Saturday

A nuclear attack would most likely target one of these 6 US cities — but an expert says none of them are prepared

RS-24 Yars Russian ICBM - MITT

CC™ Spotlight

By Aria Bendix and Taylor Ardrey

The chance that a nuclear bomb would strike a US city is slim, but nuclear experts say it's not out of the question.

A nuclear attack in a large metropolitan area is one of the 15 disaster scenarios for which the US Federal Emergency Management Agency has an emergency strategy. The agency's plan involves deploying first responders, providing immediate shelter for evacuees, and decontaminating victims who have been exposed to radiation.

For everyday citizens, FEMA has some simple advice: Get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned.

But according to Irwin Redlener, a public-health expert at Columbia University who specializes in disaster preparedness, these federal guidelines aren't enough to prepare a city for a nuclear attack.

"There isn't a single jurisdiction in America that has anything approaching an adequate plan to deal with a nuclear detonation," he said.

That includes the six urban areas that Redlener thinks are the most likely targets of a nuclear attack: New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. These cities are not only some of the largest and densest in the country, but home to critical infrastructure (like energy plants, financial hubs, government facilities, and wireless transmission systems) that are vital to US security.

Each city has an emergency-management website that informs citizens about what to do in a crisis, but most of those sites (except for LA and New York) don't directly mention a nuclear attack. That makes it difficult for residents to learn how to protect themselves if a bomb were to hit one of those cities.

"It would not be the end of life as we know it," Redlener said of that scenario. "It would just be a horrific, catastrophic disaster with many, many unknown and cascading consequences."

Nuclear bombs can produce clouds of dust and sand-like radioactive particles that disperse into the atmosphere — what's referred to as nuclear fallout. Exposure to this fallout can result in radiation poisoning, which can damage the body's cells and prove fatal.

The debris takes at least 15 minutes to reach ground level after an explosion, so a person's response during that period could be a matter of life and death. People can protect themselves from fallout by immediately seeking refuge in the center or basement of a brick steel or concrete building — preferably one without windows.

"A little bit of information can save a lot of lives," Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Business Insider. Buddemeier advises emergency managers about how to protect populations from nuclear attacks.

"If we can just get people inside, we can significantly reduce their exposure," he said.

The most important scenario to prepare for, according to Redlener, isn't all-out nuclear war, but a single nuclear explosion such as a missile launch from North Korea. Right now, he said, North Korean missiles are capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii, but they could soon be able to reach cities along the West Coast.

Another source of an attack could be a nuclear device that was built, purchased, or stolen by a terrorist organization. All six cities Redlener identified are listed as "Tier 1" areas by the US Department of Homeland Security, meaning they're considered places where a terrorist attack would yield the most devastation.

"There is no safe city," Redlener said. "In New York City, the detonation of a Hiroshima-sized bomb, or even one a little smaller, could have anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000 fatalities — depending on the time of day and where the action struck — and hundreds of thousands of people injured."

Some estimates are even higher. Data from Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear-weapons historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology, indicates that a 15-kiloton explosion (like the one in Hiroshima) would result in more than 225,000 fatalities and 610,000 injuries in New York City.

Under those circumstances, not even the entire state of New York would have enough hospital beds to serve the wounded.

"New York state has 40,000 hospital beds, almost all of which are occupied all the time," Redlener said.

He also expressed concern about what might happen to emergency responders who tried to help.

"Are we actually going to order National Guard troops or US soldiers to go into highly radioactive zones? Will we be getting bus drivers to go in and pick up people to take them to safety?" he said. "Every strategic or tactical response is fraught with inadequacies."

In 1961, around the height of the Cold War, the US launched the Community Fallout Shelter Program, which designated safe places to hide after a nuclear attack in cities across the country. Most shelters were on the upper floors of high-rise buildings, so they were meant to protect people only from radiation and not the blast itself.

Cities were responsible for stocking those shelters with food and sanitation and medical supplies paid for by the federal government. By the time funding for the program ran out in the 1970s, New York City had designated 18,000 fallout shelters to protect up to 11 million people.

In 2017, New York City officials began removing the yellow signs that once marked these shelters to avoid the misconception that they were still active.

