I have ridden in Porsches, Mercedes, BMWs and Volkswagens and loved the driving experience. I have enjoyed the luxury and comfort. I have marveled at the superior engineering and thrust for excellence.

Still, my Jewish heritage and the Holocaust horror have colored my appreciation for some of the world’s best cars. Germany’s Third Reich and its insidiously deadly Nazism have diminished my awe for the German car industry and its first-rate products.

I have learned more, sadly so. The cars so admired by American consumers ride on complicity in the Nazi deadly assault on European Jews. The evidence is clear and concerning.

In a country dedicated to forthright remembrance, the history of the BMW and the Porsche automobile dynasties now are tainted by facts unearthed by David de Jong, author of “Nazi Billionaires: The Dark History of Germany’s Wealthiest Dynasties” and recent essay in The New York Times. The corporate histories, as assessed by de Jong, are oblique. They skirt the inconvenient truth.

(My paternal grandmother, who died young, was German. My maternal grandfather was Austrian).

Ferdinand Porsche enjoined Adolf Hitler, creator of the murderous Third Reich, to enable the production of Volkswagen. His son, Ferry, willingly joined the SS in 1938, became an officer in 1941 and “lied about this for the rest of his life,” according to de Jong.

Porsche’s co-founder was a Jew, Adolf Rosenberger, whom Ferry Porsche accused of blackmail after he had to flee Germany and its purification crusade. In fact, Porsche received Rosenberger’s company shares after his father, Ferdinand, and brother-in-law, Anton Piech, bought out Rosenberger. paying way below market value for his shares. I would suspect that Porsche and Piech took full advantage of Rosenberger’s precarious position in Nazi Germany.

The Quandts, Gunther and his son Herbert, who founded BMW—and whose family also control Mini and Rolls-Royce—belonged to the Nazi Party. They “subjected as many as 57,500 people to forced or slave labor in their factories, producing weapons and batteries for the German war effort… Gunther Quandt acquired companies from Jews who were forced to sell their businesses at below market value and from others who had their property seized after Germany occupied their countries,” de Jong wrote.

Herbert Quandt also was responsible for planning, building and dissembling an incomplete concentration subcamp in Poland. He helped buy two Jewish-owned companies at below-market prices, benefitting from the distressful treatment of German Jews.

Accused of war crimes, Quandt avoided harsh treatment, saving BMW in 1960 from bankruptcy after inheriting his father’s fortune.

Some may wonder: why does the sordid history of incredibly successful car companies matter? American consumers love their cars. They are more than willing to pay for comfort and quality. So what, if the owners of premier auto makers were subservient to Hitler and his gang of criminals. accumulating vast fortunes, often on the back of Jews forced to work in their factories?

I for one would not buy a Porsche or Mercedes or BMW if I could afford to do so. These superb vehicles are tainted by abhorrent behavior by shrewd owners. The memory of the Holocaust haunts me. It always will.

Apologies and admissions by the German billionaires might change my opinion. The connection to Nazi Germany is fraught; obsequious deference to Hitler brought great riches. The sinful murder of six million Jews seemed irrelevant to the German oligarchs.

Cars are integral to our lives. They symbolize ingenuity and excellence. Inhumane practices in the past, however, matter to me. I can admire but not respect the founders of Germany’s prestigious autos.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Reunions are tests of time. Our everyday lives can and do interfere with our connections to family, friends and institutions. But time also offers a mosaic of what’s important, what’s not, who matters, who doesn’t.

Anyone who reads this column knows about my love for my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, the school founded by Ben Franklin, one of our nation’s most accomplished founders.

As my wife and I attended my 55th Reunion, which drew a far smaller crowd than our glorious 50th, I noted slower gaits (including mine), lower energy level, harder hearing—and unquenchable thirst to reconnect to a school that changed their lives and outlooks.

Conversation was easy and notably absent of political disagreement. As we straddle our mid 70s, pretense has vanished. Careers have ceased. Love of learning has flourished.

Three events stood out. Common themes were fun, fellowship and education. Sometimes they coalesced. Life’s rhythms, while running on slower notes, still propel my classmates. They are not sitting in the bleachers watching life go by; they are active participants, as they should be.

