AN OUTSTANDING BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE H.W.BUSH

Jon Meacham’s Biography of George Herbert Walker Bush

This is one of the finest biographies I can recall reading.  It describes the life of a man whom I’ve admired for decades.  The basis for that admiration—his strength and integrity and his commitment to service and his country and his family--was brought forth in a transparent and convincing way.

The book is greatly strengthened by Meacham’s judicious use of Bush’s diary which he dictated for much of his active life.

Bush’s role in overseeing the peaceful end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s, his empathetic and constructive relationship with Gorbachev and his balanced judgment emerge clearly.  His decency was remarkable.

I agree with Meacham’s judgment:  “His life was spent in the service of his nation, in his spirit of conciliation, common sense and love of country will stand him in strong stead through the ebbs and flows of posterity’s judgment.  On that score—that George H.W. Bush was a uniquely good man in a political universe where good men were hard to come by—that was shared by a bi-partisan consensus a quarter of a century after his White House years.

Bush in many ways was like John Smale and in some ways like myself.  Modest but driven, almost always compassionate, he was out to serve but also to win.  Yet he had his personal doubts.  I think he failed to appreciate his full excellence, this despite a remarkable record of accomplishments:  at Yale; in the service; in business and in public service: in Congress; Envoy to China; leading the CIA, etc.

I had no idea how many disappointments he had faced, above all the death of his and Barbara’s daughter, Robin, at the age of three.  Losses in political elections, not getting the job he wanted.  And indeed until the very last moment, feeling he would not get the Vice Presidential slot with Ronald Reagan. 

I’m not sure Bush ever would have become President if he had not been the Vice President for Ronald Reagan.  He learned so much from Reagan, though never, happily, tried to be like him.

Of the various tributes to George H.W. Bush, I rate none stronger than this.  It came from his son Jeb:  “How great is this country that it could elect a man as fine as our dad to be its President?”  That remark so struck Laura Bush that she included it in the White House memoir she wrote after she and George W. left Washington in 2009.

I think it is fair to say, as Meacham does, that George H.W. Bush represented “the twilight of a tradition of public service in America, one embodied by FDR, by Eisenhower, and by George H.W. Bush.”

There is so much to be learned, and imitated, in Bush’s relationship with Gorbachev.  It took the two of them.   Bush fully understood how important it was to work constructively with Gorbachev.  And so did Gorbachev with him.  The “old suspicions” between the two super powers had to go, Bush said.  Both nations had to learn how to thrive in a multi-polar world. 

If only we had not lost that instinct.  Gorbachev made a huge concession in agreeing to a united Germany and then, with great reluctance, agreeing for it to become a member of NATO.  Gorbachev’s associates were dumb-founded that he agreed to do that. 

Nowhere did Bush’s respect for and empathy with Gorbachev manifest itself more than in his reaction to the attempted overthrow of Gorbachev.  He resisted John Major’s suggestion of convening the NATO ministers out of his fear that “it will make it look like we are militarizing and that we anticipate a military threat to the West...it is the last damn thing we need to get involved in in that kind of confrontation.”

And then he spoke with Gorbachev on the phone:  “My dearest George,” Gorbachev said.  “I am so happy to hear your voice again.”  “My God,” Bush said, “I’m glad to hear you.”  They spoke for 11 minutes.  “He sounded jubilant and he sounded upbeat,” Bush dictated, “he was very, very grateful to me...for the way we have conducted ourselves.”

The peaceful resolution of this crisis was, for Bush, ratification of his essential diplomatic instincts of balance and moderation.  “We could have overacted, and moved troops, and scared the hell out of people,” Bush told his diary.  “We could have under-reacted by saying, ‘well, we will deal with whoever is there.’  But...I think we found the proper balance.”

