It's All About Character

From the moment in 2016 when I first learned that Donald Trump was a candidate running for president, I called out his lack of CHARACTER. His lack of character has manifested itself in ways I never could have imagined, never more than in his inhumane commentary on the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife. I just finished re-watching Reiner's movie, "The American President". “For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was to a certain extent about character. And although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days. And I can tell you, without hesitation, being president of this country is entirely about character.” In 1995, Rob Reiner directed The American President, written by Aaron Sorkin. In the film, President Andrew Shepherd, a widower, is facing a challenge from Republican presidential hopeful Senator Bob Rumson, who attacks Shepherd by focusing on the activist past of the woman he is dating, lawyer and lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. The final scene of the film is a speech by the president rejecting the pretended patriotism of his partisan attacker, who is cynically manipulating voters to gain power. It is a meditation on what it means to be the president of the United States. “For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU,” Shepherd says to reporters at a press conference, “but the more important question is, why aren’t you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman, and a candidate for president choose to reject upholding the Constitution?” “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, ‘cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say: You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as a land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now, show me that. Defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.” “I’ve known Bob Rumson for years, and I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he can’t sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only, making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. “That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.” “We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card.… This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your 15 minutes are up.”

Character First--Always

John Adams writing in 1765, more than a decade before Philadelpiam, 1776: "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people who have a right to that knowledge and desire to know. But besides this, they have a right, an indistinguishable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge--I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers".

Truly Listening to and Understanding one Another--Including those Closest to Us

I am now 87 years of age. I was married to my dear late wife Francie for almost 58 years. We had a wonderful friendship and a wonderful marriage. We have four children, four wonderful spouses, and 10 amazing grandchildren. Yet, if you ask me what I've learned most since my wife passed away is how much of what she felt and experienced that I did not fully appreciate. As I have read journals that she wrote and a book she was compiling, which I will finish, I've learned, soberly, and sometimes regretfully that experiences which I saw as glowingly positive experiences were not always experienced the same way by Francie. This learning doesn't darken my appreciation of our years together. In fact it makes them even more wondrous as I recognize all she has done despite challenges along the way. This experience of learning what another person has experienced has also been brought to my life by stories of caregivers I have who are helping me. As I've learned their stories, I have learned of the tremendous challenges they have overcome. This has made built and extended my appreciation of the human spirit, the determination and ability to overcome obstacles, which, in the case of many of my caregivers have been significant. Why do I write this? I want to underscore a learning that I wish I had acted on better. The learning of how important it is to take the time to really hear and truly understand what other people are experiencing, including those who are closest to us. All this reminds me of two things: first, the most precious gift we give another person is our time. Second, everyone sees the world differently and it's important for us to try our best to understand how they see and experience it if we are to have the most empathetic relationship possible and convey the love we feel.

A Churchilian Moment--The Imperative of Standing Up for Ukraine--Unambiguousy

We (the West) must stand up unambiguously for the integrity of Ukraine. The recently tabled 28 point piece plan was a shamefully constructed document giving in to Russia demands. The US and Europe have stepped back from this in disarray,but we are still not declaring the absolutely essential end state for the peace agreement: a sovereign Ukraine, protected with an ironclad secutiry guarantee by the US and Europe. As I have written before, this will only happen by our inflicting greater punishment on Russia itself. We must demonstrate to Putin that he simply will not make further gains, and that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that he does not. We are going to need to accomplish this by providing all of the weapons that Ukraine needs, and allowing their used to penetrate Russian soil to inflict damage on military installations that are punishing Ukraine today. Putin will respond to nothing other than demonstrated force put into action. Some will object that this risk escalation. And it does. But conceding to Putin not only risks escalation, but guarantees it because we will not have a lasting peace. I recall a moment in the darkest days of May 1940 after the fall of France and with the British army at Dunkirk, and when the invasion of Britain seemed imminent. Lord Halifax and Chamberlain advocated discussions with Hitler modereated by Mussolini for peace. Church would not hear of it. He believed that any negotiation with Hitler would lead to national humiliation, loss of independence and eventual tyranny. He was prepared to fight on just as Ukrainians have been and are fighting on with daily loss of life. We cannot allow peace to occur on Putin's terms. They must be terms that Ukraine and the West and yes, Russia, accept as a reality and a guarantee of Ukraine sovereignty as a Nation.

If You See Something That Needs to be Done, Just Do It

I was recently given the high honor of being recognized with the International Freedom Conductor Award by the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. I was honored alongside Isabel Wilkerson, Toni Morrison, posthumously, and Lonnie Bunch. I follow in the footsteps of those who have received this honor, including Rosa Parks, Bishop Tutu and the Dalai Lama. While hardly feeling worthy of being in the company of these men and women, receiving this leads me to speak out at this moment. I could do so deeply fearing what is happening within our national government. The usurpation by the Executive Branch of the power of the purse assigned to Congress, the usurping by the Executive Branch of the powers to launch attacks that should be assigned to Congress. I could go on. However, I have come to see that is not what I really can focus on. I can focus on those few things within my own circle of influence that I can make a difference in, the individuals and the organizations. And those my wife believed in—the YWCA, Women Helping Women, the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, and the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. I follow in the footsteps of my late wife, Francie, as she once said: “When you see something that needs to be done, just do it, and bring other people along with you. That’s important, bring other people along with you. Just do it, don’t stand back.” We cannot stand back. We must all do what we can to make the world at least a bit better place, to make at least a bit of a positive difference in someone else’s lives.