Redlener said there's a reason the shelters no longer exist: Major cities like New York and San Francisco are in need of more affordable housing, making it difficult for city officials to justify reserving space for food and medical supplies.

"Can you imagine a public official keeping buildings intact for fallout shelters when the real-estate market is so tight?" Redlener said.

Redlener said many city authorities worry that even offering nuclear-explosion response plans might induce panic among residents.

"There's fear among public officials that if they went out and publicly said, 'This is what you need to know in the event of a nuclear attack,' then many people would fear that the mayor knew something that the public did not," he said.

But educating the public doesn't have to be scary, Buddemeier said.

"The good news is that 'Get inside, stay inside, stay tuned' still works," he said. "I kind of liken it to 'Stop, drop, and roll.' If your clothes catch on fire, that's what you should do. It doesn't make you afraid of fire, hopefully, but it does allow you the opportunity to take action to save your life."

Both experts agreed that for a city to be prepared for a nuclear attack, it must acknowledge that such an attack is possible — even if the threat is remote.

"This is part of our 21st-century reality," Redlener said. "I've apologized to my children and grandchildren for leaving the world in such a horrible mess, but it is what it is now."

Source - Business Insider

Friday

The art of managing people


Organizations struggle everyday with the germane issue of what the effective management of people, an organization's most prized asset, actually entails. The effective management of people within an organization requires a thorough understanding of the following: 
  
  • Motivation - Whether intrinsic or extrinsic and the importance of positive triggers....
  • Job design and environment....
  • Company's rewards system and how it is structured and also possibly layered....
  • Group influence as a function of Group-think and other allegiances....
Motivation
Human beings are creatures of habit and by that, I mean it is natural to expect that individuals will have different triggers within their genetic and socio-cultural make-up, that ultimately control what their motivations are, where they originate from or worse still, whether or not they have any at all.
Of course, as a business owner or a leader, you would hope you haven't hired someone or lead a group of people on the bottom rung of the Motivation Trigger Index™ (MTI).
Usually, one finds that most people with intrinsic motivation tend to have a higher MTI. They are the high achievers and are usually not driven to succeed or excel necessarily as a result of positive external triggers, but do so because it is just in their make-up. It is however important to note that for these group, the Positive External Triggers (PETs) only serve to further elevate their MTI scores. As for those, whose Motivational Intelligence (MI) require external triggers, they tend to be either in the middle or the lower rung of the Motivation Trigger Index™. People in this category tend to require an appreciable amount of Positive External Triggers (PETs) and ironically, if they have quite a bit of this, they are bound to excel at their tasks, in some cases, even with distinction. However, unlike the first group, their MTI scores tend to vacillate between just above average to poor, as a function of the amount of PETs they are exposed to in their work and related environment.
Job Design and Environment
Over the years, scientific management has sought to strip workers of their initiative, thus ridding the work environment of key intangibles such as skill set diversity, autonomy and most important of all, feedback, constructive or otherwise.
A perfect example of empowering employees and creating an environment that engenders optimum productivity and creativity is to seek input from your employees, even when you, as a leader, know what the solution to a problem is. They may even suggest the solution you have in mind and you can give them credit for it.
Rewards System
The rewards system must be one that does not give rise to suspicion or insinuations of favoritism. While majority of organizations, big or small, insist on building a "team atmosphere", it is imperative that top performers, particularly those that most closely espouse the company's core principles within the framework of its corporate culture, are duly rewarded and recognized as such.
This process should however be carefully monitored and managed, so as to ensure that everyone (including the non-monetary contributors) feels a sense of belonging to the organization, through their own respective contributions.
It is a well-known fact that the successful execution of a company's business strategy must involve everyone on the ship.
Group Influence
This can either be a "good thing" or a "bad thing", but it depends on how you look at it. Now, while it can create a negative work environment due to its potentially divisive and mostly political nature, it is an unavoidable phenomenon.
Most organizations have learned to not only exist but also flourish with just the "right amount" of group-think, as it actually may engender a spirit of collaboration towards reaching the ultimate objectives of the organization.
The overriding attitude becomes one where the conclusion is that if the company wins, then everyone wins. 
© 2025 2CG MEDIA. Coker Confidential™

Thursday

3 Risk Management Functions for Secure Cloud Governance.....

CC™ Technocrat

The method of managing risks on cloud has witnessed a big shift as the pressure on governance model to track variants of risk has become high.

