate.’”

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company McGee, Patrick pg. 112

Grove, in my view, had it exactly right. As the move to China accelerated for Apple, and the company began to grow by leaps and bounds, nobody in Washington was giving much thought to what was happening. As more manufacturing moved to China the satellite operations for manufacturing, especially Apple style manufacturing, moved right with the contract manufacturers. Industrial clusters sprang up, with major investments made by the Chinese government at all levels to make such clusters economically attractive to the arriving companies.

“Twenty six years later, the closed architecture of the iPhone was driving a different trend: the Chinafication of the electronics industry. The more Apple scaled, the more economic sense it made for all the components inside its products to be made within the country. …’It’s not really a global supply chain. In principle it is; but in practice it’s this totally engineered stack of process and product, engineering and production, and its all synced up in one place.’”

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company McGee, Patrick pg. 176

Some of the biggest contract manufacturers in the world are now based in China, with Apple, as shown above, bringing in vast engineering resources to show these firms how to do complex manufacturing. But it was not just engineering talent that Apple brought. When Apple appeared to finally have some real difficulties with the Chinese government as a consequence of the new priorities brought by President Xi upon his assumption of power in China, after a period of not quite understanding, brought to the table a commitment of a $275 billion investment in China.

“Cook’s goal was to convey a similar message, to demonstrate to Chinese officials that Apple’s success in China had ripple effects across the advanced electronics industry. By investing in and teaching local suppliers, Apple was inculcating a corpus of hands-on-knowledge, both in tangible skills and abstract concepts, which applied well beyond serving its own needs. True, this was unintentional; Apple hadn’t designed its supply chain to spur innovation at its suppliers. Yet that is exactly what its had accomplished. And Apple’s investments weren’t just large, they were ruthlessly efficient and narrowly targeted in the advanced electronics sector-‘by far the most important’ thing desired by Xi, according to China Scholar Barry Naughton. Conveyed in the right language, this impact was wildly supportive of Beijing’s goals to learn from the West and move up the value chain.”

Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company McGee, Patrick pg. 281-282

The author compares the $275 billion to the joint private investment in Mexico by the U.S. and Canada after NAFTA, which the Apple investment in China exceeded. Key knowledge transfer, massive financial investment in manufacturing, and political pliancy have placed Apple in a prime position in China, but with the potential for some level of decoupling between China and the United States is that positioning going to be good for Apple? Is there anyway for them to shift manufacturing out of China?

This book brings us some real insight into how China became such a manufacturing behemoth, and how deep the connection is now between the Apple business model and China. It should dissuade those who may believe that manufacturing can simply be “moved” from China to the U.S. by building a few factories in the U.S. Past American policymakers have not fully grasped the full implications of the offshoring to China. Andy Grove understood the implication and now we must figure out the best way forward as the U.S. looks to reestablish domestic manufacturing. This book is highly recommended.


Wall Street Journal Article on the domestically sourced “Liberty Phone” A lot less phone for a lot more money.




View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Look at Presidential Command by Peter Rodman

Posted on May 31, 2025 by billmanzi

Presidential Command: Power, Leadership, and the Making of Foreign Policy from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush by Peter W. Rodman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


A bit of an older one but a very good read anyway. Rodman, who has passed away, was an assistant to Henry Kissinger in the Nixon Administration, who wrote the foreword. I saw a positive reference to this in the last HR McMaster book and it looked worthwhile.

Rodman worked in several Republican administrations after Nixon, in the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Defense Department. This book looks at the foreign policy decisions of Presidents from Nixon through George W. Bush with an emphasis on how those decisions got made and what type of infrastructure each President set up to handle the process. This is where the strength of the book is, and though it was written more than a few years ago the recent decision of President Trump to dramatically downsize the staff at the National Security Council makes this book topical today.

Rodman is an advocate of strong Presidential power, but as he acknowledges in the opening this book centers on the exercise of that power within the executive branch itself, not vis a vis Congress or the courts. In light of the preference of President Trump for near total control of the executive branch this book, by looking at some of the past Presidents and their use of executive power, is relevant to events happening now.

