How Times Have Changed in Our Nation's Antitrust Policy

How Times Have Changed—Antitrust Policy:  FTC Vs. The Procter& Gamble Company

 

On April 11, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the FTC’s finding “that the acquisition (of Clorox) by Procter & Gamble in 1957, eliminated Procter, the most likely entrant into the liquid bleach field, as a potential competitor, was supported by the evidence.”

 

The Supreme Court’s ruling overruled that of the Sixth Circuit Court.  Divestiture of Clorox by Procter& Gamble was affirmed.

 

It is hard to believe how far antitrust legislation and the Supreme Court’s ruling on it have changed during the course of the last 50+ years.  Here was P&G being required to divest Clorox on the predicate, unproven by any evidence, that it might have entered the liquid bleach field.  The elimination of P&G as a potential competitor to Clorox, which would have been an outgrowth of the merger, was the primary factor leading to the denial of the acquisition.

 

Contrast this ruling with what is now being allowed in mergers and acquisitions.

 

Facebook acquires Instagram, a smaller growing competitor, in the very same market.  A vertical integration if there ever was one.

 

Or Google acquires Waze, an up and coming competitor in the maps and traffic management.  Or Amazon acquires Whole Foods, despite already holding a substantial on-line business in the majority of product lines which Whole Foods sells.

 

Since roughly the 1980s, antitrust policy has been anchored more or less single-mindedly on the “test” as to whether the proposed merger would have a lowering effect on the consumer prices.  That has always been one key “test,” but by no means the only one that guided anti-trust policy. 

 

The trust-busting actions taken and supported by the Supreme Court during the early part of the 20^th century, and led by the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson administrations, were focused just as much on preventing the accumulation of concentrated economic and political power in the growing combinations of railroads, banks, steel and oil.  The potentially nefarious impact of over-concentrated political and economic power should not be ignored today.

 

I am well aware of the enormous benefits to consumers provided by corporations like Google and Facebook and Amazon.  But I am also aware of the anti-competitive impact of their acquiring companies that otherwise would have been separate competitors, providing alternative and potentially fresh innovation streams.

 

The history of antitrust law and policy has been one of alternating permissiveness and restriction.  I believe we are in a situation of gross permissiveness today.  If not reversed, I believe it carries a significant risk of long-term harm to our country.

 

 

Getting the Balance Right: To Whom is a Corporation Responsible?

We are witnessing a continuing debate as to whether a corporation is solely responsible to its shareholders to maximize profit or whether it carries a broader responsibility, not only to its shareholders to provide an acceptable, competitive profit return, but also to its employees, its consumers and the communities in which it lives.

This question has been argued from almost time immemorial and continues to be argued today, including under new vocabulary:  the pursuit of “socially responsible capitalism” and “inclusive capitalism.”

I believe we risk complicating an issue which, at least for me, in its essence, is quite simple.

Certainly, a corporation has the responsibility to provide a fair, competitive economic return to its shareholders as produced through the value of its stock (influenced mightily by its profit) and by its dividends (also enormously influenced by its profit).  It has the responsibility to do this over time.  

It also has the foundational responsibility to better serve its consumers, for without consumer satisfaction flowing from the purchase of its product or service, a corporation will not exist let alone thrive.  A corporation also has the responsibility to provide its employees, who make the corporation go, a sustainable financial existence and an environment which nourishes their growth.  Finally, a corporation has a responsibility to contribute to the community in which it lives and in countless ways it depends.

Now you can try to have it both ways.  You can postulate that the asserted singular mandate of maximizing profit for the long-term depends on honoring these responsibilities to other stakeholders.  You could go on to say that, only to the extent that honoring these other responsibilities maximizes the long-term profit is it appropriate to bring energy against them.

While seemingly convenient, I regard this as a cop-out.  Specifically, I would argue that maximizing profitability is not the right goal, per se.  Maximizing profitability could lead one to cut corners in the sustainability effort for a company, or cut corners in the benefits being provided to its employees, or cut corners in terms of philanthropic support for needy people in the community in which the company resides.