The respect which Bush showed to other leaders was genuine and worked to great advantage.  The relationship with French President Mitterrand was an example.  There had been worry that France might not support the use of NATO outside of Europe in the circumstance of the Gulf War.  However, when Bush asked for that support, Mitterrand simply said, “we will be there.”  To his diary Bush confided that he felt that the visit he (Bush) had with Mitterrand at his place in Maine and “the respect I have tried to show him personally, (paid) off in diplomacy.  I differ with his personal diplomacy, but I think when you talk from a basis of friendship, it does help; and I think he knows I respect him.”

As always, respect builds trust and trust means everything. 

During the Gulf War, Bush reflected on the nature of American leadership.  Gregarious and inclusive by nature, Meacham writes, he could uphold the Presidency in keeping with these essential elements of his own character.  “All countries in the west clearly have to turn to us,” Bush told his diary, “but it is my theory that the more they are included on the take-off, the more we get their opinion, the more we reach out, no matter what is involved in terms of time involved, the better it is.  Everyone is proud.  Everyone has his place in the sun—large country or small, they should be consulted, their opinions considered and then when the United States makes a move, and I make a decision, we are more apt to have solid support.”

If only we conducted ourselves more in line with that conviction today.  If only that spirit had permeated our relationship with Russia over the last 15 years.  If we had, I do not believe we would be in the position we are today.  The neocons, whom Bush resisted, but whose son, George W. Bush, sadly did not, have continued to have an influence that has been disruptive, in my view, to the best interests of the United States.  George H.W. Bush demonstrated this more than ever as he decided not to occupy Iraq.  The war to unseat Hussein, “to occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero,” Bush recalled in 1998.  “It could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish.”  If only his son had followed this instinct.

The candor and honesty of Bush’s own self-reflections pours out of his diaries in a manner that I can sometimes identify with.  The post-Gulf War period was, as Meacham describes it:  “a study in shadow.”  Coming off that intense experience, Bush had to turn back to what he really didn’t relish, domestic affairs, and it is clear to me he was tired.  He was now 66.  He fantasized in his diary about surprising the world by announcing that he would not seek reelection:  “You need someone in this job (who can give) his total last ounce of energy, and I’ve had (that) up until now, but now I don’t seem to have the drive.”  He was tired of what he described as “sniping, carping, bitching, predictable editorial complaints.” 

But he continued on.

I’ll conclude these notes with a salute to George H.W. Bush by his son George, on the occasion of the commissioning of an aircraft carrier named after his father.  “We will always be inspired by the faith, humor, patriotism, and compassion he taught us through his own example.  And for as long as we live, we will carry with us Dad’s other lessons:  that integrity and honor are worth more than any title or treasure, and that the truest strength did come from the gentlest soul.”

George H.W. Bush is a role model for me, for all of us.

"THE WAR OF THE WORLDS"--THE IMPERATIVE OF WORKING TOGETHER!

"The War of the Worlds"

Some years ago a pastor friend of mine delivered a sermon in which he averred that maybe what we needed was to discover that there is another populated planet out there and its inhabitants are out to destroy our civilization. Maybe that, he went on, would finally lead us to come together across nations and races, bridging differences that have too often separated us, to save our civilization. 

Well, horribly, I don't think it is engaging in hyperbole to say that we have our "War of the Worlds" today in the form of ISIS. It is dedicated to destroying civilization as we know it. Beyond that, we have the overhanging threat of nuclear disaster which would destroy civilization as we know it. 

ISIS is a new and long term threat. It has taken tens of thousands of lives: Muslim and Christian lives in Syria and Iraq, Russian lives in the plane bombing in the Sinai peninsula, French and other lives in Paris; most recently lives in San Bernardino. It has contributed to a refugee crisis in the millions. 

I believe that defeating ISIS and what it stands for and neutralizing the risk of nuclear annihilation will require new thinking and a new coalition of nations who have not worked together recently if ever. Arab and Muslim countries, NATO, the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc. Countries not agreeing on all things, not all being bosom buddies, not all having the same values, but seeing that preserving civilization as we know it demands that we work together to a common goal.