I believe, likely a bit more than some others in the Democratic Party, that the President should be able to, for better or worse, exercise the authority of the office. The book started with a President Lincoln story that is both funny and on point:

“There is a famous story of President Abraham Lincoln, taking a vote in a cabinet meeting on whether to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. All his cabinet secretaries vote nay, whereupon Lincoln raises his right hand and declares ‘The ayes have it.’ “

Rodman, Peter Presidential Command pg. 3

Rodman gets us started with Nixon and Kissinger, looking beyond the policies to see what Nixon wanted, and how he pulled the levers of power within the Administration. It is a many times told story of Nixon, and Kissinger, undercutting and marginalizing Secretary of State William Rodgers. Rogers, despite being a very old and close associate of Nixon, was shut out because Nixon was determined to go around the career staff at the State Department, who he distrusted (and hated) This baseline is used throughout the book, as Presidents are shown to use differing methodologies to try to bring the bureaucracy to heel. Rodman quotes McGeorge Bundy on that ever present battle:

“The unending between the Presidency and much of the bureaucracy is as real today as ever, and there has been no significant weakening in the network of triangular alliances which unite all sorts of interest groups with their agents in the Congress and their agents in the Executive Branch…. [T]he Executive Branch remains woefully short of first-class executive agents of the President….The Cabinet role which I am trying to describe….in its relation to the White House….must be at once highly autonomous and deeply responsive. It is political, but only in the Presidents interest. It is managerial, but only on the President’s terms….At a test-unless he means to resign-the Secretary should always be the President’s agent in dealing with the bureaucracy, not the other way around.”

Rodman, Peter Presidential Command pg. 11

This tug of war is a central feature in the book. As Rodman looks at the Presidents from Nixon to Bush 43 a critical distinction in evaluating key personnel, like a Secretary of State, gets back to the Bundy points above. Will a person posted to the State Department become “captured” by them or will he or she be willing to buck the bureaucracy and continue to represent the President.

In this context Rodman goes through the covered Presidencies, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the decision making, and of the process by which decisions got made. Rodman worked for Republican Presidents, and I detect a slight bent towards the GOP Presidents, but nothing that makes his observations unfair.

I had some level of disagreement with the Rodman observations on Bush 43 and Iraq. Rodman worked for Doug Feith in that administration, and on that basis alone I went from five stars to four. I share General Tommy Frank’s assessment of Feith, and I believe that Rodman, while acknowledging error, did not emphasize that error enough. (He failed to mention the Franks assessment of Feith) He manages to repeat some of the flat out nonsense that propelled the U.S. into the war, and even gives a mulligan to Don Rumsfeld on the “size of force” question for the U.S. invasion. It was Rumsfeld who demanded that we go in light, with the generals giving way to their boss.

Despite the Iraq portion there is still some great observations on how Bush 43 conducted policy and dealt with some of the large personalities in his Administration.

Each President covered brings us great insights into how power is spread, and used, in the executive branch, with each President’s differing approaches critiqued. For folks interested in national security, and with some of the past giants involved in that field, this book comes highly recommended.





View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged | Leave a comment

Seabrook Announces Tax Agreement With NextEra

Posted on May 29, 2025 by billmanzi

The Town of Seabrook is pleased to announce a new three year tax agreement with NextEra, the owner of the Seabrook Station nuclear facility. This agreement will cover FY 2024, 2025 and 2026 and is for $45 million. This is an increase of $5 million over the prior three year tax agreement that covered 2021, 2022, and 2023, and a $9 million increase over the tax agreement covering 2018, 2019, and 2020. The Town is grateful for the efforts of all of the parties to the agreement.

Posted in NextEra, Seabrook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Seabrook Memorial Day 2025

Posted on May 26, 2025 by billmanzi

Seabrook held its Memorial Service and parade yesterday, remembering and honoring those veterans that made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom. Thank you to the Seabrook Board of Selectmen for their strong support, and to the American Legion Raymond E. Walton Post 70 for all of their hard work. Thank you to Recreation Director Cassandra Carter, the event organizer who did such an outstanding job. Our thanks to the Seabrook DPW, who made the grounds look impeccable. Many thanks to the Seabrook Fire Department for their participation, and to our Police Department for all of their work. It was an honor to have Gold Star Mother Florence Souther present for the service.