How Do We Ground Our Ethics

What is the Case for Grounding Ethics in Human Nature and Experience rather than Religion and Divine Commands Over the years, I have thought deeply about the basis for my ethical beliefs. To what extent is it based on my alignment with what Jesus preached, what Christianity is at its best (loving God and treating your neighbor as yourself) relative to the alternative of basing my ethical behavior on the realization that we as humans are “continuous with nature” and that, in the words of philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, having our behavior rooted in physical and social realities and observance of the importance of human relationships and dialogue. Feuerbach in his work, The Essence of Christianity (1841) advocated for a shift from God-centered to human-centered ethics. He promoted a new philosophy that made man, with the inclusion of nature as the foundation of man, “unique, universal and the highest object of philosophy.” He wanted to ground ethics in human nature and experience rather than divine commands. He argues that the concept of God is a projection of human qualities, something we have created. He advocated the pursuit of happiness but argued that, in pursuing that goal, it was necessary to recognize the importance of the happiness of others. This all raises the question. Is a secular, human-centered approach to ethics and morality one that can result in a more peaceful world and coexistence among peoples? We know that the pursuit of religion has often resulted in wars and there is no reason to feel that will end. Where do I come out on all of this? What have I personally found to be true? First, I take nourishment from viewing all of us as human beings as part of nature. It would be unrealistic to do otherwise. It’s a reality. But I also see no evidence that a nature-based human rights philosophy will, in fact, lead to a more peaceful world. What I have concluded is that there is no getting around the inherent human tendency to pit ourselves against and elevate ourselves relative to other people. It’s ego-driven selfishness; it’s inextricable. This tendency co-exists with beneficent instincts too. Our task is, in proverbial terms, to live by the better angels of our nature. What helps one do that? It will vary by individual, of course. For me, religion or, more precisely, the preaching of Jesus and what He stood for, which I find no different from the foundational principles of other religions, has been of enormous help. I recognize that this foundation may well be something I’ve created as a crutch to approve my behavior. I accept that. I have no problem with it. I plead guilty. As beguiling as the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach is, and perhaps intellectually correct in his assertion that God is a projection of man, and I do not retreat for a moment from my commitment to try to follow as best I can the preaching and actions of Jesus.

"Kindness": A Virtue to Be Emulated

An excerpt from the Strugatsky Brothers novel, "The Time Wanderers" He was like something out of a fairy tale: always kind and therefore always right. It was such an era that kindness always won. “Out of all possible solutions, choose the kindest one.” Not the most promising, not the most rational, not the most progressive and certainly not the most effective - the kindest! He never said these words, and he very sarcastically talked about those of his biographers who attributed these words to him, and he probably never thought in these words, but the whole essence of his life lies precisely in these words. And of course, these words are not a recipe, not everyone is given the gift of being kind, this is the same talent as an ear for music or clairvoyance, only rarer.

The Pursuit of Truth

This speech, advocating eloquently for the pursuit of truth, given 35 years ago to the entering class at Yale by then president, Benno Schmidt, is more timely today than it even was then. Yes, as he says, we may not be facing the same kind of challenge that Havel did, but in truth we may be. I cannot recall a challenge to "truth", being as great as it is today anytime in my lifetime. Of course, I have seen other authoritarian leaders, present truth in any way they choose, denying the truth, and lessons of history. But I never thought I would see such a nefarious and dangerous assault on truth advanced by the president of the United States. We must keep up the battle for truth, as best we know it. As my late dear wife, Francie said,"Don't stand back". From Benno Schmidt: "The pursuit of truth under the burden of individual autonomy is a commitment that depends on courage and integrity quite as much as it depends on learning and intellectual power. Truth is elusive and often disillusioning and painful. A commitment to truth will deny you the dark pleasure of losing your autonomy to the herd. The tranquilizing effects of the trivial temptations of modern life will not bring you peace. Yet at the crossroads where some of the darkest forces of human history laid waste, and writing in the dark shadows of 1978, Vaclav Havel could write these magnificent words. They are words I hope you will take to consecrate your purposes at Yale and after. “The essential aims of life are present naturally in every person. In everyone there is some longing for humanity’s rightful dignity, for moral integrity, for free expression of being and a sense of transcendence over the world of existence. Yet, at the same time, each person is capable, to a greater or lesser degree, of coming to terms with living within the lie. Each person somehow succumbs to a profane trivialization of his or her inherent humanity, and to utilitarianism. In everyone there is some willingness to merge with the anonymous crowd and to flow comfortably along with it down the river of pseudo-life. This is much more than a simple conflict between two identities. It is something far worse: it is a challenge to the very notion of identity itself.” The herd ever threatens to regain its evil primacy, and we are bombarded with a relentless propaganda of materialism that has taken a great toll on the moral quality of our lives. Let me say again that I do not suggest that you will be faced in your four years at Yale, or hopefully thereafter, with the choices to which the pursuit of truth brought Socrates or Vaclav Havel. But I do say that the pursuit of truth in the light of freedom is a challenge of character quite as much as intellect. And I say with considerable pride that I believe Yale is as good a setting and as good a society for you to develop in yourselves the great values of liberal learning (as you are likely to find). This magnificent responsibility now falls to you. Then, let us make the most of our time at Yale together."

