The Motivating and Orienting Power of the Declaration of Independence and P&G's PVP

July 25, 2013

THE MOTIVATING AND ORIENTING POWER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND P&G’S PURPOSE, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

Reading Isaiah Berlin’s “The Power of Ideas,” and specifically the chapter, “The Purpose of Philosophy,” brought a fresh and, for me, compelling perspective on the importance and nature of the Declaration of Independence and Procter & Gamble’s Purpose, Values and Principles.  It may seem a bit outlandish to be discussing these two documents in a parallel fashion; but, as I hope to make clear, there is a reason for doing this.  That reason is founded in the fact that both of these documents provide an important framework, or "model" as Isaiah Berlin would describe it, of how a group of people have chosen and intend to operate and live--a model which embraces their fundamental mission or purpose; the outcomes they seek; and the paths they will pursue to achieve them.  They do this in a decisive, concrete, aspirational and comprehensive manner, yet one that provides the space for application of future learning.  Doing this, as these two documents do, carries great value for the future.

At the same time, both of these statements contain important internal tensions surrounding the relative priority of the goals and the means for achieving them.  These tensions, while bringing challenge, also bring energy and debate needed for future progress.

Let me quote just a portion of the chapter I refer to from Isaiah Berlin’s book to provide context for what I am discussing here.  He asserts that many who have thought about history have seen that different epics do not differ so much based on the “empirical content of what the successive civilizations saw or thought as the basic patterns in which they perceive them, the models and terms of which they conceive them, the category spectacles through which they view them.”

Berlin illustrates his point by observing, for example, that civilizations or institutions which are founded on the belief that God created man for a specific purpose, that there is an afterlife in which man’s sins will be visited upon him, are radically different from the world of a man who believes in none of these things, and that, as a result, the political beliefs, the tastes, the personal relationships of the former will deeply and systemically differ from those of the latter.  To illustrate further, he observes that two very different views of the role of the State -- one being that of “a traffic policeman and night watchman preventing collisions", or another, the State's being a “great cooperative endeavor of individuals seeking to fulfill a common end” -- that these two views lead to laws, practices and expected behaviors which vary greatly.

*****

Here are perhaps the most famous lines of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence of 35 words communicates as succinct and decisive a view of the conditions under which men should live as has ever been written.  It has been a model or framework which no matter how imperfectly realized has guided the development of our nation for over 230 years.

Turning to business, most businesses will view the objective facts of the world around them in similar terms:  They serve multiple constituencies;  consumers matter; people count; a business needs to make a profit; it lives in the community and in an increasingly global world; change is happening faster and innovation is more vital than ever, as is disciplined execution.  How these realities are priorized and internalized into an operating set of goals and principles and values varies from company-to-company.  Even more, how these principles and values are lived varies.  Some companies will choose shareholder return as a singular focus.  For others, like P&G, the consumer will be the starting point.  Some will bring greater emphasis to the importance of people and that will show up in the emphasis on recruiting, training and career development.  Some will place greater weight on the long-term; others on the short-term.

Here is Procter & Gamble's Statement of Purpose:  

We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come.

As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work to prosper. 

Here are P&G’s Principles:  Integrity; Leadership; Ownership; Passion for Winning; Trust.

*****

So what about the commonality of the Declaration of Independence and Procter & Gamble’s Purpose, Values and Principles? 

Just this:  Both of these statements express important choices as to what the institution’s goals are and what outcomes will manifest the achievement of these goals.  They also delineate certain values and behaviors necessary to achieve these goals. 

They have had lasting impact.  They are living documents.

They are statements that we all know are never fully fulfilled.  They are stars, goals to which we aspire.  They are reference points against which we can and must compare our current behavior and adapt and improve it to better meet these aspirations. 

They are laced with internal tensions.  P&G's Purpose, Values and Principles, for example, espouse, at the same time, the importance of innovation and teamwork, leaving open the case-by-case consideration of how they will be balanced.  P&G’s Purpose intentionally melds a commitment to consumers, employees, shareholders and our communities; but deciding how to balance these commitments, short- and long-term, is seldom self-evident.

The Declaration of Independence espouses equality and endowed rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all men.  Yet this leaves open the question of the relative role of the State and the Federal Government in helping assure each individual the realization of these ends.  And what if there is conflict between what one state permits compared to another.  We lived for almost a century under the mantel of a Declaration of Independence which espoused equality while slavery existed in half the country.  We lived even longer with some States giving women the right to vote while others denied it, until finally a Federal constitutional amendment was passed which made women's right to vote a national right. And we live with the same dichotomy today as States differ in recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. 