US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

US-Russian Relations

I offered these comments at NYU in New York City in late November, 2015

I was part of a panel, other members consisting of  former Senator Bill Bradley; former

Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock; historian, Stephen Cohen and former Ambassador William vanden Heuvel

Key Points:

1.     proving very possible to continue to do business in Russia, despite the geo-political tensions between our two countries and the significant financial challenges growing from the decline in the price of oil and, to a lesser extent, sanctions.  Russian political leadership has stopped short of falling into the trap of impeding American business in Russia.  Neither the political leadership nor the public has entered into what we have seen in some countries in the past, such as boycotts of U.S. products. 

Russian leadership has stated that it is open and anxious for investment and multi-country collaboration.  It has been very consistent on this position, including the recent summit meetings of the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee attended by over 30 CEOs and chaired by Prime Minister Medvedev. 

The rank and file in Russia appreciate the higher standards that have been set for employees and for business by multi-national firms like ours.

These businesses have had a positive influence on life in Russia.

People often raise with me whether corruption has affected our business and the short answer is “no”; while overtures have been made, they have been refused and people understand that’s just not something we would do.

Note that there is another aspect of doing business in Russia I’d note.  My own experience over 25 years has given me and other business leaders the opportunity to come to know Russian men and women, in the government, universities, and our own employees that has helped us even more understand how common our basic interests are, underscoring even more the need to come together where we can.

2.     Let me make just a few observations following the comments from my associates:

a.     What is Russia’s/Putin’s long-term intent?  Some see it as wanting to extend its geographical reach and presence in ways analogous to what existed under Communism.  I do not.  Time will tell.  I think Putin’s goal is to achieve a sustaining, economically thriving, respected Russian state, looked at and treated as a partner in critical world matters and free of what would appear to be encroaching threats on its immediate borders.

There is no question that for Russia to have a healthy, growing economy, and for the entire world to be safe from terrorism, Russia needs constructive, non-adversarial relationships with the U.S. and the West. 

Whatever, I believe the main thing we need to do is to understand what are our core goals as a Nation, goals which parallel what the world needs and identify those which, in order to achieve, require that Russia and the U.S. (and others) work together.

Today, I believe those goals—those threats—are, most importantly:

·      Terrorism

·      Failed states

·      Nuclear proliferation and disaster

                 

      At a minimum, we need to:

·      Avoid a further breakdown in the relationships between Russia and the U.S.  This means that we must work together to resolve what are the open wounds now in Ukraine and Syria and others parts of the Middle East which are killing hundreds of thousands of refugees.  Both require political settlements which require Russia and the U.S. (and others) to be at the table, as well as the defeat of ISIS.

·      Come together to identify what are the common interests which Russia and the U.S. and others must work to achieve.  Interests so important and so requiring Russia and the U.S. to work together that we must form a common goal and plan.  Those for me are two-fold:

o   Avoiding the risk of nuclear proliferation and disaster.

o   Combatting terrorism, starting with but not exclusively combatting ISIS

We are going to need to accept the fact that some values as they relate to the mode of democracy and cultural issues such as same-sex marriage will be different in Russia than the U.S., just as they are different with many other countries and, indeed, in parts of our own country and have differed over time.  We must avoid seeming to or actually working to impose our values on Russia.  We must acknowledge Russia as a major global power, with a history and status that deserve and demand respect.  We should dial down the rhetoric which vilifies the other party when what they are doing is essentially expressing their own national interest and pride as we do.  Such rhetoric runs the grave risk of creating “self-fulfilling” negative outcomes—“mythical enemies”—distracting us from the real enemies in front of us.  

Of course, we should make it clear that we will not stand by and allow Russia or any country to infringe upon the integrity of another national state like Ukraine. 

We should be under no illusion that Putin’s mindset and deeply entrenched attitudes will change quickly.  They are the product of decades of experience.  To the degree they change, they will change based on actions and behaviors on both our parts as we work together on objectives of common interest.  Most importantly, at this moment, combatting ISIS and reaching political settlement that brings greater stability and peace to Ukraine and Syria and other countries of the Middle East.

I hope and believe President Putin understands that it will only be through a coalition of forces, prominently including the United States, that terrorism can be beaten, nuclear proliferation avoided and economic progress optimized.