While risk formats have changed in the industry, business continuity is said to be affected with the ushering in of cloud model. The pressure on cloud service providers is increasing in terms of identifying and tracking new risks emerging out of this trend, which sometimes has an adverse impact on the business. 


Sethu Seetaraman, VP/Chief Risk Officer, Mphasis, says that risk management basics do not change with cloud. However, the way in which a control is implemented and monitored is what has changed. “As far as BCP/DR is concerned, the organisation owns BCP/DR in case of Infrastructure as a Service and Platform as a Service. Service providers will own BCP/DR in case of Software as a Service. 


You must build or take these services from the cloud service provider based on the availability risk,” avers Seetharaman. 


Why 3 functions of Risk Management are Key to Governance.....


Just as with IT governance, risk management in cloud governance must fulfill three functions argue most CISOs.

Atul Pandey, The ICT Rainmaker: GRC, GSD, PMO & BPM, mentions the three functions: a) Assessing risk b) mitigating risk, and c) measuring the success of that assessment and mitigation.

Pandey says that this is not a static scenario. Risk shifts continually, and the cloud governance model must be able to track these shifts.

Stating facts established by Thomas J. Betcher in his report on a clear analysis of risk and cloud in Cloud Computing: Key IT-Related Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Consideration by IT Security Practitioners,’ Pandey puts forth the type of risks to be managed under the cloud model. 

They include:
  • Policy and Organisational risks: Lock-in, loss of governance, compliance challenges, loss of business reputation, cloud service termination or failure.
  • Technical Risks: Availability of service, resource exhaustion, intercepting data in transit, data transfer bottlenecks, distributed denial of service.
  • Legal Risk: Subpoena and e-discovery, changes of jurisdiction, data privacy, licensing.

According to Pandey, one particularly important observation in the Betcher report relates to risk and frequency. Many traditional IT governance models are designed around IT life-cycles of around three years. 

Within these cycles, IT audit leaves a detailed trail of version and upgrade information.

With the cloud, this changes. Not only does the cycle shrink massively (change can now be measured in hours and weeks rather than in years), the actual versioning of the technology behind the service can remain completely hidden from the consumer. 

As a result, cloud governance models must be able to assess risk from this entirely new perspective.

How Continuity is affected.....

Pandey believes that continuity in itself is solicited as the USP of cloud, at least in comparison with traditional infra.

Business continuity management (BCM) is the result of critical functions and processes assuring that a system performs its mission without incidence, and that the entity responds to all acts or events in a planned, consistent manner. 

Business continuity planning is rehearsed through scenario analysis which:
  • Targets new, evolving or projected risks affecting business operations.
  • Simulates and evaluates the effect of disruptions in information systems support and response time delays.
  • Provides the ground for experimenting on effective solutions to every type of BCM disruption entering into the scenario.
“The analysis to which reference is made is instrumental in elaborating BCM clauses in service level agreements (SLAs) with cloud computing providers,” says Pandey and adds, “Sound governance assures that business continuity studies are part of the evaluation process preceding any top management decision in adopting cloud computing; it also constitutes a factor in choosing a cloud provider.”

Reprinted/Republished with permission from: www.csoforum.in

Wednesday

Former Tesla director Larry Ellison invited Elon Musk to Hawaii to 'dry out' from drugs, report says

CC™ Business Interest

 and 

Elon Musk's drug use so worried his business associates and company board members that they asked him to go to rehab and even take a break from working to "dry out" from various substances, including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and ketamine, a new report from The Wall Street Journal said.

Larry Ellison, Musk's close friend, a former Tesla director, and the billionaire cofounder of Oracle, went so far as to urge Musk to travel to Hawaii during winter 2022 to pause his work and avoid drugs, the outlet reported, citing people familiar with the offer.