None of these tensions depreciates the value of these documents, provided we continue to hold the Purpose clear and examine, and indeed debate, how, in light of new knowledge and today’s circumstances, we can better fulfill the essential goals they embrace. 

It is notable how few countries and how few companies actually try to anchor their decisions on a living statement of purpose and set of values like these.  Even long-developed nations, as in Western Europe, seldom refer to foundation documents in the way we do in the United States.  Very few companies, in my experience, test their decisions and behaviors against a statement of purpose and values as we do at Procter & Gamble.

As we have seen, and again referring to the Declaration of Independence, the concept of equality has taken on different meanings over time, whether that be racial segregation, recognition of same-sex marriage, or women's suffrage.  In the future, I personally hope our commitment to “equality” will continue to expand and come to embrace the belief that all children should have the benefit of early childhood development that enables them to start life on close to an equal footing compared to those who are most well off.  

So, too, I’m sure, the actions and behaviors required to best fulfill the Purpose of Procter & Gamble will be conceived in new ways, hopefully wisely and consistent with new learning and the surrounding environment, but always with the guiding principle of being the finest consumer goods company imaginable based on fulfilling our Purpose and living our Values.

JEP:skh

FM_DeclarationOfIndependence072513

REFLECTIONS ON HOPE AND HEROISM AND THE WORK AHEAD OF US!

It has been an interesting month* as far as the news is concerned.  We have our issues of course.  The U.S economy, as Vice President Biden acknowledged honestly, is worse than expected.  The overwhelming media attention to the death of Michael Jackson.  The tragic murder of Steve McNair takes away a pro football figure that many including me admired as an icon of the sport.  The unpredictable shifts in career direction for Sarah Palin continue unabated.  This is what has filled our papers.

Well, fortunately that is not the sum of it, for the past several weeks have also witnessed some events of much greater significance and I believe transcendental importance as the people of the world and their leaders, at least in some places, strive to achieve greater freedom and justice and peace.

We have witnessed hundreds of thousands of people in Iran risk their lives—and in hundreds of cases give their lives—to achieve freedom and ownership of their lives.  One of these brave souls—Nada—who was killed mercilessly while protesting in a square in Teheran—will be a beacon of inspiration for decades to come.  She has entered that galaxy of heroes willing to risk their lives for what they see as a moral right—the right of every individual to freedom and justice.  The fact that we are still so far from achieving this ideal should not, cannot be allowed to discourage us from what we can to progress toward it.

We have also witnessed President Obama in Moscow signing an agreement with President Medvedev to reduce nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.

We celebrated the 4^th of July, recalling that 233 years ago 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence. It contained not only one of the most aspirational but in relationship to the then current reality one of the most preposterous propositions imaginable:  “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Imagine saying that while 600,000 slaves were being held as chattel in this country, while slavery was a legalized institution in every country in the Americas, when women were largely consigned to the home and unable to vote, while individuals of different religious persuasion were sometimes being burned at the stake, when the death penalty was being carried out in many of the most “advanced” countries by decapitation when it was intended to be “humane,” and by having a team of horses draw and quarter the human body when it was not.

Yet, I hate to think where we would be if these ideals had not been expressed so cogently in these 36 introductory words to our Declaration of Independence.

There is no prevarication here.  Not a bit of wiggle room.  No “ifs, ands or buts.”  No “we believe;” no, “it is our view.”  No “in most circumstances.”  No qualifications whatsoever.  Rather:  “We hold these truths to be self evident.”  Truths we know to be true based on our religious convictions and by our moral reason. These ideals have served and continue to serve as a calling, as a vision, as a justification, and above all, as a mandate to move forward.  Again and again, for example in speech after speech, letter after letter, President Lincoln, whose 200^th birthday we celebrate this year, anchored his opposition to slavery in the Declaration’s articulation of the right of every person to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

And the world has progressed.  Slavery, legal in every country in the Americas at the time of the Declaration of Independence, is now legal in none.  Torture, while far from extinct, draws the greatest scrutiny not only when practiced by our enemies but by ourselves.  We talk about abolishing the death penalty altogether.  We, in the U.S, have elected our first black president.  I shake my head as I remind myself that in the year I joined P&G (1963), there were still high schools that only allowed black boys to swim on Friday, then cleaning out the pool over the weekend so the white boys could swim from Monday to Thursday.

