George Orwell and the Pursuit of Truth

One of the handful of mandates which I have tried to keep front and center in my mind—and in my actions—is the pursuit of truth. When asked what I most took away from my education at Yale, it was the respect for the pursuit of truth. When asked what I discovered at Procter & Gamble which most surprised me in the beginning and which was most foundational to my decision to stay with P&G for a career, I cite my recognition of the ever-present commitment to pursue truth no matter where it led and no matter how inconvenient the finding. Little would I have imagined that now in my 88th year I would have felt the concept of truth being so challenged or feel so compelled to reignite my commitment to taking the time to dig deep enough to try to find it. Undoubtedly, the presidency of Donald Trump has driven much of this animus. My appreciation of the challenge we face has also been deepened by my re-reading George Orwell’s novel 1984. Now, a few weeks after doing that, I have been further motivated by reading the “biography” of "1984', called The Ministry of Truth, written by Dorian Lynskey, This book describes Orwell’s life experience which led to his authoring "1984"" shortly before his death in 1949. It also illuminates the many writers whom Orwell had come to know who influenced his thinking. Still, with all those influences, there is no doubting the originality of Orwell’s work. The most influential chapter of Orwell's experience came from his participation in the Spanish Civil War. He went to Spain to support Communists who formed part of the coalition fighting Franco’s Nationalist, Nazi-supported opposition. His experience in Spain was sobering and disillusioning. He came to see the cynicism, cruelty and dishonesty of the Communists. He left this experience feeling there was really no difference between the debilitating totalitarian control of Communism and Nazism. Orwell’s pronouncement on the importance of the moral value of truth is registered again and again. Without a consensus reality, Orwell argued, “there can be no argument; the necessary minimum of agreement cannot be reached.” As Lynskey writes, Orwell was clear-eyed enough to know that one can’t always get to the objective truth but if one doesn’t at least accept that such a thing exists, then all bets are off. The dangers of group think are also highlighted again and again. As Franz Borkenau, an Austrian writer, scribed: “Civilization is bound to perish not simply by the existence of certain restrictions on the expression or thought...but by the wholesale submission of thinking to orders from a party’s center.” Orwell worried about fanaticism of any type. In 1940, he wrote, “The future, at any rate the immediate future, is not with the ‘sensible’ men. The future is with the fanatics.” How right he was—and still is, unless we all do our part in the pursuit of truth. Orwell draws the “connection between personal happiness and readiness to believe the incredible.” It is this “frame of mind” that has induced whole nations to fling themselves into the arms of a Savior.” In 1984, Orwell describes a picture “in the earliest 20th century” that could well describe today: In an essay called “Looking Back on the Spanish War,” written seven years before "1984", Orwell understood better what he had seen unfolding in Spain: “For the first time I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship was implied by an ordinary lie. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines.’” This was new, he thought. Totalitarian regimes were aligned on such a grand scale that Orwell felt that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.” Orwell continued, “If the leader says of such and such an event, ‘it never happened’—well it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.” Orwell wrote. And well it should. Here is the moral and intellectual foundation of "1984". Orwell’s generation experienced the consequences of Big Lies so absurd that they could only be sustained by the extreme control of totalitarianism, the kind depicted in 1984. As Lynskey points out, and I agree, 21st century authoritarians don’t need to go that far. “They don’t require belief in a full-blown ideology, and thus they don’t require violence of terror police,” writes the historian Ann Applebaum, in a 2018 essay for The Atlantic. “They don’t force people to believe that black is white, war is peace, and state farms have achieved 1000% of their planned production.” Instead, they rely on “medium-sized lies: all of them encourage their followers to engage, at least part of the time, with an alternative reality.” All this brings Lynskey, at the end of his book, to Donald Trump. “Donald Trump is no big brother,” he writes. Nor is he simply a throwback to the 1930s. “He has the cruelty and power hunger of a dictator but not the discipline, intellect or ideology.” Lynskey depicts a more apt comparison being Joe McCarthy, “a demagogue who displayed comparable levels of narcissism, dishonesty, resentment and crude ambition and a similarly uncanny ability to make journalists dance to his tune even as they loathed him.” Lynskey cites chilling precedents in Orwell’s "1984". For example, referring to Hillary Clinton, Trump’s call to his supporters to “lock her up.” Trump meets most of the criteria Orwell used to define fascism: “Sometimes cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist and anti-liberal.” Capturing our own moment I believe, Orwell contended that such men could only rise to the top when the status quo has failed to satisfy people’s need for justice, security and self-worth. Social media has undoubtedly made the process of disseminating “fake news” (ironically being used to attack “real news”) far easier as it has become the primary news source for millions of Americans without meaningful editorial oversight. In conclusion, Orwell feared that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.” As Lynskey writes, perhaps Life magazine’s original review of "1984" identified the essence of Orwell’s message best: “If men continue to believe in such facts as can be tested and to reverence the spirit of truth and seeking greater knowledge, they can never be fully enslaved.” That outcome can never be taken for granted—not today, not ever.