Posted in Seabrook | Tagged | Leave a comment

Tony Blair On Leadership

Posted on May 17, 2025 by billmanzi

On Leadership: Lessons for the 21st Century by Tony Blair

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Former British Prime Minister, and now man of the world, through the Blair Institute, Tony Blair, has written a book on leadership that is well worth the read, even if you are not planning on being a Prime Minister or President. The concepts discussed are applicable across the political management spectrum.

Blair’s record of achievement as Prime Minister, both substantively and politically, is really astounding. He is the second longest serving Prime Minister (behind Margaret Thatcher) in the post war period, the longest serving Labor Prime Minister, and the only Labor leader to ever lead Labor to three consecutive general election victories. His concept of “New Labor” changed the image of the Labor Party to one that could govern, and would not be held captive by the more ideologically rigid element of the Labor Party. He moved the Party to the center.

The book is not a memoir (he wrote that already) but a primer, from Blair’s perspective, on how to be a leader. His experiences as Prime Minister, and as opposition leader, have brought him some valuable perspectives on how to be effective as a leader. His insights are valuable even if your goal is not to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain. What does it take to lead effectively? Blair gives us his roadmap.

Some of the items Blair outlines might seem to be self evident. But when you ask a political leader (Managers, Mayors, Governors) whether they have in fact covered that base I would venture to say that many would say no. The first item Blair touches on is “having a plan.” (Be the leader with a Plan.) He cites the comment by American diplomat George Kennan “If you don’t know where you are going any road will take you there.”

“A ‘plan’ is a route map for governing. It sets out the destination, the milestones, and, above all, the priorities. It forms the ‘why’ and not simply the ‘what’ or the ‘how’. It focuses the mind of government; indeed in a certain sense it creates the mind of government. The preparation that goes into drawing it up is intense. Bad plan:bad government.”

Blair, Tony On Leadership: Lessons for the 21st Century pg. 2

Blair goes further on the “focusing the mind of government.” The plan will give the “ministers” a clear direction of where the leader wants to go, the priorities set, and an agenda to follow. Blair does not see the need to belabor the fact that it is the LEADER who sets the agenda and drives the government towards fulfilling the goals associated with the leader’s agenda. A leader without a plan, or an inability to drive an agenda, is wasting time.

Blair tells a story about Bill Clinton imparting to him what Clinton considered to be a valuable insight, which was “keep control of your schedule.” It was before Blair took office as P.M. and he tells us that he was a “bit underwhelmed” with this advice. But after he took office he realized how correct Clinton was. Clinton was not urging “downtime” or golf but rather some time to read, reflect, and set new action plans to further drive the leader’s agenda. Clinton was correct, and Blair came to see that.

Blair truly gives us some great thoughts, including the title of Chapter Three. “Prioritization Try to do everything and you will likely do nothing.” It says it all but it really needs to be driven home. Blair’s comment, that “government operates by bandwidth” is right on the money. No bandwidth, no results. Blair gives us some great advice, and some real world examples, including how Brexit simply consumed enormous amounts of ministerial bandwidth in Britain, knocking other important issues off the plate.

Amongst all of the great observations Blair gives us possibly the most important one comes in Chapter 4. He leaves himself a bit of wiggle room in titling that chapter by saying that “Good policy is (nearly) always good politics.” I could not agree more. Good results, even over time, make for good politics. Inside that Chapter he hits on something that I believe has been a bit lost at all levels of government in this country, and that is that the leader should know his brief.

“At one level politics is a crude retail business: winning votes, devising slogans, kissing babies, and having the physical stamina to survive a brutal campaign. But at another level -the dimension called government-it is an intensely intellectual exercise. It requires real brainpower. And study. Politicians become adept over time at speaking about things they haven’t a clue about. And, if they’re good at it, they can do it with panache and-to the uniformed ear-credibility. In the real world of government that doesn’t cut it. You should know what you are talking about because you have taken the time and effort to master it.”