The notion that corporations should devote themselves to maximizing profits is often taken to be one of the bedrock principles of corporate law and governance, especially since Milton Friedman’s famous article in 1970 which asserted just that.

In the history of corporations, however, business corporations were much different.  As Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries, corporations could only be formed if they served public purposes.  Today that rule no longer applies.  Legally, modern business corporations are considered private entities that need not serve any explicitly public objective.  Indeed, corporate officers who fail to focus on the profitability of the business for the long term would be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities.  And properly so.

I recently came across a fascinating historical case bearing on this in Adam Winkler's fine book, "We the Corporations".   It occurred in 1916 as Henry Ford was sued by two business partners, James and Horace Dodge.  The Dodge brothers, who built Ford’s engines and owned 10% of Ford Motor Company stock, had been made immensely wealthy from their relationship with the company; their $10,000 investment netted them more than $32 million.  Yet, the brothers were unhappy that Ford refused to maximize profits even more.  They saw him running the company in ways designed to benefit employees and the larger community instead of solely its stockholders.

In 1914, for example, Ford announced that he would begin paying workers $5 a day, double their previous wages.  Every year the company lowered the price of cars even as significant improvements were introduced and inventory sold out.  Ford had decided the stockholders were earning enough, explaining that he did “not believe that we should make such an awful profit on our cars.”

In 1916, Ford announced that his company would not distribute a special dividend to stockholders despite having on hand an extraordinary surplus of $60 million.  Ford justified this decision as necessary to avoid “the discharge of a large number of employees in case there should be a sudden depression of business,” something he felt possible following the end of World War I.

The Dodge brothers condemned Ford for not running the company “as a business institution.”  Helping employees and the largely public goals were “worthy of themselves but not within the scope of an ordinary business corporation.”  They agreed.

During the trial, the outspoken Ford insisted that his company had the right to make business decisions in the interest of the public even if stockholders had to sacrifice.  The Ford Motor Company was organized “to do as much good as we can, everywhere for everybody concerned,” Ford testified and only “incidentally to make money.”  “My ambition,” Ford said, is to “spread the benefits for this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes.”

Citing Ford’s testimony, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Ford and his public spirited view of the corporation.  While corporations might lawfully make “an incidental humanitarian expenditure of corporate funds,” the court held they could not commit to a “general purpose and plan to benefit mankind at the expense” of stockholders.

Ford could have claimed that his corporation would benefit in the long run from his policies, as he should have and as executives often do today when pressed to defend socially responsible policies.  But Ford stubbornly refused on principle.

“A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders,” the court explained.  “The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end.  The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself.”

There we are, facing the question, “What is the end we seek?”

I believe the corporation must fulfill its responsibilities to its shareholders and its other stakeholders, all in the context of maximizing the sustained, healthy life of the firm.  Yes, shareholders have every right to expect a fair competitive rate of return in their investment.  But they should also expect the corporation to be a responsible citizen in its relationships with its employees, the community and the consumers it serves.

I don’t find it surprising that surveys of long-term financial performance show a consistent, even if not perfect, correlation between companies that deliver the best financial returns and those which rank highest in social responsibility.

As Roberto Goizueta, the brilliant former CEO of the Coca-Cola Company once said, “While we were once perceived as simply providing services, selling products and employing people, business now shares in much of the responsibilities for our global quality of life.”

Or, even more directly, as John Smale, former CEO of Procter & Gamble, wrote: 

“It isn’t enough to stay in business and be profitable.  We believe we have a responsibility to society to use our resources—money, people, and energy—to the long-term benefit of society, as well as the company.”

Confronting the President's Fundamental Denial of Our Nation's Basic Values

Last week, we witnessed a dismaying but utterly unsurprising seven hours of testimony of Michael Cohen before a committee of the U.S. Congress during which he delivered a barrage of first-hand, up-close observations of President Trump’s dishonesty, lying and racism.  Cohen offered compelling evidence of President Trump’s direct involvement of repaying Cohen for paying off his mistress, even while he was in office—a violation of campaign finance law.