How I Would Teach History Today

Background This morning I spoke with my granddaughter, Tibby, about how history should be taught, and our conversation led me to write this paper. I was recently listening to a podcast that raised a troubling question: have we become so desensitized to acts we once regarded as totally unacceptable that we can no longer judge what is true, or what is right and wrong? An often-cited example is the break-in at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate, which exposed President Nixon’s involvement and led to his resignation. It can fairly be argued, and I certainly would argue, that President Trump has been involved in actions that in the past would have been viewed as just as reprehensible as what Nixon did. Yet today he is not being held accountable. Have our judgment of right and wrong, and our determination to hold people accountable, slipped to the point that we have lost our moral bearings as a nation and as a people? This question haunts me, as it does many others. “Might Makes Right” The premise that “might makes right” looms larger than ever. Indeed, President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have said as much, for example in justifying taking over oil rights in Venezuela. Truth be told, “might makes right” has run through our history. It shaped the taking of Native American lands as we expanded across the continent. It supplied a thin justification for the Mexican-American War, which cost Mexico roughly half its territory and gave us California, Utah, New Mexico, and more. Our history is laced with moments when might has prevailed, even as, in every case, we justified ourselves on the grounds of doing what was right. We claimed we were making good use of the opportunity the continent offered or, in the Mexican-American War, “making life better for Mexicans” than it otherwise would have been. Imposing Our Vision Abroad We have also imposed our view of what makes a sound society by going to war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In doing so, we have been impatient with a belief I hold deeply: ultimately, the citizens of each country must decide what is right for them. Our example has to be seen as the path forward. I hope it will be a positive one, as it has been at many points in our history, such as the Marshall Plan after World War II. How I Would Teach It So how would I teach history in a way that addresses this question of moral relativism and the right course of action for the United States? First, I would study what is to be learned from major events. I would present the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of reacting to terrorism. We did have to react to it, and we had to do so in the right way. But in hindsight, we did not understand the history. The British in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Soviets in Afghanistan, had already shown that real change has to come from within. We needed to be careful about assuming we could come in, change how a country operates, and leave with a better result. In these cases, we probably have not. Most immediately, the U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran must be viewed in light of this same history: lasting change comes from within and cannot be imposed from without. Second, I would address moral relativism by focusing on the qualities that guided leaders in their most important decisions. I would examine the qualities of Churchill as he led his nation to victory in World War II. I would examine the qualities of Lincoln as he pursued both the emancipation of enslaved people and the preservation of the Union, refusing halfway measures that would have held the Union together while preserving slavery. And I would examine the qualities of Nelson Mandela that allowed him to forgive his enemies and bring South Africa together. In each case, I would emphasize that the success achieved in that moment was not guaranteed to last. It would be challenged by pushback. The continued pursuit of individual rights and freedom falls to the generations that follow.

Shades of Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer

Shades of Einstein and Oppenheimer: Expressing the Existential Threat of New Technologies – Today with AI The recent expression of deep concern and warning from the heads of the major AI platforms—including, Anthropic, Elon Musk and ChatGPT—remind me of warnings expressed vehemently by Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer 70+ years ago. They called for universal regulation of the atom itself and atomic power. Their call for universal regulation has not been heeded. The question is, today, who will heed those warnings? I hope and pray we will. There is a conference in the coming week between President Xi and President Trump. Here is a golden opportunity, if only they will seize it, to agree to establish regulations to control AI platforms so that they will operate in a way that optimizes the contribution to human life. The benefits of AI are huge. They are already showing up dramatically in healthcare and other areas. AI is here to stay, that’s for sure. Just as nuclear energy and atomic power are here to stay. The question for all of them remains. Will we have the will and wisdom to regulate them? It’s up to us. Unlike the atom and even nuclear power, the timeframe for doing it with AI is upon us. It cannot be postponed. We must master it and come together to see how to do it now.