Learning from History--Gaza and Ukraine

This letter to my friend, Lindsay Schmauss. thanking her for sending me the book, Aftermath, illuminates the reflections I drew from the book. Dear Lindsay, I am very grateful for your having decided to send me this book, Aftermath, by Harald Jahner. I just finished reading it this morning. I was immersed in it, more and more, as I read on. History which I had known, anecdotally, was fleshed out with facts--on recovering from the devastating destruction, the great migration, black market, the role of art (fascinating), and everyday life--all brought to life with individual stories and remarkably selected and penetrating verbatim citations from novels and movies of the time. (I am struck by the absence of a similar mining of literature and film to illuminate the post-WW II years in the US. I would recommend the movie, The Best Years of Our Lives, as a brilliant depiction of what it was like for veterans returning to America after the war. BTW, I am going to see if I can get Hans Habe's novel). All of this takes me to what is happening now in Gaza and Ukraine. By far the most mind opening and moving part of the book for me was Jahner's nuanced and insightful treatment of the role of memory and perception of what had occurred among the German public. The fact that in the following decade that there was a desire to move forward, without trying to identify or punish members of the Nazi party and the suppression of memory for sake of moving ahead. Again and again, everywhere, we witness people's natural tendency to adapt to the current circumstances simply to survive. I had no idea that former Nazis were included in the Adenauer government and that there was push back against the "de-Nazification" actions by the bulk of the German public. In hindsight, much good came from this. I embrace what Habe writes in his novel, Off Limits: “The optimistically conceived phrase that life goes on is in fact a measure of the damnation of the world. Life goes on because human conscience is lifeless.” At the same time, I have to say it is unduly harsh. For life does need to go on. But not without seeing truth in the past which points to what we must do better in the future. I had not realized that it was the “following generations” which tried to and largely did come to terms with the past and in doing so many blamed their parents. As Jahner aptly writes, “Repression only ever plays a waiting game. The younger generation later assumed the task of ‘dealing with the past.’” So, too, do the young need to do that today in America. And we should never forget there will be on-going attempts to put the past aside or dilute the contemporary relevance of the vestiges of the past. Again, Jahner, “It's only in the last two decades that we have started to have any conception of the extent to which very ordinary Germans backed National Socialism.” I am persuaded and incredibly impressed by Jahner's perceptive and honest portrayal of how multiple factors came together to enable Germany's recovery and position it now as a powerful bulwark of democracy though not immune to continued pressures from the far right. Jahner describes the purpose of the book being to “explain how the majority of Germans for all their rejection of individual guilt, at the same time managed to rid themselves of the mentality that had made the Nazi regime possible.” He lists many factors contributing to this: the radical shock of disillusionment stemming from Germany's utter and undebatable defeat and the indictment of its leaders, the bitter education of the black market, the relaxed way of living as embodied by the Allies (there is no overestimating the impact in my view which the “proximity” of everyday relationships between the victorious allies and Germans had on people coming to understand and appreciate each other as individuals). And there was the economic miracle enabled by the people and the infusion of economic assistance (Marshall Plan). I think of how unique and positive these collective and other factors are compared to what happened or more precisely did not happen post the demise of the Soviet Union in 1989-1990. The aid was not provided to power an “economic miracle.” There was NOT the self-evident and undeniable decimation of what the old regime stood for. There was not the interaction of people from the West with Russians to create human relationships and learn from one another, really learn and gain mutual appreciation. So, too, I compare what happened in Germany to the aftermath of slavery in the US. Here, too, memory for many if not most (especially but not uniquely in the south) did not come to grips with the horror of the institution of slavery and its aftermath. Something we are still working on. Yesterday, by coincidence, Yale University published a book, three years in the making, showing the involvement of Yale's founding and continuing leaders with the institution of slavery. In fact, slaves helped construct the oldest building still being used on the campus. As the book is published, the University is laying out a comprehensive action plan to address inequities in education and economic development which still exist. I only hope the effort will be sustained. Jahner closes his book with a quotation from Karl Jaspers which we should try to honor at all times, for all time: "Germany can only return to itself when we communicate with one another. Let us learn to talk to one another. ..Let us hear what the other person thinks. Let us not only assent but reflect in context, listen for reasons, be prepared to reach a new insight. Let us inwardly attempt to assume the position of the other. Yes, let us actually seek out that which contradicts us. Grasping what we have in common within contradiction is more important than hastily fixing exclusive standpoints which the conversation draws hopelessly to an end.” Lindsay, thanks again for sending me this outstanding book. Love, John