We listened intently as members of the Class of 1970 talked candidly about a school caught in the tumult of the late 1960s, fueled by the unpopular Vietnam war. They talked of sit-ins, protests, of a progression of actions that challenged authority and tradition. Students at the school from 1966 to 1970 viewed tradition as disposable.

From my vantage point, these fellow alumni seemed self-absorbed and self-important. They pursued necessary changes. But my journey happened in a different era, though separated by three years. We were not rebellious. They were resolute—and often successful—in seeking to upend the status quo.

Our Class of 1967 organized an hour-long session with a superb Ben Franklin-reenactor. He portrayed a confident, funny, inquisitive, intelligent and street-smart founding father. A man who had only a second-grade education, he had a razor-sharp mind, a student of his fellow founders and the political climate.

Unlike the puritanical John Adams, later our second president, he understood the nuances of diplomacy and the primary goal of gaining France’s support of our new country. If he had to wear a bear-skin cap to portray the French perception of American, so be it. If he had to stay up late and enjoy the Parisian social life, so he did, to the advantage of his home country.

He said he focused on the goal, not an arbitrary process envisioned by Adams. However, he did appreciate Adams’ contribution to our country.

Lastly, a party at the gorgeous Masonic Temple across from City Hall in Philadelphia was festive, marked not only by remembrances but also by constant talk of family, particularly grandchildren, and health matters. The vibrant members of the mid-to-late 70s tribe were enjoying their senior years, viewing fondly their experiences as undergrads before leaving the confines of academia for careers as adults.

For many  life has been fulfilling. For some, not so much. Acceptance of who we are now seemed a standard attitude. It is a necessary one. Being the bearer of a cane as is true of this writer is a device to continue living and learning.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Symbolizing the evils of slavery, the Confederate Talbot Boys Monument stirred a public outcry in Talbot County. After seven years of controversy, it found a new home at the Cross Keys Battlefield in Virginia.

Johns Hopkins University has voluntarily revealed on its website the slaveholding by its founder, tarnishing the acclaimed beneficence of the Baltimore merchant and investor.

Georgetown University, a highly regarded Jesuit school, has admitted it owned slaves and sold a few hundred to bolster the institution’s financial structure.

Harvard University, considered the most academically elite school in the United States, has admitted that many of its early donors owned slaves and accumulated fortunes on the backs of a severely repressed people.

These citadels of higher education are trying not to cleanse but expand its histories, opting for honesty and forthrightness. These efforts are commendable demonstrations of social conscience.

My concern, albeit controversial and open to misconception, is to what degree do we Whites take responsibility for horrific and crippling conditions in our nation. After reading “Caste,” I examined my own behavior and found flaws and errant thinking, as others should. I take responsibility for my thoughts and inadvertent behavior.

What worries me is our modern perspective of our Founding Fathers. Most, if not all, had slaves, paying them little and treating them brazenly. The counter argument that these men were simply creatures of their times seems to draw little sympathy these days. That is regrettable.

I am not suggesting that these imperfect men get a free pass. I am not suggesting that these men were innocent of blasphemous treatment of other human beings different only because of their skin color.

I am positing that name changes can go too far and invite charges of intolerance. The generosity of Johns Hopkins created an excellent university and world-class hospital. Call him a racist but do not ignore his philanthropy. Mind you, I have heard no rumblings about a name change.

When Princeton University erased President Woodrow Wilson’s name from the school of public and international affairs to the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, it made a mistake. Was Wilson a segregationist? Of course, he was, shamefully imposing segregation on the federal bureaucracy. He also served as president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and president of the United States. He helped lay the basis for the United Nations by seeking and failing to gain approval of Congress of the League of Nations. 

Just like that, Wilson’s name is gone to the detriment of the university. His legacy deserved a better fate at Princeton than relegation to ostracism through removal of his name from a building that exemplified his leadership.

Truth be known, I worry that the University of Pennsylvania, my alma mater, may decide to disassociate itself from its founder and icon, Ben Franklin. He had slaves. He supported slavery before he changed his mind toward the end of his life.

Three Franklin statues adorn this urban campus. He is my hero. His achievements as a scientist, inventor, statesman, patron and community leader are unmatched by other founders. He accepted the abhorrent norm of slavery so prevalent among the upper classes before he invested time at the end of his life in condemning it.