I am convinced that if leaders will come together with cool heads and firm will to identify the principles and goals and focus the discourse forward on our common imperatives, including combatting terrorism and taking steps to control the threat of nuclear annihilation, we can progress. 

I identify with the way Henry Kissinger expressed it:  On a foundation of recognizing the realities of Russian power and interests and on treating Russia as the global power it is, we should identify how “their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities” and try to “integrate Russia into the international order in a way that takes Russia’s interests into account.”

It has always been human nature that we come together best when we face a common enemy.  Unlike the past, we do not have ideological differences with Russia as we do with ISIS that should lead to war or to competing commitments to global expansion.  We should work together to resolve the greatest threats to our two nations and the entire world.

Portman_RussiaTestimony102815

THE REFUGEE CRISIS--WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY DEMAND

 The Refugee Crisis--What Does Christianity Demand? 

I am wrestling with this question, challenge, dilemma--call it what you will. It is a classic dilemma: trying to reconcile two "goods". Here are my thoughts. I am praying that our world leaders will reach the right conclusions. 

We know what the bible says. We know if the mantra, "Everyone Counts", means anything we in the United States need to play a leading role helping those women and men fleeing to save their lives and their children's lives from persecution. 

At the same time, governments owe their citizens and their families a safe environment. Governments should not take action which they believe introduce risk of murder of their citizens of the kind that took place in Paris last week. That means as we accept people into our country or any country we should be as sure as humanly possible through our vetting process that they will not do harm. In fact, the vetting process already in place, is extremely rigorous, especially for refugees from Syria. The average clearance time is 18-24 months. As many as 10 U.S Agencies are involved before the refugee is cleared to come to the U.S.

So what concretely do I believe is required of the U.S. and other nations:

1. All nations (West, Arab, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, etc.) under the auspices of the United Nations or other broad based coalition must work together to achieve: a) a cease fire and then political settlement in Syria which will bring a halt to the Civil War and b) marshal the forces to eliminate the ISIS plague and the threat it represents to the civilized world. This is also essential to stop the outward flow of refugees  and enable those who have already left to safely return. We must set aside past grievances, real or manufactured, to do these two things. Specifically, we must work with Russia and, yes, Iran to that end. The discussions in Vienna are encouraging. We must use our leverage to demand participation by Saudi and other Arab nations. 

2. These same nations under the auspices of the United Nations or other broad coalition should create a plan to: 

a) support (and I mean really support) the refugees who have already left their home to locate in a safe location as close as possible to Syria until they can return to their home. This will probably require establishment of "safe zones" protected by joint forces including NATO, Russia, Turkey, Iran and others nations. It will be necessary to give much more financial support to the countries neighboring Syria (e.g. Jordan) to make this possible.  Following the achievement of a political settlement we will need a Marshall Plan like effort to rebuild the infrastructure of Syria to permit a return to viable life. Doing this has to be predicated on a political settlement and the elimination of the ISIS plague. It will require a massive investment far beyond what has been done to date; 

b) continue to draw on the best intelligence and security experts in the world to ensure that the Syrians who have already sought or are seeking asylum in other countries can be "vetted"  to assure they do not pose a threat to the local populations. As I wrote above, my reading indicates that the vetting process for our country is already extremely rigorous and steps will continue to be taken to make it stronger. We will never achieve "zero risk" on this anymore than we can achieve that with our own indigenous population but we have to provide convincing assurance that the risk is minimal. We have to recognize that this will delay and probably limit the number of immigrants who can be accepted. But we should not lead this to turn our back on playing the role we should in aiding those most threatened. We turned our backs before as sadly described in the article below. Let's not have it happen again on our  watch. 

Stepping back we should recognize and ACT on this as the greatest global crisis since WWII other than perhaps the threat of nuclear annihilation . If there ever was a reason for the United Nations or the G-20 to exist this is it. If there ever was a reason for the nations of the world to unite this is it. 