The Pursuit of Truth

When asked what I most valued from my years in college, my answer has always been clear: "the pursuit of truth". Pursue it no matter where it leads. Pursue it whether you like the outcome or not. Pursue it because you are charged with nothing less. After the Navy, I planned to attend Harvard Law School. I took interviews at a few companies for a one-year job, but when I came to Procter & Gamble, something struck me. Here was a business where the same principle applied: truth mattered. The truth about what consumers really wanted. The truth about how to treat employees. The truth about building lasting relationships with communities. Within months, I knew I had found my place. Law school could wait—and ultimately, it never came. I spent 40 years at Procter & Gamble. We didn’t always get it right. At times, we were blinded by assumptions, or carried projects too far. But I never doubted the company’s core value: to pursue the truth. And that, in the end, has been a guiding principle of my life.

Everyone Counts

Everyone Counts When I look back over my life, I often ask myself: where did I first come to believe the truth that everyone counts? I know it wasn’t in college. It was in the Navy. As head of the communications department, I quickly discovered that no amount of my own effort could make us the best in the fleet. That goal depended entirely on the capability and commitment of every sailor on the team. At the same time, I could see the captain’s reliance on each officer to carry out his duty so that the ship, as a whole, could excel. It was in those moments that I began to understand: excellence is never the work of one person. It is always the achievement of many. That conviction only grew stronger when I joined Procter & Gamble. At first, the culture seemed to reward individual ambition — do well, move up. But then I attended a company-wide meeting filled with people from manufacturing, engineering, and so many other parts of the business. Sitting there, I felt something unmistakable: everyone in that room mattered to P&G. A year later, on sales training, the lesson came again. I was chasing the recognition of being number one in tie displays, but I soon realized something larger. Our district would only be celebrated for excellence if every person pulled his or her weight. The strength of the whole rested on the dedication of each. Over the years, this belief has become more than a lesson. It has become a mantra: everyone counts. It shapes how I see people, how I lead, how I live. And in many ways, it sums up everything I’ve learned about human relationships. Great things are never built by a few at the top — they are made possible by the countless efforts of many, each one indispensable. That truth is both humbling and inspiring. It reminds me to value each person, to listen, to respect, and to encourage. Because when we live as though everyone counts — we create the possibility of greatness together.

"Grapes of Wrath" Personal Reflections for Today

Grapes of Wrath" byJohn Steinbeck—Personal Reflections on Its Meaning for Today September 20, 2020 This novel takes its place among the five finest novels I have ever read: the others being Crossing to Safety by Wallace Stegner, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Gilead by Marilynne Robinson and Towles’ A Gentleman in Moscow. Of all these novels, however, "Grapes of Wrath" has most deeply penetrated my life. For many reasons, above all because I came to know and feel the characters more intimately and viscerally and emotionally than in any other book I have ever read. I understand what Norman Mailer meant in writing of "Steinbeck's marvelous and ironic sense of compassion…daring all the time to go up to the very abyss of offering more feeling than the reader can accept." Again and again, that is how I felt, hanging on every word and phrase, wondering, worrying about what comes next. It did not happen by accident. Steinbeck records this in the midst of writing the book: "Yesterday it seemed to me that the people were coming to life. I hope so. These people must be intensely alive the whole time". The whole time. Exactly. No false notes. Through detailed depiction of the environment, layer upon layer, in cinema-like detail, through the development of the looks, gestures and clothes of every character and through dialogue, authentic and colloquial, matched to the individual, I am PRESENT. I am THERE. Steinbeck greatly respects his theme, the magnitude of the undertaking: "I went over the whole of the book in my head—fixed on the last scene, huge and symbolic (and I would add brave and unexpected), toward which the whole story moves. And that was a good thing, for it was a re-understanding of the dignity of the effort and mightiness of the theme. I feel very small and inadequate and incapable but I grew again to love the story which is so much greater than I am. To love and admire the people who are so much stronger and purer and braver than I am." Such humility combined with reverence and ambition and incredibly hard work—the sources of greatness. Like many, I resonate to this story today because it presents vividly what immigrants fleeing violence and life-threatening poverty face today. And the homeless too. It dramatizes how many will take advantage of them, some will castigate them as being dirty and threatening and dangerous, and a few generous souls will step forward as Good Saviors to try to help them on their journey. For me, this story cries out for individual and collective action today. We need the equivalent of "Grapes of Wrath" today to reveal viscerally and authentically the challenge that hundreds of thousands of threatened women, men and children face today as they seek safety and freedom for their families. In the broadest sense, this novel presents the urgent need for social justice, understanding and compassion so needed in our world today. As one commentator observed, it is also at once an elegy and a challenge to live in harmony with the earth. Hope and valor present themselves repeatedly in this magnificent novel, but never, ever at the expense of recognizing the raw often brutal challenge of life. The ex-preacher Casy captures this combination of challenge and hope as he describes how a friend looks back on being violently jailed by vigilantes because he had tried to setup a union among exploited workers. "Anyways, you do what you can. The only thing you got to look at is that every time there is a little step forward, she may slip back a little, but she never slips clear back. You can prove that and that makes the whole thing right. And that means there wasn't no waste even it seemed like there was." No matter what, we must continue on. Recalling one of my favorite texts the Talmud: "You are not required to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it." Steinbeck honors the uniqueness and complexity of every individual's life but also the strength to be drawn in being part of something bigger than oneself, ones family above all and the whole of humanity beyond. It is a noble calling. One worthy of our best effort. Posted by John Pepper Email This BlogThis! Share to X Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest No comments: Post a Comment Newer PostOlder PostHome Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive ► 2025 (29) ► 2024 (38) ► 2023 (45) ► 2022 (41) ► 2021 (25) ▼ 2020 (36) ► December (1) ► November (1) ► October (4) ▼ September (5) "Grapes of Wrath" byJohn Steinbeck—Personal Reflec... James Baldwin's Mind-Opening, Mind-Challenging "Th... The Fragility of Racial Equality: What It Demands ... Words Which Describe Why Donald Trump Must Be Repl... Trust—The Magic Potion of Every Great Team Effort ► August (3) ► July (1) ► June (2) ► May (3) ► April (4) ► March (3) ► February (4) ► January (5) ► 2019 (51) ► 2018 (44) ► 2017 (29) ► 2016 (39) ► 2015 (40) ► 2014 (16) ► 2013 (13) ► 2012 (9) Social Media Facebook Twitter Labels Living Our Values (168) Politics (104) Business Leadership (37) Education (23) Doug Pepper's Blog Pepperspectives by Doug Pepper About Me About Me Hello, I'm John Pepper. I spent a 39-year career at Procter & Gamble where I served in various roles as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman from 1986-2003. I served as Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company from January 2007 to March 2012. More About Me...