The peoples of Eastern Europe risked their lives (and many gave them) in the late 1980s and early 1990s that had been denied for decades.  Anyone approaching my age will remember the inspiring scene of hundreds of thousands of people joined together in Wenceslas Square in Prague just 20 years ago demanding their freedom and freedom came as it did shortly thereafter in Romania and Bulgaria and Ukraine and the other countries of Eastern Europe.  And then there is South Africa, lifted from the plague of white apartheid thanks to the courageous and persistent leadership of Nelson Mandela and the hundreds of thousands who supported him.

Of course none of these advances was obtained easily or quickly.  It was one thing—and a great and bold thing—to author and sign the Declaration of Independence.  It was another to WIN that independence. That took a war and the sacrifice of thousands of lives.  That sacrifice was made by many of those who signed that Declaration.  Of the 59 signers, five were captured and tortured by the British; nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War; 12 had their homes ransacked and burned by the British.  No, freedom is not free.

Before slavery’s legal status was ended, an estimated two million enslaved men and women had died aboard ships bringing them to the Americas and hundreds of thousands more died fighting for their freedom after they had arrived.  People of all races and creeds risked and gave their lives as part of the Underground Railroad and the Civil Rights movements which were determined to make real the freedom pledged in the Emancipation Proclamation.

 No, freedom is not free.  It takes courage and stamina.  It requires that people stand up for what they believe to be the moral right of every person to be all they can be.

Yet, there has been progress.  I cite this not as a source of self-satisfaction and even less a justification for any sense of complacency but rather as a source of hope and of energy and courage to continue on.  And continue on we must for the gap between “what is” and “what ought to be” is still very great.

We take satisfaction from the reduction of nuclear warheads held by Russia and the United States but have to recognize that the use of even a fraction of the thousands that remain would end civilization, as we know it.  And new countries are developing these weapons as you read this.

Yes, slavery has been outlawed virtually everywhere as an institution.  Yet, there are an estimated 27 million people held in bondage and other forms of contemporary slavery, including sex trafficking.

Women continue to be denied education, the right to vote and work, and other natural rights in far too many parts of the world.  In our own country, tens of millions of people are without health care insurance; the drop-out rates in our major urban areas continue to hover near 50%; the cry to improve our childhood development and educational outcomes in The Nation at Risk report of 1983 is still there 26 years later, even more so given the competitive global world in which we live. 

While more conscious of the need to act responsibly to protect our planet environmentally, the gap between where we are and where we need to be is very large.

Yet, still, with all we have to do we should not be discouraged.  I have experienced and learned more than enough in my 70 years on this earth to know that man has the capability for great good and considerable evil.  We are a mixture of instincts, drives and motivations.  Yet history shows that with perseverance and courage and acting in line with that basic instinct to do what we believe is right and put ourselves in the other persons’ shoes and, yes, sometimes with a bit of luck we can – and we have – made progress.  Major progress.  Progress that in earlier times seemed inconceivable.  If in the 233 years since this country’s founding slavery has been eliminated as a legal institution, if life expectancy in the developed world has been extended by over 20 years, if women have achieved the right to vote and receive education and take leadership positions, if the countries of Western Europe instead of having a war every 30 or 40 years are joined together in a strong if not perfect economic union, if Russia and the United States can become allies on many important matters, who is to say we cannot make major progress against the most important issues of our day!

As Susan Neiman says in her excellent book Moral Clarity, the demand today is not to abandon the ideals of our youth.  What we must abandon is the naïve belief that they will be completely fulfilled.  The abyss that separates “is” from “ought” is too deep to bridge entirely.  But we can narrow it and narrow it significantly and to do that we need the same kind of visionary and uncompromisingly expressed belief and goal that the authors of the Declaration of Independence articulated 233 years: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (including) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Very few of us will be called upon to risk our lives in the name of Freedom as were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, or the leaders of the Civil Rights movement, or President Lincoln, or the protestors still on the streets of Teheran.  But we will be asked to do something still challenging and less dramatic.  We will be asked to live for and make a difference in supporting the dignity and potential of others whose lives we touch.  Much of this can be considered banal, acts that can be hard to recognize as heroic: caring for a sick relative or friend, mentoring a young child, helping out at a soup kitchen.  The best lives combine both the great and the good. 