Blair, Tony On Leadership: Lessons for the 21st Century pg. 26

What a concept. The leader should know what they are talking about. What does that mean? How can you tell? Talk to a leader. See if they are conversant on budgets, education, or any issue you are concerned with. See if they understand how an budget action in one area might impact a subject in another area. If a leader does not know or understand the brief then what you get is staff setting the agenda, and staff setting the priorities. Hard to lead on a subject when you do not know the brief.

Blair is rightly proud of having created a “Delivery Unit” at Downing Street to take items that had been agreed, and get them to implementation. You might ask why a universally accepted idea needs a special focus on implementation? If you are asking that question you likely have not worked in government. Just coming up with an idea, announcing it, and moving on to the next idea, will not cut it. With short attention spans it might even work for a bit but if you are serious about leading you will want to ensure that implementation is part of the program. Blair calls it “le suivi,” the French term for “follow-up.” No follow-up, no success, and a better than good chance that the bureaucracy will take a pound of flesh out of the idea.

Blair understands how leaders are made, and is frankly honest about some of the things that are necessary for someone with the ambition to lead to undertake politically. Some might not be comfortable but he tells the truth:

“Politicians who boast about their honesty/integrity/attachment to truth and goodness, as opposed to those ‘other politicians’ make the seasoned among us reach for the bucket, precisely because we know politics and politicians can’t be like that, and for sound reasons as well as bad. Don’t get me wrong. All those virtues are important. But the plain fact is that there is too much of the business of politics that involves wheeling and dealing, intrigue, and some ruthlessness to permit it to be conducted by paragons.”

Blair, Tony On Leadership: Lessons for the 21st Century pg. 293-294

Effective leadership does not come from “paragons” but from knowing your brief, setting an agenda, and then having the courage to drive that agenda, even in the face of opposition, and having the skill set to utilize some wheeling and dealing to dissipate the opposition. A wonderful book by Blair that gives aspiring leaders a roadmap. Maybe even good reading for existing leaders.



A great example of the Leader knowing his brief and having the political skill to roast the Opposition Leader, future Prime Minister David Cameron.




View all my reviews

Posted in Books, Brexit | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Look at “Why Nothing Works” by Marc Dunkelman

Posted on May 5, 2025 by billmanzi

Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back by Marc J. Dunkelman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Having just reviewed the Klein/Thompson ”Abundance” time to look at “Why Nothing Works” by Marc Dunkelman, a book that covers the same subject matter but in a slightly different way. The author gives us a historical perspective on how the progressive movement has swung between support for the “Hamiltonian” approach, centralized and designed to get results quickly, and the “Jeffersonian” approach, decentralized, with results less important than process. The author spends some time showing us the political ebbs and flows between these vastly different approaches. As with Klein/Thompson he shows us a lot more as well.

The author pays a lot more attention to the legacy of Robert Moses and the “Power Broker” than Abundance does. There is no question that Moses casts a long shadow over these discussions, and rightfully so. Moses did undertake some projects that really were terrible, but he also produced many worthwhile projects, especially in the recreation area.

The author starts the book with a look at Penn Station in New York City, and the total failure to renovate it, despite the strong initial call for action from U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The author, after years, and then decades, of inaction, felt the need to investigate the reasons for the failure. It appears to have driven him to write the book. That investigation showed him many stakeholders, all with the ability to delay or stop critical elements of the project, exercising that ability with impunity. For me the reaction of the government officials, which was nothing but hand-wringing, told the story. There was not someone like Robert Moses to break through the logjam and build the project.