The insult to the Presidency and to our nation’s values which Trump represents needed no amplification.  It received it, however, in this testimony from Trump’s closest lawyer for 10 years.

As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal of March 2-3, referring to Cohen’s testimony:  

“This is bigger than we think, and history won’t miss the import of this testimony.  None of the charges were new, precisely.  They have been made in books, investigations and interviews.  What is amazing though is that such a rebuke on the essential nature of a president and by an intimate has no equal in our history.  I don’t think, as we talk about Mr. Cohen’s testimony, we fully appreciate this.”

As I have written before, anyone who said and did the things which Trump has done—many of which he has admitted to—would have been summarily fired from any corporate or non-profit office in this nation.  Yet he remains as President, with the support of perhaps one-third of the nation’s voting public.

Some will disagree with my view that President Trump has no right to be the president of this country.  To be clear, I do not believe that an impeachable offense has yet been identified.  Nor am I saying that Trump hasn’t advocated some policies that are good for the nation.

My point is simpler.  And more important.  We are on very dangerous moral ground.  

Some will say that there have been other presidents who have done dreadful things, some of which actually led to impeachment.  That’s true.  Most recently, of course, President Clinton, who engaged in sexual acts with a young intern and then lied about it to his wife and to the nation, not once but several times.  Too many of us turned our back on that. Shame on us.  Yes, unlike Trump, he finally apologized.  But we lived with too low a standard.

We have to be careful.  We all do things that are wrong.  All of us should be granted permission to apologize and to change our ways. 

However, if Trump has apologized for what he has said and done—such as demeaning other people and lying—I have yet to hear it. That's because he hasn't said it. 

We have to resist accepting a “new normal” like the plague.  We have faced moral challenges before.  We have had moral profligates in high office before though never one of this  

magnitude and at this level. 

 In my lifetime, Joe McCarthy was the only person I’ve seen deliver such venomous, untrue accusations about other people.  Many people of good character went along with McCarthy for too long.  Over a thousand people attended his wedding in 1953, including Senator John F. Kennedy, Vice President, Richard Nixon and Alan Dulles, Head of the CIA.   For a time, even President Dwight Eisenhower turned his head.  But eventually, the screw turned.    The blinkers came off. The bombast lost its power. More and more people began to see McCarthyism for what it was—in President Truman's words: the big lie and unfounded accusation.  A political ploy that shamed without evidence.  

The final nail was struck by a cutting question during a hearing in 1954 by Council Joseph N. Welch—“"Finally, sir, have you no decency?”

Millions opened their eyes. They turned to their better natures.   McCarthy died a rejected man and McCarthyism more or less died with him.

I don’t know how long it will take for the great majority of our nation to reject the uncivil, untrue, mean-spirited and disloyal behavior of President Donald J. Trump.  But it will happen.

The members of the Republican Senate and House have a big role in its happening sooner rather than later.  I feel certain that most Republican Senators and legislators must squirm when they go home and talk with their spouses about how difficult it is for them to support a president who violates their beliefs in such fundamental ways.  Through his almost daily actions and words, he contradicts what they expect and demand of their own children.

Well beyond my lifetime, historians will dig furiously into this chapter of our nation’s history.  They will try to identify the complex origins and causes of President Trump.  I suspect most will describe it as an astounding but not unique aberration in our history. They will write about it much as most historians write today about Andrew Johnson's presidency, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWI, the Dredd Scott decision, the Plessy-Ferguson decision and other chapters of our history which demonstrate that, despite our ideals, we sometimes get things very wrong. 

I believe the American people will eventually get this right. Why?  Because the great majority of the American public believe in the values of truthfulness, of mutual respect and of empathy.  We don’t always practice them.   In that, we are human.  But we have a moral compass.  We have it in our homes and with our families.  That we must never lose. With new leadership and the determined will of each of us as voters, we will return to it again in our Presidency. That is our highest responsibility to the future of our nation.  