Name changes are understandable at times. When Yale University removed John Calhoun’s name from one if its college dorms, it did the right thing. He was an outspoken, unapologetic supporter of slavery, an influential disciple of imprisoning people’s souls and bodies on plantations.

Erasure is one way of condemning slavery. Being tolerant and understanding of the good and bad, as should have been the case with Woodrow Wilson, is another option.

Names matter. They signify a brand. They personify a legacy, which sometimes includes injustice and bias. Do a legendary figure’s good deeds outweigh his or her misdeeds? The question is complicated, open to bitter disagreement.

Princeton was wrong. Yale was right. Penn, like Hopkins, must acknowledge the failings of its founders. Ben Franklin‘s views on slavery warrant full disclosure—but not erasure from the campus and the school’s history.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Given permission by the federal government to proceed on the planning for a third Chesapeake Bay Bridge adjacent to the existing two spans, the state must commit $40 million to design a plan for review by the Federal Highway Administration.

Meanwhile, the Queen Anne’s County Commission is promoting an eight-lane Bay Bridge to replace the two heavily used spans with one structure that supposedly will accommodate future traffic. One of the spans was completed in 1952 and the other in 1973. Let the fierce battle begin between the build-the-bridge gang and the conservationists. The public discourse will be intense and bitter.

I side with the bridge opponents, with a twist. My recommendation is a rapid-transit option, acknowledging its huge cost and public opposition to traveling by any manner other than a car. Vehicular travel is still king in our country. 

I have voiced this recommendation previously. I realize it is a poorly supported option, one that would relegate vehicles to a second thought. The primary question will be: how can we (parents) carry our children, their toys and luggage to the beach? Is it possible? Is it practical?

I am an optimist. The rapid transit cars could contain storage. Sounds simple to me; maybe it is not. The rapid transit could use the right of the way running in the middle of Route 50. Another possibility would be a multi-level bridge that would bear the brunt of increasing commuter traffic on one level, and rapid transit for beachgoers on the other level.

Most importantly, traffic would not build to a more onerous level than is the case now. And, even more critically, valuable Eastern Shore farmland would not be lost. Shore life would be undisturbed. Motorists would not rule the Delmarva Peninsula. New residential development would not mushroom.

Unlike ardent conservationists, I believe another span is necessary, but under the already stated conditions. I believe it is inevitable, though years and millions and millions of dollars in the future. It will be a tedious slough for the pro-bridgers.

Projected to cost at least $10 billion, I suspect it will be closer to $20 billion, if not more, when all is said and done. Public works projects such as this one will require a humongous investment of federal financial support. Politics, lawsuits and recessions will interfere. The process will be rife with controversy.

I do commend the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) for taking a comprehensive approach that views a third or replacement bridge as necessitating an improved road system on both the eastern and western shores. MDOT also understands the environmental damage to Bay creatures and pollution.

Consideration of another span assumes that traffic will increase along with expanding population on both shores. That assumption is questionable if climate change and global warming erode significant acreage. Current residents might move to higher elevations.

Count me as an intensely interested observer. Though a self-exile in Annapolis, I love the Eastern Shore and want to protect its pristine qualities. The impact too on the Western Shore will be significant and harmful. Valuable property will vanish under concrete. Too much is at stake.

This will not be my last Bay Bridge column. The future cannot be ignored. The two existing spans changed life on the Shore. Nothing was the same afterwards. A third span, either adjoining what is there or replacing it with an eight-lane structure, will be an irreversible game-changer. 

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

The noise created recently by accusations that Senator Dianne Feinstein, long-standing Democratic U.S. Senator from California, is experiencing cognitive problems at 88, has compelled me to wonder about the impact of advanced age on performing at a high level in politics, as well as other career sectors.

When a public official paid by taxpayers begins to suffer the ravages of old age, should that person retire immediately and avoid assertions of unintentional incompetence? I believe that the answer is easier if those making the observations have no political agendas.

Our 79-year-old president, Joe Biden, has endured age-related skepticism after his predecessor called him “Slow Joe” during the 2020 presidential campaign. The image stuck of a cognitively challenged president, though the source of this sophomoric quip is a man who uttered more than 30,000 lies during his fatuous four-year term.