Ellison's proposal came amid increasing concerns among Musk's friends and associates that Musk's drug use was getting worse, some of those people told the Journal.

At a party in the Hollywood Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles around the time of Ellison's suggestion, the report added, one person who attended the event said Musk drank ecstasy in "liquid form" from a water bottle after having his personal security clear the floor for privacy.

The Journal reported the "volume" of Musk's drug use had contributed to a culture of peer pressure among Musk's friends and board directors of his various companies that created an "expectation" for them to use drugs alongside him to maintain the social status gained by being close to the billionaire.

Musk, Ellison, and their lawyers Alex Spiro and Christopher Muzzi did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

The Journal previously reported Musk, who is reportedly one of several executives in Silicon Valley to try his hand at psychedelics such as ketamine, had also indulged in LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and "magic" mushrooms.

Despite proclaiming that he doesn't "like doing illegal drugs," Musk's drug use has previously put him and his companies on notice.

After he smoked marijuana on an episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast, NASA made SpaceX pledge in writing that the company was following federal guidelines on drug use in the workplace. The company spent $5 million in taxpayer money to properly train its employees on the rules, the Journal reported.

The billionaire also said on X that he had a prescription for ketamine, which research has suggested can be used to treat depression.

Experts previously told BI that the combination of hard drugs Musk is said to have used came with several health risks, especially at his age of 52.

Those include irregular heartbeat and incontinence, as well as psychosis if the user has bipolar disorder. In 2017, CNBC reported Musk suggested to his Twitter followers that he had the disorder.

Source: Business Insider

Tuesday

Opinion Flashback: Muhammadu Buhari - From tyranny to democracy and back again to tyranny

CC™ Viewpoint - By Editor-in-Chief 

It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend President Muhammadu Buhari.

As news of a general descent into lawlessness permeates the Nigerian and indeed global airwaves, the neutral among those that supported Muhammadu Buhari's aspirations for the highest office in Africa, as well as one of the most influential in the world in 2015, have been left rather disappointed and almost embarrassed at the turn of events in the country.

The recent proscription of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) the Shiite Muslim sect in Northern Nigeria by a Fulani president of the Sunni faith, is further proof that PMB's propensity for tyranny was indeed a valid fear harbored by millions of Nigerians before the 2015 elections. This move could not have come at a worse time and adds to the litany of missteps by a man reputed by his military peers for being impatient and reactionary, two traits not conducive to ensuring good judgement as a leader.

When the same Buhari came into power in 2015, this time through the ballot as opposed to the bullet (as he had done in 1983 in overthrowing the late Shehu Shagari), most Nigerians were hopeful that he had learned his lessons and was a more mature, open-minded and cerebral leader. Unfortunately, the decisions that have been made by this administration, from the Fulani herdsmen terror of the Nigerian people that still rages on, to the recent proscription of a religious sect that was demanding the release of their leader (as has been already ordered by the highest court in the land), have left a lot to be desired and the environment is becoming even more fertile for a potential conflict of civil war proportions, if things continue the way they are going.

President Muhammadu Buhari rode the wave of a popular democratic uprising at the polls like has never been seen before in the history of Nigeria and indeed Africa. For the first time ever, an incumbent democratically elected president was defeated at the polls, and Buhari assumed office without a single shot being fired! 

The previous administration under the abjectly clueless Goodluck Jonathan, was an absolute train-wreck and had in fact ceded some Nigerian real estate to the Boko Haram terror group. PMB promised to deliver on security as he was a retired General who had also fought in the Nigerian civil war.

To date, the president has not delivered on that singular promise and if recent reports by the Wall Street Journal are anything to go by, the war is anything but won as PMB recently declared. Things are actually getting worse in the brutal war being waged by Boko Haram and its affiliates, with Nigerian soldiers reportedly being buried in unmarked secret graves. Thus, family members and indeed Nigerians (and possibly the president himself) are being lied to by the military with regard to the true state of things on the war front.