"Churchill: Walking with Destiny" by Andrew Roberts: Some Reflections

I have just finished reading this massive 980+ page (before footnotes) biography of Winston Churchill.  I have read more than one biography of Churchill and read countless books referring to him, but never one which pulled his life together in such a comprehensive, judiciously balanced way as Roberts’ biography does.

It is striking to have read two very long biographies—the other being David Blight’s “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom” in one year that are among the handful of best biographies I have read in my life.

They both tell the story of unique, indomitable, brilliantly fluent (in speaking and writing) men. Individuals of irrepressible energy, indomitable will.  They had their flaws, in decisions they made and in how they treated others, but they made a unique contribution to his history.

Churchill’s unique contribution in World War II was not being willing to even consider reaching out to Germany to hear what they would offer by way of peace terms in 1940.  If Lord Halifax had assumed the premiership, which he might well have done following the fall of France, the world could have been different.  He would have been open to hearing Germany’s terms.  At that time, they might have been pretty attractive given Hitler’s desire to concentrate on fighting the Soviet Union.

Among Churchill’s unique strengths, none surpasses his ability to express himself eloquently in a way that fueled the spirit of the British people.  Much like my own (though it sounds presumptuous to write it), his guiding force was his ultimate belief in the British people and, yes, the British Empire.  So, for me, I have been unyielding in my belief in Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people and my conviction that, while we have faced and will face continued challenges, we will overcome them.

Like all great men, Churchill’s imperfections ring sharply, particularly with the benefit of hindsight.  His belief in “white superiority,” his opposition to women’s suffrage, his conviction that the peoples of India and other British possessions could not rule themselves all bore the mark of narrowly-viewed superiority.

The many diaries which Roberts has tapped into reveal extraordinarily negative comments and attitudes which the different leaders, including Churchill, had about each other. They attacked each other’s judgment, their integrity, and their civility.  Yet, they could be generous to one another.  In particular, Churchill’s eulogies to people he had opposed were eloquent and filled with deep feeling.

Giving tribute to Chamberlain at his funeral on November 14, 1940, Churchill uttered some of the words which I have often drawn upon.  “In paying a tribute of respect and regard to an eminent man who has been taken from us, no one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has expressed upon issues which have become a part of history; but at the lynch-gate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events.

History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and candle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this?   The only guide to a man is his conscious; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.  It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations:  but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.”

Churchill offered timeless stirring calls for action and to never give up.

At the beginning of the battle of Britain in 1940, he spoke to the British people: “let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for 1,000 years, men will still say ‘this was their finest hour.’”

Churchill’s indomitable spirit was well expressed as he recalled that even in the “darkest times I never had any trouble sleeping.  I could always flop into bed and go to sleep after the day’s work as done. I slept sound and awoke refreshed, and had no feeling except appetite to grapple with whatever the next morning’s boxes might bring.”  What a statement of confidence and commitment.

After the war, there were many who lauded Churchill for his eloquency but faulted him for his strategic sense on how to win the war.  They were wrong on that judgment.  Yes, he made mistakes:  the foray to Narvik, working to hold Crete and Greece, among others; but he clearly wrote the basic outline of what proved to be the winning strategy for World War II in 1941.  He saw that the entry of the United States was critical; that Hitler had made a fatal mistake in attacking the Soviet Union; that in order to land in Belgium and France, it would be first necessary to soften Nazi resistance by attacking the under-belly in North Africa and Italy.  His mistake was calling it a “soft under-belly.”  It didn’t prove that.

One of Churchill’s great strengths was he always went to the front lines.  He wanted to be where the action was, whether that was at the battlefront or the streets of London during the Blitz.  He raised people’s morale.  They knew he was with them.

As the war ensued, in its most difficult moments, Churchill acknowledged his own role in constantly prodding and pestering his ministers.  He recognized that, far from being a “mutual admiration society,” he was more critical of them even than the government’s opponents.   “In fact, I wonder” he said “that a great many of my colleagues are on speaking terms with me.”  Nonetheless, “it is the duty of the Prime Minister to use the power which parliament and the nation have given me to drive others, and in a war like this that power has to be used irrespective of anyone’s feelings.  If we win, nobody will care.  If we lose, there will be nobody to care.”