No one should be using this crisis to try to gain political advantage, for example in the U.S. Presidential campaign or anywhere else. 

People should get the facts on the refugee clearance process before shooting from the hip and calling for a ban on immigration.

Let us act on the best evidence of what we know to be true in protecting lives--all lives. 

ope’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism

Resize Text

   

Print Article

   

Comments 143

 

By Ishaan Tharoor September 2  

A migrant shouts next to Macedonian policemen as she waits to cross the borders from northern Greece to southern Macedonia, Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015. (AP Photo/Giannis Papanikos)

A humanitarian crisis of historic proportions has been growing in Europe, as hundreds of thousands of refugees and economic migrants from the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia have crossed the continent's borders this year alone.

The scale of the influx is now well-documented. According to the European Union's border agency, some 340,000 migrants crossed its borders in first seven months of 2015; in July, the figure was on its own an astonishing 107,500 people. The majority of those making the hazardous crossing across the eastern Mediterranean are Syrian refugees, displaced by a horrifying, grinding civil war that has forced roughly half of the country's population out of their homes.

According to U.N. figures, the current global levels of displacement have not been matched since World War II. In 2014, the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and people forced to flee within their country surged to nearly 60 million people.

[Britain takes in so few refugees they could fit on a subway train.]

It's hard to grasp the scope of this in real terms -- a nation of the displaced -- but it's been hideously dramatized in recent news. Desperate refugees and migrants, at the mercy of smugglers and human traffickers, have been confronted by walls and soldiers, have drowned in the Mediterranean, and suffocated in the back of trucks.

Over the past year, many in Europe have bristled at the influx -- from far-right political movements and fear-mongering tabloids to established politicians and leaders. The resentment has to do, in part, with the burden of coping with the refugees. But it's also activated a good amount of latent xenophobia--leading to anti-Islam protests, attacks on asylum centers and a good deal of bigoted bluster.

Some governments in Eastern Europe have even specifically indicated they don't want to accommodate non-Christian refugees, out of supposed fear over the ability of Muslims to integrate into Western society.

"Refugees are fleeing fear," urged a spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency last week. "Refugees are not to be feared."

It's important to recognize that this is hardly the first time the West has warily eyed masses of refugees. And while some characterize Muslim arrivals as a supposedly unique threat, the xenophobia of the present carries direct echoes of a very different moment: The years before World War II, when tens of thousands of German Jews were compelled to flee Nazi Germany.

Consider this 1938 article in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid still known for its bouts of right-wing populism. Its headline warned of "German Jews Pouring Into This Country." And it began as follows:

"The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest."

In these words, Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the 'back door' -- a problem to which The Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.

The number of aliens entering this country can be seen by the number of prosecutions in recent months. It is very difficult for the alien to escape the increasing vigilance of the police and port authorities.

Even if aliens manage to break through the defences, it is not long before they are caught and deported.

No matter the alarming rhetoric of Hitler's fascist state -- and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others -- popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.

"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book, "Refugees in the Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine', but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."

Part of that hostility was fueled, as some of the European grievances are now, by stereotypes of the refugees as harbingers of a dangerous ideology, in this instance communism and anarchist violence.

There were also economic concerns. The world was coming off the Great Depression. In France alone, there were a million people unemployed. Resentment against French and foreign Jews (large numbers from Germany and Romania had arrived by the early 1930s) led to "a new wave of antisemitism," detailed by a report put out by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Metz, for example, grumbled in 1933 that "highly undesirable" Jews "have become a veritable plague for honest French merchants." By 1935, the then French government enacted a series of quotas on certain professions -- effectively blocking Jews out. This was a precursor for the more pernicious and deadly forms of antisemitism to come.

In Britain, as a 2002 article in the Guardian recounts, perhaps as many as half a million German Jewish asylum seekers were turned away by authorities ahead of the outbreak of World War II. Many who were admitted in were given asylum less out of altruism than a need to fill low-paying domestic work "spurned by the native British." The situation was no better elsewhere:

Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).