A Revolution in Consumer Relations

I had a meeting on Saturday with Pete Blackshaw who has recently published his book, The Answer Economy. We talked about how an increasing number of consumers are using AI platforms to get answers to questions about the quality and value of different brands. I won’t be sharing any perspective here, I’m sure, that hasn’t become apparent to you but on the off chance that there might be at least a point here that would be fresh, let me relate my experience. I have formed a relationship with the AI platformm Claude; relationship is the right word. Claude has become an agent, an advisor, for me on certain subjects. They range from deciding whether a new book is something I’d like, to whether a movie is something I’d like, to whether I can combine different drugs safely, and to digging up information on subjects as remote as the cause of the potato famine in Ireland, to the history of Native American people. I used the Claude AI platform to check out what brand of detergent I should us based on simulated needs. All of this adds up to the reality that I have entered into a conversation with a trusted concierge in which I’m getting answers based on my prior preferences and by my stated personal needs. This is not so much about AI, it’s about consumer relations. Pete Blackwhaw said something that struck me: Getting a consumer to enter the conversation by giving them a prompt to questions to ask is powerful. Today most websites are really not built to stimulate conversation and a personal relationship as much as they are simply to present product options to buy. This is an revolutionary new chapter in consumer relationships, something Procter and Gamble founded its business on from the very beginning,: knowing what consumers need, addressing the needs through superior products, and constantly getting feedback on opportunities to do better.

What Would a Superpower Make Of What We Are Doing On Earth?

We don’t know if we are the only body in the solar system with inhabitants possessing the intelligence and imagination which we as humans have. Maybe not. But we are certainly the only ones we know of. This is our planet to keep or lose. I find myself imagining a Supreme Power looking down on us, recognizing that we have this treasured place to live with increasing opportunities and, yes, challenges too. What might this Supreme Power ask? Do these men and women recognize the incredible privilege of being alive? Do they recognize that they may be the only sentient being in the universe that can do what they do? Do they recognize that the future of their planet is not guaranteed; that its future is in their hands? Yes, the planet will almost certainly outlast anything human beings can do. But life on earth as we know it may not. Do they recognize that it won’t survive if we annihilate each other through atomic warfare. Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer understood this; they worried about it even as they created nuclear energy. Do they recognize that biological warfare could wipe out all, or a substantial part, of the human race? Do they recognize how climate change can decimate life as we know it for ourselves and wildlife? I feel sure this superpower, no matter how we conceive it would lament that we can’t get along. They would lament that we don’t recognize that we have been privileged to live in this amazing world, with capabilities of imagination and innovation like no generation ever had before. And yet, we are our own worst enemies in so many ways. Do we treat each other and other countries as existential enemies rather than simply different people(s) with different views and different histories with whom we should get along by listening and understanding each other, and never--ever-- denying the right of other people(s) to exist? Wouldn’t this all seem so sensible to an outside power looking in on us, looking at our situation, on our challenges, and on our opportunities? I think so. We need leaders able to see this and act accordingly. Why is it that the Israelis, Palestinians and Arab leaders find it so hard to come together to resolve how to live together on the small piece of land that constitutes Israel and Palestine? Why can’t Russia and Ukraine come together to resolve how they will live together, have commerce together, share history together, and provide governance that meets the rights of people in different parts of their nations? The reason why reverts, of course, to the weaknesses that we have as human beings: the tendency to want to lift ourselves and our group up relative to someone else--or some other group. There was a time, not too long ago,when there was a passion and the perceived need for more land as populations grew. But isn’t it true that that need has largely gone? Don’t most countries now have enough land not just to survive on but to thrive on? I don’t pose this as a rhetorical question. Others may have a different point of view. But I think there is enough land, and we can create enough abundance to meet the needs of all people if we are imaginative and above all care about them. We are all children of God. We fought over oil in the past. We wanted to possess it because it was precious. And that remains a motivator. But is that any reason to have wars today? Can't we trade for oil, recognizing the rights of the countries that have it? For me, this perspective on how our planet looks to a Supreme Power carries a powerful motivation and obligation for us--the human beings present here--to preserve this planet which amazingly has been made ours. In doing so, we will not only be preserving the life of each of us who are a part of it now, but above all the billions who will follow us for generations to come. That is our opportunity. That is our obligation. J. E. Pepper