One of the most amazing things, for me, about Churchill was how in the midst of the greatest crises he was able to pull away and read a classic Jane Austen novel or see a classic movie like “Citizen Kane.”  His supreme self-confidence and unbounded capacity made this possible.

Edmond Burke, whom Churchill read and quoted, wrote of prejudicethat it “does not leave the man hesitating in a moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved.  Through such prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.” Churchill’s belief that the British were superior to every other nation in the world, including the Germans, was undoubtedly one of unquestioning prejudice, but it did not leave him hesitating in 1940 in the way that the crisis left others “skeptical, puzzled and unresolved.”

The Russian Ambassador to England, Ivan Maisky, whose diaries play such an important role in this book, noted in his diary in May 1941 that “I have no grounds not to believe him, that the British Empire is his alpha and omega.”

As I wrote earlier, in its own infinitely less world-changing way, my own belief in the ability of Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people to prevail, has helped me avoid being “skeptical and unresolved” when it has come to my conviction that P&G will prevail against great challenges.

“Man is spirit,” Churchill told the ministers of his government in April 1955.  What he meant was that, given spirit—by which he met the dash, intelligence, hard work, persistence, and men’s physical and moral courage and, above all, willpower--it is possible to succeed despite material and other restraints.  He had succeeded despite a lot of restraints:  parental neglect, disapproval of contemporaries, a dozen close brushes with death, financial insecurity, military disasters, backstabbing colleagues and much more.

With enough spirit, he believed that we can rise above anything in creating something significant of our lives.  

I would only add we need some luckalong the way.  In fact, quite a bit of luck.  I am not sure where Churchill would have said he found his luck. Perhaps he would have said he didn’t need any.  And probably he didn’t need much.  But he did need some. Everybody does.  I don’t know what importance he would have attached to having convinced Clementine to marry him or how much he would attribute to his father, Randolph.  Perhaps quite a bit.  I don’t think he was given too much self-reflection on this.  That’s okay.  Maybe it was good.  It did not get in the way of his enormous achievements.

I have no trouble identifying my many sources of luck.  I have written about them and I won’t belabor them again here.  Other than to say that most important were my mother and, above all, Francie.  

Living by Our Conscience--Reflections on My Personal Life and Procter & Gamble

There will be several turning points in all our lives – and in fact we may have to reach this most important 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 my 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 Ralph Waldo 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 with 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 on to our convictions –not being swayed by others – even those of great repute.

(An excerpt from my personal memoir, "As Good as it Gets", 2018)

Our Nation: Past, Present and Future

My subject is to examine the reasons for how our nation has, despite its many challenges over time and today, manage to do so well…to survive and generally thrive. 

One could object:  “We’re not doing so well.”  After all, we have a populace split along political lines as sharply as most of us can remember.  We have a president whose values deny what’s expected of an organization leader, let alone the president.  Racism persists; so does vigorous debate on immigration and the challenge of climate change.  We debate the position the nation should play in the world with our allies and in confronting countries and movements that represent a threat.   With all of this, how can one say we’re “doing well?”  

Because, by almost any measure, we are.  How many people, I ask, would trade living in the United States by moving to another country?  Very few, I would say.  

With all the challenge of the gap between the “haves and the have not’s,” our economy and standard of living is as strong as or stronger than any other nation in the world.  Our military strength is greater than other country by far, and the dedication of the men and women of our armed forces beyond question.  Our government can be extraordinarily dysfunctional, especially at the federal level (it is shut down as I dictate this), but it’s been shut down before and we have survived.   And, while there is no guarantee in the future, especially in a life that is as short as the life of our nation, there is more than hope—there is learning to be gained by understanding what has enabled us to survive and, more often than not, thrive over the course of our history.

So what explains this?  