We Must Bite The Bullet. Face Reality..Do What Is Right

We have to stop allowing Netanyahu and Putin to string us along. We have to stop waving our finger and pick up an unyielding and strong club in the cost of justice and humanity. Presidents Netanyahu and Putin have been stringing us along, not for days or months but for years. They say they want “peace,” just like Hitler said he wanted peace when he took over the Sudetenland. All they want is “peace” on their terms and that includes taking territory that they legally had no right to and taking over the lives of people who, in the great majority, don’t want to be with them. I’ve been all of the mind to seek a compromise that would preserve the independent rights of Palestinians and Ukrainians. But I’m afraid I’ve been on a fool’s errand. Neither Netanyahu nor Putin are prepared to accept the rightful independence of the counterparts I’ve mentioned. Putin doesn’t even admit Ukraine is a nation. Netanyahu truly has no interest in or even a glimmer of an opening to allow an independent Palestine to exist. They want land and they want control. What does this unyielding and uncompromising stick for justice and humanity mean? In the case of Russia, it means that we show unyielding intent iand applying power that expresses that intent to demonstrate Russia will not win. We need to go beyond economic sanctions to apply far more military force. I think that probably should involve boots on the ground by European nations in small measure to begin and greater ones if it doesn’t achieve its objective aided by U.S. support for those ground troops in every way needed, e.g., intelligence, air cover, etc. Does this risk a larger war? Perhaps. But so be it. The risk of larger war will loom large until there is resolution of the fundamental issue, which means… Russia must acknowledge the independent entity of Ukraine and stop any further attack on its existence. We need to have an ironclad, NATO-supported treaty in place that would defend Ukraine if Russia attacks as if they are attacking NATO countries. We should under no circumstances agree to Russia acquiring sovereignty of the Donbas region. We may well agree to a ceasefire along battle lines, but we should not confer sovereignty under any conditions. We should, of course, not allow Russia to be part of the security agreement with Ukraine which they are now saying they need to do. As to Israel, we should stop any further aid other than humanitarian aid to Israel, military or other until they stop the indiscriminate bombing and annihilation of Gaza and stop the extended settlement of people on the West Bank. They are taking land illegally given under international law to Palestine. This has to stop. We are past the point of drawing a line in the sand. Trump has tried cajoling, doing anything to get a treaty, in no small measure to get a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. It is borderline absurd. A mind-opening column in The New York Times today by M. Gessen to declaimed the stupidity of terms we are using. We talk about “swapping land” with one of the swappers (Russia) illegally holding that land. In any event, at this point Russia is laying claim to more land than they have claimed. This is outright bribery. Seeking a peace that is peace only in the name of compromise that will not resolve the fundamental issue.