I am hard-pressed to characterize Nancy Pelosi, the 82-year-old Speaker of the House, as inept or mentally declining. Some believe that U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, the 88-year-old Iowa Republican, is suffering cognitive degeneration. I believe, however, that he has always talked slowly, unable to match the verbal acuity of some of his colleagues.

When I retired at 65, I decided that I did not want to be pushed aside or simply tolerated because of past achievements. I wanted to determine my future the best I could. I believe that others should do the same.

Paid handsomely by American taxpayers, politicians ought to be particularly sensitive to the effect of aging, to understand and appreciate that one’s mind may operate more slowly, if not more forgetfully. Close advisors may need to stage an intervention, a fraught action at best.

Our aged politicians should step aside in response to serious cognitive issues. They should acknowledge that they are ill serving their constituents by remaining in place.

Sen. Feinstein has brushed aside derogatory comments about her declining capability, blaming her forgetfulness on personal distress caused by the recent death of her husband. While I am loath to minimize the impact of emotional misfortune, I think that Feinstein should not ignore objective observations, however hurtful.

Every day, this 76-year-old makes embarrassing mistakes often apparent only to me and my wife. Nonetheless, these minor mental hiccups signal to me some diminution of my brain—though I would be far too critical. I refuse to lie to myself. Were I an elected official, I might question my efficacy and resign. My ego would be secondary.

As we all know, personal weakness is tough, if not impossible to own and act upon. Claiming your infirmity and consequent reduction of independence are emotionally wrenching. Add an individual’s commitment to his or her job—particularly in public service when you might believe erroneously that no one is as capable as you—or the enjoyment of power is just too intoxicating—and retirement is anguishing to contemplate.

At the outset of this column, I mentioned Sen. Feinstein, the long-serving California senator and assertions made by close observers that her memory and focus are diminishing. She refutes these claims. Someone objective like a family member or trusted advisor might be the proper judge.

Too many examples exist among friends, family and politicians of failing cognitive health. They cannot be ignored or denied. Reality is often sad and depressing.

Several years ago, I watched with dismay as State Comptroller William Donald Schaefer, former governor and Baltimore City mayor, served while coping with advanced age and a bluntness that was unfortunate at times. He was a political hero of mine for more than 50 years. Watching his decline was painful. In one instance at a Board of Public Works (BPW) meeting, he uttered an unfortunate remark that drew excessive media attention, to Schaefer’s detriment and the substance of the BPW meeting. Under heavy pressure, he apologized later to the person whom he insulted.

Aging is necessary and disabling. The impact on public policy and leadership can be harmful.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

I really like the Brits. I cannot help myself. Stripped long ago of its status as a world power, Great Britain continues to contain proud, resolute and stalwart people who fight above their weight in world affairs and treat American visitors with respect and candor.

The week spent by my wife and me in Oxford, the Cotswolds and Dorset confirmed, if not enhanced, my fondness for people who face their national challenges with intelligence and grit.

And by the way, they are terrific hosts.

My affection for England began when I attended the University of Manchester in 1967-1968 after graduation from college. I found my British classmates engaging and opinionated. They were lively and friendly.

Then, in 1985, my wife and I met friends-to-be in Bath, England through a fellow officer in the Maryland Army National Guard. From that time on, these wonderful friends and we have traveled to Scotland, Italy and Paris, France. We keep in constant touch; emails can become political battlegrounds, but we enjoy the verbal/written combat.

Yesterday, we returned from seven days in Oxford and Dorset, including three days in Milton-on-Stour, near Gillingham in Dorset. The highlight was attending an Easter service at a small, comfortable 15th century church in Silton, which overlooks a lovely farm.

The Easter sermon, focusing on love and acceptance, was concise and meaningful. The priest projected a relaxed, conversational style that I found very appealing. As did the members of this historic Anglican Church—the message was joyful and optimistic.

When I think about the British people whom I have met, certain words come to mind: proud, gritty, determined and wise.

The response to the German blitz on London during World War II, the acceptance of Jewish children in response to the Nazi extermination, the stubbornness and determination displayed in leaving the European Union and the perspective gleaned from 1200 years of existence—enable me to think nearly unconditionally complimentary of the Brits.