Meanwhile, those trapped within Nazi-controlled Europe faced the horrors of the Holocaust. Millions were systematically killed. Yet it was only in 1944, when the extent of the genocide had become better known, that the United States made a real effort to rescue European Jews. Even during World War II, let alone before it started, antisemitism was rife in American political and public life.

Unwanted foreigners have always caused consternation among a section of any society. Thankfully, there's an equally vociferous chorus in Europe currently championing the plight of Syrian refugees, and urging others to help make a new home for those displaced by conflict and other hardships.

Everyone deserves the chance to live a better life, activists argue.

THE DEMISE OF CIVILITY AND NEED FOR A COMMOM PURPOSE

The Demise of Civility and the Need for a Common, Unifying Purpose

I’ve lived long enough and read enough history books to know that the vilification of political opponents and those who disagree with us is not new.  We have seen it before and we’ll see it again.

Especially with our two-party system, we are always going to have disagreements on policy and on philosophy and values, too.  That is healthy.  It is human, and it makes for progress.

However, recent events, marked by the broadside pronouncements of Donald Trump and the prosecutorial-like questioning of Hillary Clinton in the House Sub-Committee’s hearing on Benghazi last month, has brought the issue front and center for me in a more dramatic way.

The polarization of discussion has moved beyond what can be considered healthy.  It has moved to vilifying groups of people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) and to character assassination (e.g., disloyalty to the country and accusations of outright lying).

I wouldn’t take the time to write this if the only thing that worried me about it was the distaste for uncivil and disrespectful discourse.  It is something much more important than that which concerns me.

I am concerned that this kind of attitude creates adversarial relationships that prevent us from working together to resolve the most important issues facing our nation, such as how do we help all young people grow up to be productive adults, stimulate greater growth in our economy, and advance policies and actions that make for a safer world.

It is also turning people off.  This back-biting discourse is one of the reasons voter turnout is at depressingly low levels.

What, I have asked myself, is driving this polarization, and increasing level of uncivil, disrespectful discourse?  I suspect one driver is what has always been with us:  the desire to show “we are right”—the desire to lift ourselves up versus “others” to prove our self-worth.

But there is something else, I believe.  There is the lack of a common, unifying purpose – a robust vision of what we can be as a country and what we can be as a world, for all people.  To be sure, there has never been a point in history when the people of our nation or perhaps any nation were in unanimous agreement on what such a vision would be.  But there have been times where there has been the leadership and vision that has brought the majority of people together.

When those times have been will vary in the eye of the beholder and as interpreted by historians, it will have varied over time.  I will not weigh in on that here.  What I will weigh in on is the conviction that there have been many times when our national leaders, in the Presidential Administration and our Houses of Congress, have worked together without the personal venom we see today and with the conviction that compromise is not equivalent to selling out one’s soul--that, indeed, compromise is essential to achieving outcomes to advance the most important needs and opportunities in our nation.

There is a substantive reason for the change I’m describing, and that is the genuine widening in what a majority of the Republican Party and of the Democratic Party view as the proper role of government in people’s lives.  It goes beyond the scope of this short paper to trace the magnitude of that gap over time.  It would be interesting in this regard to compare the party platforms in different presidential cycles over the past 150 years or so to note the differences that exist, large or small.  Whatever, perhaps exacerbated by gerrymandering and the role of money in elections, the gap in the judged proper role of government held by the majorities of our two parties has widened a great deal over the last 50 years.  As one illustration and drawing from Tim Wise’s excellent book, “Under the Affluence,” I cite this section of the 1956 Republican Party platform: 

“We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs:

            --expansion of social security

            --broadened coverage in unemployment insurance

            --improved housing

            --better health protection for all our people 

We are determined that our government remain morally responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.”

Later, in the same platform, the GOP bragged about the fact that, under the leadership of President Eisenhower, “The federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers.  Social security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers, and the benefits raised for 6-1/2 million.”  Going even further, Republicans trumpeted the fact that union membership was up 2 million since 1952 and, later, the platform called for “equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex.”