Renouncing the Illegal Use of Force

Reading the essay in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, titled Might Unmakes Right; The Catastrophic Collapse of Norms Against the Use of Force, by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro. Oona, a professor of law at Yale Law School; Scott, a professor of law at Yale Law School and a professor of philosophy, cast a light on the reality we now face. We are seeing a “catastrophic collapse of norms against the use of force” which threatens the future of the world. The essay reminded me that there have been steps to outlaw war as an instrument of policy. Prior to World War I, it was commonly recognized, even international law, that war was a legitimate means to settle grievances. It was not “outlawed.” The horror of World War I led to the creation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Kellogg was the American Secretary of State, Briand the Prime Minister of France. The pact was formally called “The General Treaty for Annunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.” It acquired 58 signatories, including the United States. It established the principle that aggressive war was illegal, the parties agreed to “condemn recourse of war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in the relations with one another.” They pledged to settle any disputes between them “by civic means.” This pact has been widely mocked as naïve and ineffective because it did not stop World War II. But in truth, as this essay points out, “It set in motion a process that gave rise to the modern international legal order. The authors of the pact, for all their ambition, failed to appreciate the scale of what they had done.” When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, it took U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson, a year to draft a response consistent with the pact’s principles. Stimson decided the United States would refuse to recognize Japan’s right to the land it had illegally seized, and the members of the League of Nations soon followed suit. What became known as the Stimson Doctrine became a turning point: Conquest, once lawful, could no longer be recognized. Even if Japan could force China to sign a treaty to give the Japanese the illegally seized land, it would not be recognized as lawful. “Gunboat diplomacy would no longer give rise to valid treaty obligations.” Although Germany and Japan were both parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, they flouted it by launching World War II, and they eventually faced its consequences, losing all the territory they conquered by force, and their leaders stood trial at war crime tribunals. The UN Charter extended what the Kellogg-Briand Pact had set in motion, “prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political interventions of any state. During the next eight decades after the charter entered into force, the kind of interstate wars and territorial conquests that had shaped and reshaped national borders for centuries became rare. Great powers had not openly fought a war against one another since 1945, and no U.N.-member state has permanently ceased to exist as a result of conflict. Conflict, of course, has not disappeared, but it has become far less prevalent. The century that preceded World War II saw over 150 successful territorial conquests; and the decades afterward, there have been fewer than 10. A lot of factors have underpinned this result. Certainly, nuclear deterrence and globalization, but this commitment to rule out the use of power cannot be discounted. This is being unraveled by the Trump administration. Threats to take over Greenland and Panama for willy-nilly reasons. And, of course, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have stood up to that invasion and so has the West, so far. We do not recognize it. However, Russia today is asking us to recognize it. Ukraine has not. We are going to have to recommit ourselves to a revamped, renewed international system of renouncing force as a means of achieving political ends; reinforce the integrity of every state, and to provide the enforcing mechanism which will have to depend on much more than just the United States to do it. This was the task faced by leaders coming out of World War I and World War II. This is the task leaders will face going forward tomorrow post the insidious impact of the Trump administration and its policies, which amount to “might makes right.”

What Albert Einstein Has to Teach Us--Or At Least Me--Today

Wisdom from Albert Einstein, drawn from his book of essays, Out of My Later Years I’m going to draw here on extracts from several of Einstein’s essays which contain nuggets of truth which are too good not to write down. In his essay, On Education, written in 1936 he writes modestly, “What source shall I, in the realm of pedagogy, drive courage to expound opinions with no foundations except personal experience and personal conviction.” But that doesn’t give him pause fortunately. “The school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one generation to the next. This applies today in an even greater degree than in former times through modern development of economic life, the family is bearer of tradition and education has been weakened. The continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on the school than formerly.” If true as he asserts then in 1936, how much truer it is today. Einstein goes on to say that it is wrong to think of the school simply as “the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of knowledge to the growing generation.” Rather, it must acknowledge that knowledge is dead and that the school “serves the living.” It should develop in the young individuals “those qualities and capabilities which are of value for the welfare of the commonwealth.” He goes on to make it clear that that doesn’t mean that individuality should be destroyed. On the contrary, he writes, “The aim must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem.” You don’t only view this by moralizing; Einstein writes; no, you do it by stimulating critical thinking. Today, we see all kinds of things happening that work against this. The State bill being advanced in Ohio that will limit the ability of teachers to teach. Texts in schools that are legitimate to stimulate broad thinking and critical thinking are being banned. “The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost, not the acquisition of special knowledge", Einstein asserts. The realization of this is what made my four years at Yale University so meaningful to me and my contact with the professors at that university and my reading ever since so continually meaningful. ***** There is this painful message from Einstein in his essay, A Message to Intellectuals, written in 1946. He laments the tragedy that, “While mankind has produced many scholars so extremely successful in the field of science and technology, we have been for a long time so inefficient in finding adequate solutions to the many political conflicts and economic tensions which beset us. Man has not succeeded in developing political and economic forms of organization which would guarantee the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the world. He has not succeeded in building the kind of system which would eliminate the positivity of war and banish forever the murderous instruments of mass destruction.” Einstein celebrates that in “the smaller entities of community life, man has made some progress to breaking down the antisocial sovereignties. This is true, for examples, of life within cities and, to a certain degree, even a society with individual states. But in relation to separate states (nations), complete anarchy still prevails. I do not believe that we have made any genuine advance in this area during the last few thousand years.” Written about 80 years ago, Einstein’s verdict would remain the same. There have been a few examples of progress, the European Common Market being the chief one, in my view, but our overall progress has been abysmal. Can we ever overcome the acquisitive, selfish elements of our human nature, the competitive elements that will lead usform the structures and way of working together and mindset that will allow us to live in peace in the centuries to come? It has only been crisis that has brought nations together. We have a crisis today, but we don’t recognize it as such. Is it possible that somehow, against all contrary evidence, we will have the wise and courageous leadership to prevail? Einstein previewed these sentiments on an essay he wrote 13 years earlier, in 1933: Science and Civilization. In this he lamented: “The questions which concern us are: How can we save mankind and spiritual acquisitions of which we are the heirs? How can one save Europe from a new disaster?" He closed on the hopeful thought: “Only through perils and upheavals can nations be brought to further developments. May the present upheavals lead to a better world. Above and beyond this valuation of our time we have this further duty, to care for what is eternal and highest among our possessions, that which gives life its import and which we wish to hand on to our children fewer and richer than we received it from our forbearers.” We’ve had periods of peace since then, triggered importantly by the specter of destruction wreaked by World War II, but those periods have not lasted, they have not been sustained with a new mindset and government structures which would flow from it and which we and this world we live in need to not only thrive but survive.