Of course, a common language enhances the chance to establish relationships with folks living in a foreign country. Shared values also play a role. A natural kinship results.

A trip to the United Kingdom invariably provides a time for pleasure and learning. A culture centuries old opens up vistas of appreciation for an island country once the most powerful in the world—and now still a major player on the world stage with a respected voice.

My wife and I are always pleased to return home to the familiar and comfortable. Nonetheless, the seven-day immersion in England is good for the soul and the heart. Our good British friends offered gracious hospitality as well as strong friendship cultivated over 37 years.

I hope this is not our last trip to the United Kingdom. It is too precious an experience, too important for a lengthy absence.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

The recent death of Judge Bill Horne leaves a void on the Mid-Shore. He was a native son who has left a legacy of public service and straight talk combined with an engaging and distinctive sense of humor.

Several years ago, as my wife and I were visiting Florence, Italy, we stopped for lunch in a delightful outdoor cafe at the famous Uffizi Museum. As we were eating, I saw a familiar face and walked over to him while realizing again how small our world really was. Yes, it was Bill Horne, then the circuit court judge for Talbot County.

He seemed pleased to see us, and we him. A conversation with Bill Horne was always easy and comfortable. He had no airs.He was bright and witty.

Appointed a judge in 1989 by then Gov. William Donald Schaefer after 16 years in the House of Delegates, Horne ended his service in the Maryland General Assembly as chair of the House Judiciary Committee. That committee, as is true today, handled many sensitive issues related to criminal law and sentencing, for example.

In the late 1980s, the Eastern Shore had powerful voices in Annapolis, exemplified by Speaker of the House Clay Mitchell of Kent County and, of course, Bill Horne. That sort of power no longer characterizes the Eastern Shore Delegation, sadly so.

Mitchell and Horne were conservative Democrats, a lost breed in the corridors of power in Annapolis. As is true in Congress, the extremes in the Democratic and Republican parties rule the roost. Just a fact in today’s political environment.

My sense, confirmed by Bill Horne’s associates, was that he did not suffer fools gladly. He expected those testifying before the House Judiciary County and appearing as lawyers before the Talbot County Circuit Court to be prepared. That was fair. He naturally had little time and patience for those who chose to avoid diligent homework.

I was not surprised to read that his sentencing was tough, mixed with fairness.

In his later years, Horne, who lived in the Shireton on Dover Street, could be seen strolling with his long walking stick. He was amiable and approachable.

 It is too easy to forget the invaluable contributions made to the community by the likes of Bill Horne. He mentored many.

A circuit court judge in the one-judge counties on the Eastern Shore has immense power. He or she determines the tenor of justice in a jurisdiction like Talbot County, along with the one District Court judge. He or she is responsible for the public perception of justice in the Court House.

Horne served the public as State’s Attorney, state delegate and circuit court judge. He relished the obligations, knowing he was operating under a relentless glare of the court of public opinion.

His family and friends will miss Horne. So will our community, particularly those who had the privilege to know and like the Easton gentleman. He made his mark through his keen intelligence, his personality and his ethics.

I will always remember crossing paths with Judge Horne in the unlikely place of an eatery at the Uffizi Museum in Florence. He was affable and funny.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

For months I have thought about the transgender swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania and the national publicity surrounding a young woman who two years ago was a male and recently won the NCAA 500-meter freestyle championship, as well as setting four women’s school records.

Is it fair?

This question has rattled my justice scale for months. I wondered if the raging controversy was one in which I wanted to dive.

So here it goes. Lia Thomas began taking testosterone suppression drugs two years ago. A former member of Penn’s men’s swimming team, Lia saw her speed diminish. Yet she was setting records as a woman.

Sixteen teammates complained in a well-publicized letter. A few teammates supported her. I wondered how she could cope with the increasingly intense media attention. I worried about her mental well-being, though the university strongly supported her participation.

I was torn and anguished. The fairness question dominated my thinking.

Meanwhile, some of my 76-77-year-old college classmates, when approached by me for 55th Reunion donations, adamantly criticized the school’s “woke” (progressive) environment. What about a contribution? In one case, the response was a flat no.