The Miracle and Beauty of Nature that Surround Us

The Miracles and Beauty of Nature that Surround Us The chirping of the birds I hear as I write this reminds me of the miraculous diversity of birds that surround me. On Friday, my dear friend, Shannon, using her app, discovered there were seven birds in the yard at the same time. They were all chirping at one moment or another: The ones chirping shone up with a yellow light. A number of the birds I have never heard of before. Northern Cardinal, yes. A robin too. There was also a Carolina wren, a house sparrow, a house finch and a tufted titmouse. To think of their being together in our small yard, chirping away, talking to one another, in languages, of course, we can’t understand. Another miracle of nature surrounded me which I rarely think about. Our trees. Just in our front yard, we have an American linden, a pin oak, a gum oak, an English maple, a regular maple, multiple older oaks, towering now over 50’ high, which Francie and I planted shortly after we bought the house in 1978. They were 6" then. I’m surrounded by this diversity of nature—birds and trees--right in front of me showering me with their beauty, which I have dimly and rarely recognized for the beauty they represent. As I look at these trees, awed by their beauty, an expression for me of divinity, I notice that each leaf is green but with a different texture of green. I learn that the different textures of green trace to the varying levels of chlorophyll in the leaves of the different trees, and to a different reaction to the sun at different stages of the day. That’s particularly true of the American linden tree. I’ve written before what trees have to teach us. How they support one another through their roots, helping a fellow tree that is in trouble. They, like the birds, are miracles of life, too little appreciated, at least by me.

Reflections on Iran: Past, Present and Future

I finished reading an excellent book on Iran by Vali Nasr. Here are some reflections I took away. Particularly since the revolution in 1979 and even before, Iran's primary drive was to achieve security, believing with good reason that its regime was threatened by the United States and the West. They saw our country, much as the way Russia has over the last 20-25 years, as threatening to overturn it. Our nation's policy has been characterized by twists and turns, a few times where we sought a negotiated peace, particularly with Obama and earlier with Kissinger; but as time as evolved, especially with the hostage crisis and Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah, our two countries have come to see each other as threatening each others very existence and acted accordingly. Iran, a country of 90 million people, with a rich cultural heritage and a foundation which should have led it to become the bright star of the Middle East, was beset by an autocracy under the Shah which led to the emergence of the theologically dominated Khomeini revolution in 1979, with the country cemented in its commitment by the misbegotten war with Iraq from 1980-88, a war which created the regime as Vali Nasr tells in this story (Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History). The hostage crisis of 1979-80 cemented the anti-American, anti-Imperialism commitment of the regime and brought together the nation in a perceived fight for existence,. Over the course of almost 50years, there has been the continuing tension between this fight for security, centering on the United States as a satanic enemy, with the continued recognition of Iran’s dismal economic and social development. There have been leaders, Rasfanjani, a prime minster during the 1980s and early 1990s, chief among them, who fought for moderation and who did influence Khomeini but they did not prevail as the hard line Iranian Revolutionary Guard increased in strength and influence. Nasr's book was published just before the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran. We’re seeing history recreated. This war has stilled internal debate for the time being. Iranians have rallied around the nation, if not unanimously, generally. However, in my view, this coming-together does not cure the fundamental tension between isolationism based on the commitment to security and the internal development which will necessarily be fueled by Iran's having to be a member of an important part of the world community. Today, Iran is without reliable allies. To be sure, China and Russia are on the sidelines, cheering this conflict, but they’re really not committed to Iran, not fundamentally. Yes, they may be sending Iran some weapons and buying some of their oil. But they’re not allies, and Iran cannot thrive, let alone survive, if it does not find a path to join with important parts of the world led by an administration that truly does favor economic development. I do not believe that this can happen without a fundamental change in leadership. However, sadly, this war has put off that change for the time being. We were closer to it before the war than we are now due to the patriotic cry that the war represents to the population. But the cracks and fissures will reappear, and if we can reach a settlement that will restore peace and allow the process of political dissent to emerge, even if slowly, we could see Iran reach a point of peace for its nation underpinned by collaboration with significant partners, certainly in the Middle East but also China and the West. That should be our goal. As I write this on May 12, 2026, we are wallowing in Iran. I don’t know if we have ever had a president that is so inept and incapable of leading as Donald Trump. Our country deserves so much better from its president. And from the people supporting the president, too. I think of the quality of the cabinets that served Presidents Kennedy, Roosevelt and Reagan and Biden. The current cabinet is a revolving turnstile. It lacks the people of character and competence we need. Rubio comes close, but he is not standing up when he should. It’s a travesty and a danger for this country and for the world. We’ll survive this. We have such a strong constitutional government and, at its heart, a people that is united in its search for freedom and decency and success. But we need a strong, unifying, character filled President to emerge and take office in 2028. That is a must. Reply, Reply All or Forward