How does one explain the tremendous difference in position between that platform and mainstream GOP ideology today?  Reading Wise’s book leads me to believe a key reason was that the social benefits, coming after World War II, were seen and in fact were benefiting the broad middle class, the great majority of the population, whereas today, quite incorrectly as it turns out, government support is portrayed by the majority of the members of the Republican Party as going to people who are “less deserving,” who perhaps just haven’t worked hard enough or have gotten themselves into trouble.  In too many ways, government support plans (unlike, say, the GI Bill and housing support which drove the improvement of life and the overall economy so strongly following World War II) are seen to be going to a small minority.  In fact, most of the government-provided benefits today, e.g., social security, Medicare, student loans, expanded health coverage and home mortgage interest deductions are going to the broad public.

I wouldn’t want my earlier example of how Hillary Clinton was quizzed in the Sub-Committee hearing to suggest that denigrating the “opposition” is confined to the right or to the Republican Party.  We see it on the left as well.  We are not going to bring this country together or solve the challenges in front of us by pilloring CEOs and their salaries or characterizing Wall Street and banks as the “source of all evil,” as some critics tend to do.

Yes, in general, CEO salaries have gone past the point of reasonableness.  It’s hard to deny that, when you read that the average salary of the CEOs of S&P 500 companies grew from 42 times the average American worker in 1980 to 372 times the average worker in 2014.  And, whatever it is, pay should be calibrated to performance!  But remember:  these CEOs have worked hard to get where they are.  Their jobs are on the line every day.  The average tenure in CEO jobs is less than it has ever been.

So, too, proper regulation of banks and industry are important matters.  But let’s remember two things; our economy would not begin to be what it is today nor where we need it to be in the future if we do not have thriving, innovating corporations, large and small, providing jobs and quality products and good careers for employees. 

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, like it or not, we are not going to reduce our increasing income inequality by depicting business leaders as corrupt and mean-spirited.  First of all, it’s not generally true; second, we can be sure it will trigger a defensive reaction that will throttle the advance of social policies which are vital to give people of lesser means equal opportunity.

The bottom line is that we need to recognize that we are all in this together.  Not just in some rhetorical kumbaya sense but because if we are not together, we are not going to accomplish what we need to.

In this regard, we need to recognize that we are the common beneficiaries of many government programs.  The idea that government should be “stamped out,” that less is always better, is a glittering generality that defies knowledge of the realities of life.  Where would we be if we didn’t have government-sponsored research into disease, government-supported infrastructure, social security, or our nation’s defense?  Where would we be if we didn’t have the government underpinning of a law-abiding court system and laws?

Yes, government is sometimes too invasive.  We can ask it to do things that are best done by the private sector.  But this is not an “either/or” issue.  It is a question of choice and balanced judgment based on experience and the particular situation. 

We’ve got to turn away from having government versus non-government become an ideological wedge as opposed to a practical question of how to best provide the benefits that people and society need.

I believe that it will be as we recognize the common benefits being provided by government and by business, while providing constraints where we should, that we will come together as a nation.  That is what characterized the period during my lifetime where we came together more than any other.  That was the period following World War II, when our middle class was growing, benefiting from such government programs as the GI Bill and home loans and while corporate America was booming.

We are not going to go back to that time.  But there are principles of how we came together and what our common mindset was as evidenced by the Republican platform I cited earlier.  While a reading of the two party platforms in 1956 reveals party conflict, there was far greater agreement on the role government should play in advancing the welfare of the public than there is today.

There are many needs and opportunities in front of us which should draw us together across party lines; -- for example, the development of our children from the very earliest of age, the war against drugs, the growth of our economy, the rationalization of our penal codes and prison system, and the improvement of our infrastructure.

We have to stop pitting one group against another.

Whether you agree with my historical analysis or not, we would all agree in hoping, desperately, that we will achieve a more uniting vision and commitment to work together in the next administration.  Our country and the world need it and the people demand it.

We have great challenges ahead of us.  We will be not meet them unless/until we can work together with a far more mutual respect and trust than we have today.