Whether it's the continued detention of the only Christian among the kidnapped Chibok female students - Leah Sharibu (with reports now saying she may have been killed by her captors), while her Muslim peers were all released, the heavy-handed response to IPOB, the selective prosecution of supposed corrupt individuals (while Buhari himself remains surrounded by corrupt benefactors), the equally heavy-handed response to the Shiites in Nigeria (which risks another Boko Haram-like insurgency) while turning a blind eye to the murderous escapades of the Fulani herdsmen, the president has shown a propensity for jaundiced ethno-religious and parochial malfeasance. 

At the last elections in 2019, given the President's vulnerability as a result of his political missteps, if the PDP or any of the opposition parties had fielded a credible candidate, Buhari would have had to resort to massive rigging to stay in office. Some may say he did but Atiku, his main rival lacked the moral fabric or political cache to move the needle across the Nigerian landscape. 

In closing, President Buhari must do better as history will judge him as a man that was given so much but gave back so little, if anything. There needs to be an inquiry by the legislative arm of the government into the report by the Wall Street Journal of Nigerian soldiers being buried in secret graves. There is a good chance that most, if not all of the soldiers being given such a horrendous treatment, are probably from the South or the Middle-Belt (my reliable sources tell me). Nigeria will not survive at this rate and no amount of intimidation by the security forces can stop the impending revolution that will surely follow, if the status quo remains. 

Nigeria as presently constituted, is unsustainable and it is incumbent upon those that truly have the best interest of the nation at heart to stand up and be counted. There is currently a Jihad being waged by the Fulani hegemony in Nigeria (please do not be fooled by the appeals of the Sultan of Sokoto - as he is the third arm of Nigeria's own Third Reich), but it has already failed as these are different times and the people are prepared. If the genocide currently being perpetrated against Christians, Middle-Belters and Southerners continues, not only will Nigeria collapse, but President Buhari and Nasir El-Rufai may end up having a case to answer at the Hague. 

Nigeria must not only survive, but also flourish (as it should) for the good of Africa. 

Monday

Islamic State (ISWAP) moved $30M annual revenue through Nigeria's financial system under Buhari government - ECOWAS organization


CC™ Breaking News

The Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa, established by the Economic Community of West African States, says Boko Haram splinter group, Islamic State West Africa Province, moved about $30 million generated from trading and taxing communities in the Lake Chad region through the Nigerian financial system annually, under the past Buhari administration. 

The group, set up by ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government in 2000, stated that both Boko Haram and ISWAP had continued to mobilize, move and utilize funds through the nation’s formal financial and commercial system.

It noted that the Buhari administration lacked adequate insight into Boko Haram and ISWAP’s international connections and support system, and abuse of the formal financial and commercial sectors.

It said even though the Department of State Services (DSS) had significant ability to identify and investigate the financing activities of terrorist groups, while also  also conducting parallel financial and terrorism investigations, there was little evidence of the effectiveness of such efforts, under the Buhari administration.

Sunday

“Our women prefer Nigerian husbands” — Kenyan President Ruto ‘concerned’

CC™ PersPective

By Ismail

Kenyan President William Ruto has expressed concerns about the growing number of Kenyan women marrying Nigerian men, including his own daughters.

Speaking at a recent wedding event, Ruto humorously reflected on what he called a noticeable trend, revealing that two of his daughters have married Nigerian men.

With a tone of playful concern, he questioned why Kenyan men seem to be falling behind in the romantic race.

“My daughter is married to a Nigerian, and this one is now married to a Nigerian. And our guys around; I don’t know, are you slow? I don’t know,” the president quipped.

Ruto went on to jokingly warn that if the trend continues, Kenya might face a “brain drain,” as more women choose Nigerian partners.

The comment, while delivered in jest, has stirred discussions on social media across both Kenya and Nigeria.

An Instagram user, @folajimijoseph wrote, “I was in the elevator with a Brazilian tourist in New York, she asked where I’m from, the moment I mentioned Nigeria there was this glow on her face. Then she said “I love Nigerians”. Nigerian men are gold worldwide.”

Another user, @xrixy_walker added, “Nigerian men keep representin’. The most highly sought after men in the world. ???.”

@chukwunonsoinoma penned: “The men should come and marry Nigerian ladies. We have great women that will help build the economy of Kenya and make great impacts.”