Again, as Susan Neiman writes, heroism that stays alive is harder to notice precisely because it is impure, hazy and jumbled.  Ordinary goodness is fraught with veins of vanity and self-interest and above all with pleasure, because goodness makes one feel alive.  But that does not detract from its adding to the dignity and happiness we can provide to the lives of others.

So I say:  there is much to do.  And it is urgent that we go about this work for today’s generation and for all that follow.  There are more than adequate grounds for hope that we can do this.  Hope anchored in the progress that has been made in the past.  Hope fired by the inspiration provided by individuals who have fought valiantly on their own behalf and on behalf of others for Freedom.  Individuals who bring to life those values of courage and perseverance and cooperation that at our best will lead all of us to do all we can in our circle of influence to advance the personal dignity and freedom for those whose lives we touch.

*I wrote these reflections on July 4th, 2009

 

 

Victor Frankl's "In Search of Meaning"

Few books have meant so much to me as Man’s Search For Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl.

Of course, I have quoted and thought about Viktor Frankl and his life many times.  His life in concentration camps, his reflections on what that had meant to him.  His so well-expressed belief that it is not one’s circumstances but one’s reaction to them which matters most.  His book, which has gone through countless printings, and sold over 123 million copies, is one that I had never read before.  It is short and utterly profound.  It is founded on the belief that life is not primarily a quest for pleasure or a quest for power, but it is a quest for meaning. And Frankl finds that quest for meaning deriving from three sources:  an activity or act to which one commits himself; an experience, particularly an experience of love, but also the experiencing of nature; and the meaning that flows from the dignity with which one approaches suffering.

Frankl’s most enduring insight is that forces beyond our control can take away everything we possess except one thing, our freedom to choose how we will respond to a situation.  We cannot control what happens to us in life, but we can always control what we feel and do about it.  We are never left with nothing as long as we retain the freedom to choose how we will respond.  There are so many galvanizing perspectives here:

The advice that one should not aim for success, but rather realize that success like happiness must ensue and always does ensue as the unintended side effect of one’s dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the bi-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself.

I was captured by Frankl’s revealing of a thought which transfixed him in the concentration camp – that for the first time in his life he saw the truth that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire.  Surely “the salvation of man is through love and in love.”  At these moments he thought of his wife.  He didn’t even know if she was still alive, but he knew that “love goes very far beyond the physical person of the beloved.  It finds its deepest meanings in a spiritual being, his inner self.”  He said there was no need for him to know (if she was alive).  “Nothing could touch the strength of my love, my thoughts and the image of my beloved.  Had I known then that my wife was dead, I think that I would still have given myself, undisturbed by that knowledge, the contemplation of her image, and that my mental conversation with her would have been just as vivid and just as satisfying.”  Isn’t this how we can recall and do recall those whom we have loved who have passed away in death?

Frankl reflects on the choice that the concentration inmates faced.  And he does not suggest that many, let alone all, faced it successfully.  The choice revolved around whether the individual would struggle against the situation to save his self-respect, being an individual with a mind with inner freedom and personal value.  He had the choice of thinking of himself as only part of an enormous mass of people, his existence descended to the level of animal life.  He did not fault those who succumbed to this.  But he celebrated those who maintained their individual dignity, who recognized that finding meaning at that moment involved determining what they could do to make the most of every moment, to capture the view of a living tree or a sunrise, to do something for a fellow inmate.

Others, “instead of taking the camp’s difficulties as a test of inner strength, preferred to close their eyes and to live in the past.  Life for such people became meaningless … it is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future and this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.”

Frankl returns to the thought expressed above many times.  He turns to another thought later in the book which I think has equal merit and, in fact, seems to co-exist with his admonishment of looking to the future.  Here he points out that “instead of possibilities in the future, we can view realities of the past – the potentialities they have actualized, the meanings they have fulfilled, the values they have realized – and nothing, nobody can ever remove these assets from the past.”  He says eloquently that “people tend to see only the stubble in fields of transitory-ness, but overlook and forget the full granaries of the past into which they have brought the harvest of their lives; the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity.”

This is a wonderful thought which I and all of us should take heart from.  We must remember our victories, our blessings, and draw strength from them even as we at the same time identify our purpose and the meaning of our lives as we go forward. 