DEI Should Be A "No Brainer"

I want to explain why I think “DEI” is a no-brainer and I will do that by breaking it down and consider what it’s about, concretely. Why do I say a “no-brainer?” Consider this: What organization would disagree with the belief that in order to have the strongest possible orgaization today, one representative of the consumers it serves, it is important to attract, have and provide support for a diversity of employees? Diverse in race, gender, ethnicity, and also in thinking styles and in leadership styles. What organization would disagree with the fact that there is no value in having diversity if people don’t feel “included?” If they don’t feel able to express their genuine point of view-- that they can express themselves without walking on egg shells? If they don’t feel that they can risk themselves in the organization; if they don't feel it is “home" for them? What organizational leader would disagree that it’s important to give every group a fair chance to be included in the organization. Or would disagree it was important to recognize obvious gaps in the organization whether it be of race or gender or functional expertise or thinking style. Consider this: When we go out to add new board members (not only employees), we think about, “What do we need that we don’t have enough of now?” This is what equity is about. What’s clear to me is that when you break down what we’re talking about in diversity, equity and inclusion, almost nobody would disagree. It is only as this concept has been weaponized by the acronym “DEI” and when, in some cases, we have gone overboard in the application of DEI, both in the way it’s taught and organizational structure, that we get in trouble. My simple point is that going back 50 years, I have come to appreciate the importance of diversity in contributing to sustained business success and, over these years , I have become more and more aware of how important it is for people to feel included. And, yes, over time, how important it is to be crystal-clear on where we have gaps in the make-up of our organization and are not achieving equity in the way we should and hence are failing to achieve all the organizational strength and business results we are capable of. I am not alone in having this experience. Countless leaders in every type of organization have shared that they have had the same experience in building and sustaining success.

Sheer Madness

Sheer madness is the best way for me to summarize what I see happening here in the United States and around the world. It’s a combination of events that should not be happening, that need not be happening, but are happening, that work to threaten and imperil our nation’s future and that of the world. I’m just selecting headlines from the New York Times edition of June 4: “America is losing its pool for best scientists and science.” “China and Europe are on hiring sprees.” Applications from China and Europe for graduate students or post-doctorate positions in the United States have dropped sharply or dried up since President Trump took office. Universities in Europe are receiving an overwhelming response. ***** “Battle over supply chains is the new trade war.” We’re waking up to the obvious. Our supply chains are intimately linked. China is shutting off the shipment of rare minerals which are fundamental to many of our technology products. One Ford plant has already had to shut down. Blocked imports into China of airplane parts are imperiling its airplane industry which, while receiving massive investments by the Chinese government, still rely on imports from the U.S. for important parts. ***** “Israel again opens fire on Gazans near aid hub.” Israeli soldiers opened fire Tuesday morning near crowds of Palestinians walking toward a new food distribution site in southern Gaza. The Red Cross and Gaza Health Ministry said at least 27 people had been killed. It was the second such shooting in three days. ***** “Denouncing anti-Semitism, Trump also fans its flames” ***** “The tit for tat in Russia and Ukraine continues, at the cost of countless lives.” Ukraine uses drones to attack Russia’s bomber fleet. They aimed to “change Putin’s calculus.” Fat chance. Putin continues to advance on the ground. He clearly believes he has the upper hand. ***** “Trump targets a lifeline for Africa: remittances.” About a quarter of the gross national income in Gambia and Liberia come from remittances. Senegal, which the World Bank ranked the country most dependent on remittances, would also suffer. Remittances that Africans already pay income tax on the income. They also pay a 6.5% remittance tax. Now that tax will be raided by 50% to 10%. Analysts say the measure risks pushing millions deeper into hunger and driving up illegal migration and stalling growth for African economies struggling to manage decades of debt. ***** “Officials stonewall judges and deportation cases.” In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump’s address of deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior.