Watch the video below …


Thursday

Flashback - This is not Ronald Reagan's GOP

CC™ PersPective

Forget the Grand Old Party. Today's maddening, intransigent GOP is a Gang of Purists
This was the week when the grand bargain on the debt ceiling all but died, when Republicans opted to continue impaling themselves on the hook of the Paul Ryan plan — because they really do want to voucherize and destroy Medicare.
House Speaker John Boehner, who had proposed the grand bargain, which the president then advanced in negotiations with both parties, abruptly abandoned it as his caucus rebelled and Majority Leader Eric Cantor schemed a coup to depose him.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who may care about the country but surely understands political strategy, then offered another path out of the box canyon into which Republicans have backed themselves — where they face the prospect of being blamed for collapsing the full faith and credit of the United States, cutting off Social Security checks, and perhaps shattering the national and global economies. McConnell's was a clever and cynical tactic: Give the president the authority to raise the debt limit in three tranches — any one of which Congress could override with a two-thirds majority in both houses — so Democrats would have to cast three votes for higher debt while Republicans could enjoy three votes against it and reinforce a campaign message. McConnell was supported by The Wall Street Journal — which is conservative, not crazy — but scorned by tea-baggers in and out of Congress who live in their own private fiscal world, which bears about as much relationship to economics as creationism does to science. Playing to the extremists, the lupine Cantor then escalated the confrontation by concocting a fable that the president stomped out of the debt talks at the White House; in fact, Obama had rejected Cantor's demands and the session was ending for the day. The president does live and work in the White House — much as Cantor and his ilk can't abide that — and as a matter of course, leaves when a meeting concludes.
Those who hate the government can't run the government — except into the ground.
This cheap attempt to make Obama look bad was too transparent to convince anyone other than Cantor's peanut gallery. But the episode and the entire course of events over the past week reveal the fundamentally misshapen character of today's Republican Party. It is not a governing party: As I've observed before, those who hate the government can't run the government — except into the ground.
Meanwhile, the GOP's presidential candidates are eagerly embracing — or being compelled to coddle — a far-out agenda. Most of them may be rooting for default, and some are claiming, incredibly, that it would be no big deal. (Maybe they should consult former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson about the crash of Lehman Brothers before they invite the mother of all financial crises.) And the only Republican presidential contenders who might have a plausible chance — Mitt Romney, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman — are regarded with suspicion in their own ranks, less now for their Mormon religion than for the sin of occasionally looking reasonable. Indeed, this was also the week when two different polls showed Michele Bachman leading Romney in Iowa — by three or thirteen points — while other Republicans were longing for the candidacy of secession-friendly Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
The dominant forces in today's GOP not only propose to roll back the history of the past 75 years; they have also betrayed their own history. They are not the Grand Old Party as we have known it; they are the Gang Of Purists — bent on the politics of polarization, their more sensible leaders held hostage to the threat of defenestration in the next round of primary contests. They invoke Ronald Reagan as their hero, but they are the real RINOs: Reaganites In Name Only. Indeed, they are out of step with every Republican president from Richard Nixon to yes, even George W. Bush, whom they openly disdain after giving him lock-step support while he was in office.
Nixon himself was a polarizing figure — in part because of the Vietnam War, and then because of the paranoia which impelled him to "high crimes and misdemeanors." But there was another Nixon, too, one who was ready to bargain and move — at least on domestic issues — whether his motive was political advantage or the merits of policy making.
When George McGovern and Edward Kennedy took up the issue of hunger in America, Nixon sent Congress a message calling for decisive action. By the end of his foreshortened term, he had expanded the number of Americans receiving food stamps from 3 million to 16 million.
When Edmund Muskie and Scoop Jackson, other senators who were rivals to Nixon's re-election, took up the issue of the environment, the president at first held back, but then advocated and signed landmark legislation, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on the Southern Strategy that exploited the region's resentments against civil rights and desegregation. But once in the Oval Office, he instituted the Philadelphia Plan, the first major federal program for affirmative action, and the progenitor of a host of similar initiatives.