There’s another aspect of this book which bears deep thought.  And that is the emphasis Frankl brings to the value of not only being what would be described as “useful,” but being valuable in the “sense of dignity” that one displays in living one’s life.  This certainly applies to how one handles setbacks and suffering.  It is important to note that Frankl insists that he’s talking about bearing with suffering which cannot be avoided.  If suffering can be avoided, the first command is to avoid it, but there is other suffering, such as an incurable illness, which cannot be avoided, and it is the dignity and courage with which one handles this, the amount that one still takes from every day, that not only represents living life as well as one can, but represents a model for others to emulate.

Frankl has perspective on “freedom” with which I agree entirely.  He regards freedom as only part of the story.  Freedom is a negative aspect of the whole phenomena within which responsible-ness is the positive aspect.  “In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrary-ness unless it is lived in terms of responsible-ness.”

Frankl ended his book by noting that rather than talk about “saints,” why not just talk about “decent people.”  “It is true that they form a minority.  More than that, they will always remain a minority.”  Our challenge is to join the minority.  “For the world is in a bad state, but everything will become still worse unless each of us does his best.”  Words to sign on to.

[Frankl was once asked to express in one sentence the meaning of his own life.  He wrote the response on paper and asked his students to guess what he had written.  One student surprised Frankl by saying “the meaning of your life is to help others find the meaning of theirs.”    “That was it, exactly,” Frankl said.  “Those are the very words I had written.”]

Again, this is a book of less than 170 pages.  It contains enormous wisdom.  I hope that I can internalize the best of it and live it.

Sobering Realities Showcasing The Complexity and Imperfection of Man, While Calling On Us to Live Our Better Natures

Subject:  Sobering Articles Revealing the Frailty of Man, the Challenge of Making Decisions

                                    To do What’s Right, and the Case for Humility

 

Seldom, in a single day, have I read so many articles that show the perplexity and perversity of life: 

 

·         From the New York Times Page One:  “The Secret Deal on Drones, Sealed in Blood..the CIA air war in Pakistan began with quid pro quo killing of rebel Nek Muhammad.”

·         From the New York Times Page One:  “Tax Lobby Builds Ties to Chairman of Finance Panel..former aides are hired..pushing interests of business’s changes to the Code.”

·         From the New York Times:  Page One:  “Grave robbers and more steal serious history from Syria.”

·         From the Boston Globe:  Some believe, “It may be in the interest of the United States to see the savage civil war in Syria continue.”

·         From the New York Times Book Review:  “Fear Itself:  The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time.”  The book makes the case, among others, that in order to pass its programs, the New Dealers “sell their souls to the segregated South.”

·         From the New York Times Book Review:  “FDR and the Jews,” it posits that “to fight World War II, Roosevelt needed support from legislators who wanted to keep out Europe’s Jews” from immigrating to the United States.

 

I read all these articles in juxtaposition with the glorious day and evening I spent at Yale, celebrating the tenure of Rick Levin as President of Yale and the values which he and Yale espouse in the pursuit of truth, human rights, etc.  And yet, as these articles (and life in general) showcase, that pursuit is not an easy one to chart, and it is not always or perhaps even usually pure.  But yet, this sobering reality cannot stop us from pursuing what is right and just and fair as best we can see the light to do that as well as we possibly can.

 

These articles are a call for us to do what we can in our own limited time and in our own limited space, in the name of integrity and doing what we can to make the world around us a better place, starting with those closest to us.

 

 

 

                                                                   

Maintaining the Anchor of Your Own Conscience

Following the Voice of Your Conscience and The Importance of Courage

(This was a personal reflection which I wrote in 1994 in preparing a talk for my P&G associates)

There will be several turning points in all our lives – and in fact we may have to reach this most important turning point many times.  It is the point at which we make the decision:  “I will live by my conscience from this time forward to the best of my ability.  I will not allow any voice, social mirror, scripting, even my own rationalizing to speak more clearly to me than the voice of conscience and, whatever the consequence, I will follow it.”

As Emerson said:  “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.  Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”

Of all the principles that guide us, the two most essential to peace of mind are contribution – making a valuable difference – and conscience – being trustworthy – to oneself and to others.

We know that our Company will only be as strong as the intelligence, judgment and character of our employees.