Seeing and Learning From One Another With Respect

I wrote this reflection in August, 2024 while recovering from a blocked small intestine in Christ Hospital. "I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with Ms. Vicky Hill, the woman who cleans the rooms at Christ Hospital. It was about 4 AM. It would have been so easy for me to just say “hi” and see her leave with her mop. That is what I did many times before. I didn’t this time. Our conversation lasted 45 minutes. I asked her if I was holding up her work. She told me not to worry. She worked fast, she said. Our conversation was filled with down-home wisdom and affirmation of so much I believe in. She has worked with Christ Hospital for 39 years, matching my tenure at Procter & Gamble. I asked her how she liked it. “I love it,” she said. Her reason for doing so was no surprise. She finds it home. She lives to make a positive difference in people’s lives every day, in every room, she told me. We talked about the importance of simply seeing each other. Recognizing one another’s presence. One has to be invited to do that. I invited her; she quickly invited me. We asked each other questions. I wanted to know about the impact of racism. Her attitude to life is wonderfully simple. “People can have their attitudes, their opinions; I’ve got mine and I’m going to do what I want to do.” She says all this with the happiest of faces and warmest of hearts. learned a great deal from Vicki. Just as I’ve learned so much from the nurses and PCAs while I’ve been in the hospital this time and in the many times before. I’m reinforced by them: their good will and warm mental state. I’m struck by how hard they work to get through school. I’ve met so many wonderful individuals: Ebony and Heather, and Tiffany and Julia. It’s an inspiring environment. They talked about the “smell of the place” in the same way I talk about the smell of the place in other organizations. It’s remarkable how similarly we see life and what makes life good and worthwhile. No one wants to be in the hospital; certainly not I. I’m dealing with some critical issues that aren’t going to go away when I leave here. How to maintain a balance between my intestine that works and a diet that is nutritious. How long am I going to have to irrigate my catheter? Will the pain in my groin subside and how do I control it? I think it was Wolfgang Berndt who said, “Getting old is not for sissies.” I have marveled how lucky I am to be doing it with my family surrounding me and the knowledge that Francie is as well as we could possibly hope, and friends and people praying for me. I am so fortunate. Yesterday, I heard a beautiful sermon from Rev. Wolfe. He titled it, “The Unexpected: The Support Jesus Could give us if we were Open to it and Prayed for it.” I can’t imagine anything more timelythan that right now for me.

An Insidious, Deplorable Action--Shooting Yourself in the Head and Heart

News bulletin. Marco Rubio, America’s secretary of state, said his country would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students”, some of whom the administration has accused of spying. He said America would also “enhance scrutiny” of future visa applicants from China. The announcement came a day after his terrible plan to pause student-visa applications. *********************************** Talk about "shooting yourself in the foot". This is "shooting yourself in the head and heart". Student exchanges are a foundation for people of different cultures and nationalities coming to understand each other. This action must be reversed.

An Early Blog About Now President Trump--Written Over 9 Years Ago--During His First Campaign--This Tragedy Must Be Reversed

"WE HAVE TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS ROAD SHOW" February 25, 2016 “We Have to Walk Away From This Road Show” These are among the words with which Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson concludes her book, “Mother Country.” It was published in 1989. She was writing about a somewhat different challenge then. She described it as a “decline in national self-esteem.” But in a way, it wasn’t different. In a way, we are facing much the same challenge today. I describe it as a “decline in confidence in our institutions.” Because of this, we are witnessing a campaign by a candidate for the presidency of the United States by Donald Trump unlike any other we have witnessed in my lifetime. A campaign that relishes in sweeping, categorical defamation of other people, such as Muslims and immigrants. A campaign that takes delight in pushing the boundaries of outrageous pronouncements, whether that be in vilifying an entire group of people or accusing a former president of the United States of “lying.” We are perversely taken by Trump’s authenticity, his fearlessness and his complete and utter rejection of political correctness. Trump is feeding off a space filled with the potent mixture of boredom, frustration, hopelessness and anger and the all-too-present human attraction to witness, and indeed even revel, in the bizarre. His impact is fueled by a media frenzy producing unending coverage and the inability of even the most seasoned, tough-minded interviewer to overcome his steamrolling, self-guided verbosity. Without articulating any policy much beyond “building a big wall, which we’ll have Mexico pay for” and “making America great again” in ways weakly defined, he emphatically says, “Trust me. I’m great at making deals.” He has the insidious talent of demeaning, indeed trashing, “others,” while making those he is addressing feel special, valued, even “loved.” He gets away with this in no small measure because he is so obviously delivering what he says with gay abandon. He is really enjoying himself. All of what I’ve written here has been easy to write. But what is not easy and has never been easy in times of challenge of the kind we face today is to find and support the leader who can bring us together, who can offer a vision for the future and plans to support it that realistically offer an improved life for all and to find a role for our country in the world which advances as far as possible the peace we need while avoiding nuclear disaster and the threat of terrorism. Returning to Ms. Robinson, she closes her book with words I resonate to: “My greatest hope is that we will at last find the courage to make ourselves rational and morally autonomous adults, secure enough in the faith that life is good and to be preserved, and to recognize the greatest forms of evil and name them and confront them.” Paraphrasing her conclusion, we have to walk away from this road show which Donald Trump’s campaign represents. We need to “consult with our souls, and find the courage in ourselves, to see and perceive and hear and understand.”