These may not have been his priorities, but they were an essential part of a process of governing — and electoral maneuvering — that preempted or compromised with the other party. The process was an expression of the post-New Deal settlement in which Republicans and Democrats differed on the scope and reach of government, but more often than not found answers, somewhere in between, to pressing national problems. Thus it was Richard Nixon, working with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who proposed a guaranteed national income.
All this, I suggest, and not just Watergate, is primarily why contemporary Republicans never refer to a Nixon legacy. Instead they have Reagan, who certainly sounded like a break with the post-New Deal settlement, although he was an old New Dealer himself, and quoted FDR in his 1980 acceptance speech for the Republican nomination.
Reagan got something else from Roosevelt, too — a streak of pragmatism that tempered and sometimes confounded his conservative ideology. He cut taxes, but when economic reality set in, signed two tax increases that together were the largest in peacetime history. He advocated a balanced budget constitutional amendment, but ran deficits every year of his term — during which federal spending was higher than its 40-year average. And he repeatedly raised the federal debt ceiling — a no-brainer to presidents of both parties.
Reagan denounced the "evil empire," then made peace with the Soviets. After his compact with Tip O'Neill to save Social Security, he joined with Democrats Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt to close loopholes and enact tax reform, and with Ted Kennedy to pass the 1986 immigration reform that provided amnesty and a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who had entered the United States before 1982.
Reagan was undoubtedly a conservative, but he was ready to make the system and the country work. "Facts," he famously said, "are stubborn things" — and he responded to them. You don't have to agree with all he did to recognize that his leadership was not a relentless exercise in heedless ideology.
Of course, the Republicans of 2011 willfully refuse to comprehend that; they worship the icon of a one-dimensional Reagan who never existed. With equal fervor, they regret the apostasy of the first George Bush, who betrayed the promise which helped him defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988: When we read his lips two years later, he was accurately and correctly saying that it was time for new taxes. As a result, he was challenged for re-nomination by Pat Buchanan, who was pouring rhetorical tea before there was a tea party. Bush's decision, combined with Bill Clinton's 1994 economic plan which passed the House without one Republican vote, gave America a decade of record job growth and a balanced budget for the first time in a generation.
Bush I not only negotiated with congressional Democrats on taxes, but made the prudent decision during the Gulf War to stop short of marching to Baghdad and occupying Iraq. For the latter, he was assailed by the neo-cons.  And both offenses were things Bush II was determined not to repeat. He mired the nation in a needless war and locked his party into intransigent posturing on taxes — which, along with his end-term recession, are the principal contributors to today's deficits. But with this Bush, too, some of the pragmatism remained. For example, he negotiated with Kennedy to achieve a second round of immigration reform — and in the face of potential economic catastrophe and in defiance of Republican dogma, accepted and then pushed through the 2008 TARP bailouts that averted the immediate and wholesale devastation of global finance.
But over time, the rhetoric on the Right has overcome the realities that impelled presidents on the Right to modulate their positions in the national interest. Thus, John McCain had to renounce his own record to secure the GOP nomination in 2008 and then salvage his own Senate seat two years later. The bitter reaction against Obama, who in critical times has compromised again and again in pursuit of bipartisan progress, has been amplified and disgraced by the caricatures of Obama as "the other," a "socialist," "un-American" — and by an almost-spoken racist revolt against the first African-American president.
On the most pressing questions, America needs two major parties that can hammer out solutions together. They may and will campaign hard against each other — and sometimes with brutal unfairness. But as Ronald Reagan said, "When the battle's over and the ground is cool, you see the other general's valor" — and we ask what all of us "can do for our country."
Today's GOP is something very different. It's not the party of Reagan, or Nixon or Bush — and certainly not Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower. And while fear and irrepressible fact in the last moments will probably extract a debt ceiling increase in some form, but probably not a grand bargain like the Reagan-O'Neill deal on Social Security, the Gang of Purists will promptly return to their new and angry incarnation as the party of no.
Eric Cantor has become the pinched face of this pseudo-Republican Party. And John Boehner embodies the fear of so many of its leaders and members that they could be so easily consigned to the fires of unreason. No wonder he leaves every negotiating session on the debt limit and chain smokes as he climbs into the limo that Cantor covets.
Source:  TheWeek.com