Our people … our values … our principles … they are the one competitive advantage that cannot be duplicated.  Technology can be copied, capital can be bought, and strategies can be gleaned from what we do and from what others write.  But values … principles … these cannot be copied and picked up.  They flow from the heritage and character of the people who have been with and are with the Company today … the way we work together and the expectations we have of one another.

It is most difficult and often most important for you to hold your ground when you are most alone.  Only conviction, strength of character and courage will let you do this.  But there will be times in your life when it will be all important.  Times when we must hold to our own convictions, not being swayed by others, even those of great repute.

It is useful to remind ourselves how often people of high reputation can get things wrong.  Opinions about Stalin written in the years 1929-34, when he was in the process of liquidating ten million Russians as part of the collectivization of agriculture and farms, bear out the point.  H.G. Wells said he had “never met a man more candid, fair and honest…no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him.”  Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, described him as leading “his people down new and unfamiliar avenues of democracy.”

The American Ambassador, Josephine Davies, reported him as having “insisted on the liberalization of the constitution.  His brown eyes, exceedingly wise and gentle; a child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.”  Emile Ludwig, the famous popular biographer, found him to be a man “to whose care I would readily confide the education of my children.”

No matter who says what, no matter how small the group that supports your point of view, never fail to follow the voice of your conscience.

JEP Journal – 1994 – Principles of Life_022012

America's Growing Inequality Crisis

I recently read a sobering and mid-opening book, "The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It", by Timothy Noah

I will begin by citing some key facts--and then the author's and my own conclusions.

1.     On primary and secondary education.  To note that as late as the 1930s, America was virtually alone in providing universally free and accessible secondary schools (page 88).  By the end of the century, Europe had caught up with or exceeded average educational attainment in the United States.

2.     In 1970 the high school graduation rate stopped climbing for the first time since 1890.  Since 1980 it has leveled off at about 75%.

3.     While the college attendance rate in the United States has continued to rise, the college completion rate has slowed sufficiently to put our 25-34-year-olds behind many other countries including Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, Belgium and Ireland.  We are now in the middle of the pack.

•  Among other things, this highlights the need for us to be bringing children into technical colleges for specific degrees matched with developing job markets.

5.     The book tells a crystal-clear picture of how we have constantly resisted immigration.

For example, the immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans, who accounted for more than 75% of the 8 million European immigrants who entered the United States during the first decade in the 20^th century, drew this diatribe from President-to-be Woodrow Wilson in his “History of the American People” in 1902, the year he became President at Princeton University:

“Throughout the (19^th) century men of the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe had made up the main strain of foreign blood.  But now there came multitudes of men of the lowest classes from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy or any initiative of quick intelligence; they came in numbers which increased from year to year, as if the countries of the south of Europe were disburdening themselves of the more sordid and hapless elements of their population.”

This vicious cultural stereotyping bore the imprimatur of the academic elite.  To try to prevent immigrants from voting, literacy tests were put in place in 1917 and then quota laws in 1921 and 1924.

*****

The book develops in a compelling way the fact that the “richest of the rich” have moved back to a position they had in the late 1920s, with about 24% of all income going to the top 1% of the population.  It had drifted down to be as low as about 13% during World War II.

The author reviews many contributors to this inequality.  They include the demise of labor unions, a greater premium being afforded to higher education, the growth of single parent homes (40% of homes where children are growing up with a single parent are in poverty), the outsourcing of jobs in a re-configured global economy, particularly in Asia, tax policy (not really a big factor as he reviews it; interestingly, no matter what the nominal rates have been on higher income, the net effective rates have varied fairly little) and at the upper end, just a dramatic growth in those wages.  For example, the average CEO in 1973 was earning about 27 times more than the average worker.  That has now increased 10-fold to about 270 times.  I witnessed it first-hand.

As to how to tackle the issue of income inequality, which I agree is something to be pursued, the key instruments, it seems to me, are providing the education and skills that young people need to participate in the best jobs in the emerging economy, eliminating the most egregious laws and policies that afford more money than is truly earned by top wage earners (e.g., carried interest, obvious tax loopholes), ideally (though not likely practical) imposing a minimum effective tax rate on high income earners (the idea that Warren Buffett pays only 17% is, in his own view, absurd). 

The even bigger issue for me is to ensure the possibility of upward mobility, i.e., every child and young man and woman has the opportunity to fully use his/her abilities.  The key here within our control is education.  It starts at the very earliest age (pre-natal/pre-school).  I won’t spell out again here suggestions that I have made in other blogs on this space. 