“What I came to find so remarkable was that this whole Rashomon phenomenon had rarely flummoxed Robert Moses. Decades earlier, he’s managed to build the Cross Bronx despite a whole cacophony of objections-and yet the project has steadily moved forward. That contrast hadn’t been lost on the figures involved in the negotiations over Penn Station. On more than a few occasions, midway through an interview at a Midtown coffee shop, one of my subjects would scan for eavesdroppers, lean forward, and whisper to me, not for attribution: ‘This is why we need another Robert Moses.’…They simply believed it was time to install someone with sufficient authority to drive projects to their completion-someone who could cut through all the ‘if onlys.’ “

Dunkelman, Marc “Why Nothing Works Who Killed Progress -And How to Bring It Back. Pg. 4-5

Of course Dunkelman, staying in New York City, gets to the project that validates the central point of the book and at the same time manages to infuriate so many, the Wollman Rink project in Central Park. Mayor Ed Koch had undertaken a repair of this skating facility by introducing repairs designed to bring in freon and save money operationally. But instead of getting the repairs completed there was one misstep after another, with the bottom line being that the City not only could not successfully complete the repair but damaged the facility even more by undertaking these repairs, leading the Mayor to a decision point to have to spend another $3 million (on top of the original $4.9 million budgeted) to repair the repairs.

“The whole thing appeared like an unmitigated public relations disaster until, almost by the grace of God, Koch received an unexpected reprieve; a local developer offered to step in and make things right. In an unusual arrangement, Koch cut a deal to pay the developer to take control of the rink project, complete it for a fee, and hand it back to the city. ‘If it costs less, we’ll pay less,’ the Mayor explained when some questioned the wisdom of trusting someone outside of government to do something that would typically have been handled by a public authority. ‘If it costs more, he’ll pay.’ …….Fortunately for Koch, his collaboration with the outside developer turned out to be a huge success. The project did cost less than the original estimate-$750,000 less-and the rink opened ahead of the holiday season. But from a public relations perspective, the developers success just seemed to highlight City Hall’s incompetence. The Parks Department, columnists and reporters liked to remind the public, had wasted six years and $13 million on a project the private sector managed to complete in six months and at roughly a sixth of the cost.

Dunkelman, Marc “Why Nothing Works Who Killed Progress -And How to Bring It Back. Pg. 18-19

The developer who stepped in to fix the mess? His name was Donald J. Trump. With that attention grabber the author digs deeper, pointing out that state law prohibited the City from hiring a general contractor for the entirety of the project, requiring filed sub-bids for all the separate components. Most certainly, once Koch found a legal way to make the deal with Trump, the private developer had a huge advantage in that he could go in and simply concentrate on getting the job done without regard to City and State procurement requirements. The contrast in results has to make you wonder about the efficacy of those procurement requirements. I will have a bit more to say on that later.

Klein, in his book, references the need for “trade-offs.” This author obviously agrees.

“But there is a balance to be struck if only because, by limiting the discretion public officials have to do bad, the Jeffersonian agenda also narrows the path for other public officials to do good. By curtailing opportunities for centralized power brokers to wreak havoc, reformers risk immobilizing the public sphere, rendering the big hulking bureaucracies that were once the apple of progressivism’s eye incompetent.”

Dunkelman, Marc “Why Nothing Works Who Killed Progress -And How to Bring It Back. Pg. 159

I would take issue only with the idea that reformers may render the bureaucracies incompetent. They have already done so. My own observation on this is a bit more damning. The serious problems identified by these authors have created a mindset within some bureaucracies that the best way to deal with problems is simply to pass them along, with various contact points all pointing to other contact points as the responsible party. For members of the public hoping to solve problems quickly it can be, and is, a very frustrating thing. Nobody should be in a state of shock when the public shrugs its shoulders at nominal efficiency efforts that chainsaw government agency headcount, further impeding governments ability to serve the public.

The author gives us in this book plenty of great examples of gridlock. He contrasts our being stuck in the U.S. with the massive surge in building in China. He quotes President Obama, who bemoaned the lack of infrastructure progress after the passage of the $787 billion American Recovery Act by saying “there’s no such thing as a shovel ready project.”

With regard to clean energy both books highlight the need for massive new infrastructure to deliver energy from point A to point B. I heard Klein, in a recent podcast, ask a relatively simple question to his guests, who were critics of his book. That question was “why are red states building out more green energy projects than blue states?” By my hearing there simply was not a good answer for that from the guests.