Still, I was still undecided. Were a daughter of mine a member of Penn’s swim team, having spent most of her sports life anxious to break records, she might have found the aspiration closed to her because of Lia Thomas. She might have been angry. And so might I have been.

Pictures of Lia show a powerfully built woman. Her size and strength are impressive, let alone her talent in the pool. Mind you, tennis greats Serena and Vanessa look strong to me. They are tremendous athletes.

My knowledge of biology is minuscule. What I do know is that puberty changes the makeup of a boy, enabling him to outrun and our-swim most young women. Of course, there are exceptions. I am not questioning determination, competitiveness and inner toughness.

The line between men’s and women’s sports is blurring. That’s possible. Maybe I am blind to that phenomenon. Transgender athletes may become more commonplace as our society accepts biological changes that roil a pool’s lanes.

Anyone who reads this column knows I disdain discrimination. While I honor and respect Lia Thomas’ decision, I cannot ignore the fairness factor. As a former college lacrosse jock, I well understand the difference in athletic ability between outstanding athletes and average ones (like this writer). I easily accepted my limited ability compared with teammates blessed with superior athletic talent. I compensated with scrappiness.

The crunch point is athletic prowess based upon the physiological difference between men and women. Is it completely understood?

I believe that the University of Pennsylvania (my alma mater) did not take sufficient time to study Lia’s physical attributes and the impact on the performance metrics of her teammates. Was the decision inherently fair? That question continues to hound me.

The decision was fraught, I am sure, encompassing respect for Lia and her difficult decision to become a woman and the legal complexities involved in appearing to punish a person for a courageous action. I hope, however, that Penn considered Lia’s teammates and their athletic goals and dreams.

The resulting criticism by Lia Thomas’ teammates and the intense media controversy have proved harmful to Penn’s image.

Thomas and her teammates have dealt with emotional pain on top of the normal physical exertion. It will be a season steeped in historical significance, punctuated by troubling undercurrents. Penn could have handled this explosive situation in a more balanced way.

In time, these decisions may become routine, barely requiring media attention. That’s not the case now.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

 

Just imagine that you are an oligarch. You are filthy rich. Your power is enormous. Your patron is the authoritarian leader of a vast country, with wide, opaque power to reward his friends—and kill his enemies.

The country is Russia. The leader is Vladimir Putin. He demands your loyalty, and, I am guessing, a healthy kickback for favored status. Your wealth is off the charts. You run state-sponsored industries. You are a capitalist in a Communist system.

Your life of late has been rocky. Due to severe sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union countries, you have seen your toys, such as mega yachts, planes and enormous homes confiscated.

It doesn’t seem fair. Though your patron Putin sought the conquest of Ukraine, you simply did nothing wrong but accumulate other-worldly wealth in a rigged, uncompetitive system. You were just an opportunist. What’s wrong with that?

Just this: you have been enabling a crooked leader to invade a neighboring country because he wants to restore the greatness of the former Soviet Union. He covets respect. He will use all means to achieve his goal.

You the oligarch must suffer too. You support a corrupt, ruthless leader. Every relationship has consequences. That is true in every country. You benefit, and then you suffer.

Are there oligarchs in the United States? Yes, though this term is normally not used.

Have they retained their wealth through favorable treatment by the American government? Yes, primarily through advantageous tax laws.

Do they have ready access to political leaders to whom they have given large sums of money for expensive campaigns? Indeed, they do, using that leverage at times to block government actions harmful to their personal and professional interests.

Is another form of American oligarchy the awarding of prestigious ambassadorships to large donors? Yes, of course. Political patronage typically favors a few, who then have access to a mayor, county executive, governor and president,

My naïveté kicks in at this point, I suspect. The American version of oligarch differs greatly from the Russian model. In most cases, people such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Sheryl Sandberg, Robert Johnson and Warren Buffett have generated incredible fortunes valued at billions and billions of dollars through their own entrepreneurial skills and networking.

However, the process was clear and fair. They received no government favors, at least initially, that differed markedly from any other entrepreneur. In fact, as their net worth mushroomed, regulatory scrutiny grew more intense. Now they must spend millions and millions of dollars to ward off government interference and oversight.