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

Capitalists for Preschool

By JOHN E. PEPPER Jr. and JAMES M. ZIMMERMAN

Published: March 1, 2013

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• 

IN his State of the Union address, President Obama called for making preschool available to every 4-year-old in America, opening a welcome discussion on whether and how to make the investments needed to realize this vision.

Related in Opinion

• Editorial: Getting Preschool Education Right (February 16, 2013)

More on Education »

ROOM FOR DEBATE

Is Public Preschool a Smart Investment?

Would quality child care that included a preschool curriculum be a better national goal?

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

As two longtime corporate executives who have been engaged in education for decades, we have no doubt about the answer to this question. Children who attend high-quality preschool do much better when they arrive in kindergarten, and this makes an enormous difference for their later success. The data on preschool is overwhelmingly positive. Although some studies suggest that the positive impact decreases over time, this is mainly attributable to differences in the quality of preschool and of the schooling that follows — not a deficiency in preschool itself.

The effectiveness of quality early childhood education has been affirmed by many business-related groups, includingReadyNation, a coalition of business leaders, organized in 2006.

The Institute for a Competitive Workforce, an affiliate of the United States Chamber of Commerce, found in a 2010 report that “for every dollar invested today, savings range from $2.50 to as much as $17 in the years ahead.” Research by the University of Chicago economist James J. Heckman, a Nobel laureate, points to a 7- to 10-percent annual return on investment in high-quality preschool.

Local examples of the impact of early childhood education abound. In greater Cincinnati, a program called Success by 6 has raised the proportion of children testing as “ready to read” upon entering kindergarten to 57 percent, from 44 percent in the 2006-7 academic year. Of those children, 85 percent still read at (or above) age level at the end of third grade — compared with only 43 percent of the children who do not test as “ready to read” when they start kindergarten.

In short, early educational interventions really matter, and have long-term consequences. Children who are not proficient in reading by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school than children who read at or above grade level — and 13 times more likely, if they live in poverty. A child’s brain grows to roughly 85 percent of its full capacity in the first five years of life. These are also the years when a child’s sense of what is possible is being formed.

The connections from preschool to reading proficiency to high school completion — a bare-minimum requirement in today’s economy — could not be clearer.

And it shouldn’t take scientific research to reach this conclusion. Families who can afford quality preschool don’t generally consider long-term cost-effectiveness when they enroll their children. Indeed, among affluent families in which both parents have full-time careers, there is strong demand for quality learning environments as early as age 2.

To be sure, the debate over preschool is also partly a debate over inequality. Our nation is becoming divided: an America of well-off, well-educated families, who can afford pre-K education, and struggling families who are living in poverty or close to it (often, even while holding down full-time jobs), have modest educations, living in challenged circumstances, and can’t.

Do we really think it is fair to predetermine children’s chances for success in life based on what ZIP code they live in? Doesn’t every child deserve as close to the same chance to develop her or his abilities as any other child?

Universally available prekindergarten is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. Raising lifetime wages (and thereby tax revenues) and reducing the likelihood that children will drop out of school, get involved in crime, and become a burden on the justice system more than make up for the costs of early childhood education.

Other countries have realized this. China reportedly has set a goal of giving 70 percent of all children three years of prekindergarten education — far ahead of the modest one year proposed by President Obama — by the year 2020. Our greatest deficit in this country — the one that most threatens our future as a nation — is our education deficit, not our fiscal one.

Some will ask where the money will come from, at a time when states and localities are even more strapped than the federal government. While there are a variety of financing proposals, we do not believe higher taxes will be necessary in every jurisdiction.

Rather, we believe the right approach will be to rebalance and optimize the money we are spending now. The amount of money being spent on early childhood education is so small currently that we are confident it is possible to achieve the efficiencies needed to shift money from other areas of investment.

Last year, only 2 percent of Ohio’s general-fund budget went to early childhood education. We believe that, with proper planning, that amount could be doubled without compromising other financing streams.

We have spent most of our careers in business and have come to support quality prekindergarten for all children, especially those whose families cannot afford it, because we know these programs work. The only question is how to bring them to a huge scale. Our nation’s future demands it. If there ever was a nonpartisan issue, this is it.

John E. Pepper Jr. is a former chairman and chief executive of Procter & Gamble and a former chairman of the Walt Disney Company. James M. Zimmerman is a former chairman and chief executive of Macy’s.