Finally there is more from the book:

“It likely goes without saying that rendering government incompetent is a lousy way to draw voters into an ideological movement bent on employing government to solve big problems. Ordinary people who experience the morass of inept bureaucracy will, like New Yorkers frustrated with Mayor Ed Koch’s inability to restore Wollman Rink, be tempted to turn to someone with the individual moxie to get the job done.”

Dunkelman, Marc “Why Nothing Works Who Killed Progress -And How to Bring It Back. Pg. 330

I did say above I would have a bit more to say on the requirements cited as impediments to Mayor Koch completing the ice rink. I do agree that they are problematic. I have to say that the CEO of a city must have the determination, and some knowledge, to see projects through by force of will. That means investing time and political capital to ensure that a project overcomes difficulties and roadblocks. Without that investment from a CEO even projects with no discernible difficulties can quickly turn to disasters. If you have the right people who are willing to have some unpleasant conversations even tough projects can be completed.

This is another worthwhile book contributing to a real debate in the Democratic Party. It is well worth the time, even if you have read the Klein book.


The David Brooks column “We Can Achieve Great Things”




View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Look at “Abundance” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson

Posted on April 25, 2025 by billmanzi

Abundance by Ezra Klein

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Ezra Klein, with Derek Thompson, has written the most important book of the year that is targeted at Democrats but should be read by all. Klein has the most fascinating and informative podcast (IMO) on the air today. The high quality comes from the diverse viewpoints brought onto the show, with many people of the right coming on to discuss the theory of the case from their perspective. Klein has not been afraid to call out what must surely be considered political malpractice by the Democratic Party where he believes it exists. Bit that is a story for another day.

I had written about, in a blog post, a column Klein had written for the New York Times in May of 2022 called “What America Needs is a Liberalism That Builds.” This book builds on that column, bringing forth the proposition that much of the regulation and burden that has been layered into American governance is now creating governmental dysfunction. Much of this dysfunction of governance is in blue states, which Klein acknowledges. In that column Klein references a talk on industrial policy by Brian Deese, which gives us a flavor for the main thesis of the book.

“The first step is admitting you have a problem, and Deese, to his credit, did exactly that. “A modern American industrial strategy needs to demonstrate that America can build — fast, as we’ve done before, and fairly, as we’ve sometimes failed to do,” he said.
He noted that the Empire State Building was constructed in just over a year. We are richer than we were then, and our technology far outpaces what was available in 1930. And yet does anyone seriously believe such a project would take a year today?
“We need to unpack the many constraints that cause America to lag other major countries — including those with strong labor, environmental and historical protections — in delivering infrastructure on budget and on time,” Deese continued.”

Ezra Klein What America Needs Is a Liberalism That Builds New York Times May 29, 2022

On budget, and on time. What a thought.

Let us begin with more on the central tenets of the book. Klein and Thompson mention California as a great state in so many ways, including the fact that as a stand alone economy it would be the fifth largest GDP in the world. But there is more to that story.

“Liberals should be able to say: Vote for us and we will govern the country the way we govern California. Instead, conservatives are able to say: Vote for them, and they will govern the country the way they govern California! California has spent decades trying and failing to build high-speed rail. It has the worst homelessness problem in the country. It has the worst housing affordability problem in the country. It trails only Hawaii and Massachusetts in its cost of living. As a result it is losing hundreds of thousands of people every year to Texas and Arizona. What has gone wrong?