While it is true that Gates, Buffett, Sandburg, Johnson and Bezos, among many others, have ready access to political leaders, even socializing with them at times and contributing to campaigns through powerful political action committees (PACs), their status does not compare with Russian oligarchs whose success came solely with the blessing of Putin. The American success came about in a competitive arena.

Many American plutocrats hate politics. Just ask them. They do not trust the wily practitioners of politics. They consider them a necessary evil. Yet they are smart and rich enough to hire lobbyists and lawyers to protect their interests in Washington, DC and state capitals. This is entirely legal, though unseemly under the media microscope.

Will increasingly stiff sanctions prompt Russian oligarchs to rise up in opposition to Putin? I doubt it. Putin responds to opposition through deadly means and prison sentences.

The expression, “you live by the sword, you die by the sword” applies here. Oligarchs mined their relations with the inscrutable Putin to gain riches unavailable to others. Now they are suffering from sanctions on their funds and material assets.

Being a prized member of an elite club of hugely wealthy persons is intoxicating. The invasion by Russia of Ukraine has placed an ominous cloud over the oligarch’s lifestyles. Friendship with Putin comes with a high price.

I would much rather be ridiculously rich in the United States than ride the gravy train in Russia.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

 

 

When I read last week about the withdrawal by Sarah Bloom Raskin of her nomination to the Federal Reserve Board in the face of fierce opposition from Republicans and Senator Joe Manchin (D, W. Va.) due to her views about climate control and global warming, I was deeply disappointed.

She was sacrificed on the altar of the fossil fuel industry and political expediency. Her withdrawal was necessary to enable the Senate Banking Committee to vote on and approve three other nominations to the Federal Reserve Board at a time of economic turmoil caused by raging inflation.

Treatment of Sarah Bloom Raskin, an exceedingly competent attorney and public servant, is the Washington Way. Both Democrats and Republicans have torpedoed presidential nominations over the years, destroying reputations and demonstrating for everyone to see the fractious and vicious environment peculiar to our nation’s Capital.

What did Bloom Raskin do to inspire such adamantly ugly controversy? She evoked common sense, a rare commodity sometimes in the political realm by advocating that the Federal Reserve monitor the impact of decisions by banks concerning climate change and global warming.

In other words, Raskin, a former Fed board member, deputy secretary of Treasury and chief financial regulator in Maryland, opined that financial institutions consider the effect of climate change in evaluating the risks of loans and investments.

She might as well have waved a red flag in the faces of the fossil fuel industry and the West Virginia senator beholden to the deep-seated coal interests in his state. Manchin, the Democratic spoiler in the U.S. Senate, which is split 50-50 between the two parties, seems oblivious to coal-produced pollution and health concerns.

Manchin and others know that Bloom Raskin is a rational person whose regulatory behavior is not radical. It mattered not in this instance. She was fair game for personal assassination.

Good people have fallen victim to political crosswinds in a city preoccupied with power, re-election and a zero-sum game. This time around, I believe that satisfaction of a powerful lobby outweighed consideration of a top-flight nominee.

While I am railing about the ways and means of political combat, I must change gears a notch to focus on Maryland’s First Congressional District and its Rep. Andy Harris. He and 15 other conservative members of the House of Representatives voted against a widely approved proposal to recognize the inhumane internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II through a history network administered by the National Park Service.

The dastardly decision by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to call for this onerous action stained a country fighting to rid the world of Adolf Hitler–who raised racism to a new level of horror and disgust. Internment camps on American soil represented senseless bigotry perpetuated by government leaders determined to punish good people guilty of sharing the same ethnic heritage of Japan, our American enemy.

We did not imprison Americans of German lineage during World War II. Nor should we have considered doing so.

Harris opined that other weightier matters deserved congressional attention. On one hand, he is right. On the other hand, programs that instruct without offending the public offer a necessary message: avoid cruel treatment of fellow Americans and do not allow current events, such as Covid, tied by some to China, to justify verbal and physical attacks on Chinese Americans.

The Federal Reserve Board, criticized of late for its tardy response to inflation, has lost the services of a first-rate public servant. Congressman Harris again has exhibited his shameful disregard of decency and fairness.

The Washington swamp continues to emit repugnant odors. Nothing new.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.