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 17

That loss of population will have major, and highly negative, ramifications for Democrats in 2030. But I digress. As we digest the political victory of Donald Trump the authors point to another book that makes a point central to this book:

“…the political scientists William Howell and Terry Moe write that ‘populists don’t just feed on socioeconomic discontent. They feed on ineffective government-and their great appeal is that they claim to replace it with a government that is effective through their own autocratic power.’”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 17

The authors have laid out some of the consequences of ineffective governance. What examples do they cite? Of course housing is a big one, with housing restrictions bringing down supply and driving up price, especially in cities that have been engines of growth. Some eye-popping statistics, and a look at how zoning rules have morphed into an anti-growth tool in so many localities. The authors look at a tale of two cities in California: Lakewood and Petaluma. They cite the massive housing growth of Lakewood to accommodate returning veterans after the war as contrasted with the “Petaluma Plan” that imposed a growth cap of 500 new housing units annually. This anti-growth zoning took hold in California, with the results you might expect:

“Today, California is more Petaluma than Lakewood. In the 1950s and 1960s, California routinely built more than 200,000 homes each year. Since 2007, California has never once permitted more than 150,000 new homes. In Los Angeles, fewer homes were built in the seventies than in the sixties, fewer in the eighties than in the seventies, and fewer in the nineties than in the eighties, even as the cities overall population grew.”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 37

Of course this trend is not limited to California. Similar restrictions, as well as other zoning restrictions, such as limiting development to large single family parcels, has managed to create scarcity and drive up housing pricing. The housing piece is so much more than simply the scarcity of supply. The authors look at the impact of zoning and regulation on “construction productivity” with some great insight.

The poster child for the results of ineffectual governance is the total failure of the Los Angeles to San Francisco high speed rail line. While it has not formally collapsed it is at a standstill. Originally approved by California voters in 2008 at an estimated cost of $33 billion, with completion projected by 2020, that project received federal funds to go along with the state funding. It had, at that time, strong federal political support from the Obama Administration. The authors point out that the environmental reviews for this project started in 2012, and as of 2024 were still ongoing. That fact alone is an outrage, and part and parcel of the ongoing problem of how well intentioned regulations have simply morphed into project killers. The authors look at the cost of rail, as well as the many legal impediments to construction.

“It costs about $609 million to build a kilometer (about 0.6 miles) of rail here. Germany builds a kilometer of rail for $384 million. Canada gets it done for $295 million. Japan clocks in at $267 million. Portugal is the cheapest country in the database, at $96 million. All those countries build more tunnels than we do.”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 77

The authors move into multiple other areas where fossilization and self built obstacles prevent the achievement of even a modicum of progress in government. They highlight science and energy as two other areas where the United States is just not achieving results that will keep us globally competitive. As men of the left they understand and empathize with subsidies but recognize subsidizing a commodity that is scarce does not truly solve the problem. (See housing) They advocate for policies that will bring “abundance” to key sectors of the economy by removing obstacles that we, in many cases Democrats, have placed in the way.

“The word ‘abundance’ speaks of a cornucopia, all good things for everybody. But the world of abundance has trade-offs, and trade-offs require choices. Liberals spent decades working, at every level of government and society, to make it harder to build recklessly. They got used to crafting coalitions and legislation that gave everyone a bit of what they wanted, even if it meant the final product was astonishingly expensive, or slow to construct, or perhaps never found its way to completion at all. To unmake this machine will be painful. It will require questioning treasured nostrums and splitting old alliances.”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 213

Finally, for Democrats wondering how the Biden legislative record did not have more of a positive impact on voters there is this:

“A difficulty that Biden and Harris had in trying to run on their record in 2024 was that few communities were yet seeing benefit from all this construction their policies were meant to spark. The infrastructure bill, for instance, included $7.5 billion to build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations; by March 2024-more than two years after the bill was passed-only seven new chargers were up and running”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 213

Passing legislation is not enough. Building out of the benefits that flow from the legislation is how you impact voters.

The authors have taken some heavy incoming from the left, outraged that someone might point out that we cannot seem to build key infrastructure as fast as we did in the 1950’s. They apparently would like to keep losing elections, and losing the global economic race with China. The Marc Dunkelman book (review coming), as well as this one, cites the activities of Robert Moses as a driving force in creating the excess regulation held up as needing reform. It should be noted that Moses used some methods that were pretty awful, but not everything he did was wrong. He built some magnificent infrastructure.

A vitally important book, well worth a read. The authors have in fact created a bit of a firestorm nationally in Democratic Party circles. It is a debate long overdue.




View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | Leave a comment