There is the famously stated balance of power that was built into our government from the very beginning of the Constitution through the executive, legislative and judicial branches.  Yes, the executive branch has assumed increasing power over the years, but we still have the three branches and while, on occasion (e.g., during the post-Reconstruction period), they have worked together to impede progress, much more often one branch contested another branch, which, if not thwarted, would have imperiled the development of the country.  The positive role of the Supreme Court in combatting discrimination in the 1950s and the action of Congress during FDR’s presidency to block his intention to pack the court are examples.  

Frederick Douglass said it well in the 1860s.  Lamenting the “disgraceful” presidency of Andrew Johnson, he left, as Douglass biographer David Blight records, a “timeless maxim for republics:   ‘Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man.  When in the hands of a good man, it is all well enough.  We ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man, we shall be safe.’”  

At no time has this maxim been more relevant than today.  

There was another structural dimension of our government which was created by our founders that, on balance, has been of great importance in advancing the welfare of the nation.  I refer to the distinction among governance at the federal, state and local levels.  

Of course, it was the bitter argument over the rights of a state to secede from the Union which led to the Civil War, that argument being motivated by the desire of Southern states to retain and be able to expand slavery.  But, more often than not, the role of states’ rights and the debate about what is the proper province of the federal, state and local governments on key issues affecting the welfare of the country has been of great benefit.  

For example, the ultimate passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave voting rights to women only happened after a large number of states had already approved it.  The federal recognition of same-sex marriage was driven by states which recognized that right earlier.  The long-delayed recognition of the importance of preschool education is being driven at the state level, I hope to the point where it will be appropriately supported at the federal level.  

To be sure, virtually every country has distinct governance roles played at the federal, regional and local levels.  But, it seems to me, this has been a particularly lively and, on the whole, productive source of dynamic innovation in our nation.

Beyond that, we have the Bill of Rights and, within them, the particular commitment, even if not always honored, to the freedom of speech and with it the freedom of the press.  Nothing is more important than this.  

Underlying these points is something more basic, and that is the respect with which our written Constitution and the beliefs of the founders of this country (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison), as well as presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, are held.

Ask yourself:  In what other countries do the people today look back to and argue over the meaning of the founders and the founding constitution like we do?

To be sure, other countries have deeply embedded histories in which they take pride and which inform them.  China certainly does.  So do Russia and England and France and Israel and other countries, too.  But I believe we’re unique—unique also in the reality that the different views, often contrary views, expressed by these founders (the role of states’ rights; and federal government rights) still form the basis for significant debate today.  

So the construction of our government and the memory in which we hold our Constitution and founders’ beliefs matter.  In particular, I don’t think we can overemphasize the importance of those simple words in the Declaration of Independence which begin:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”  While too often honored in their absence (slavery, expropriation of Native American lands, the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II), we have never lost sight of their clarion call to fulfill our originating vision.  

There is more that explains the longevity of our nation’s success.  There is our geographical breadth and the fact that we have been protected by two oceans.  This has not only shielded us from invasion and the immediate threat of the invasion like no other major nation in the history of the world.  It has also contributed to a vigorous debate from the earliest of times as to what role our nation should play in the world:  To what degree should we look to our own affairs; to what degree do we see our own affairs being inextricably intertwined with the world around us?  I suspect, this debate will go on forever.

Then there is not only the breadth of our land, there is its richness.  As one example, the fact that, with all the oil in the Middle East and Russia, we are now the largest producer of oil is remarkable.

There is also the entrepreneurial character of the people of this nation.  That was undoubtedly fostered in its earliest stages by the ability of immigrants to create sustainable lives by going across this country and establishing farms and businesses.  The diversity of our population (ethnically and racially) has had and continues to have enormous influence and, while we have fought bitterly the inclusion of people of different nationalities and races at different stages of our history, there has been for most (even if taking a long time), the opportunity to not only participate but to lead the economic development of this nation.  One only has to look today at the founders of most of our major tech companies who are first-generation immigrants to see this.

I believe this entrepreneurialism has been fostered to an important though not uniform degree by the religious heritage of this nation, in what can perhaps be fairly summed up as the “Protestant work ethic.”  That ethic, too, was enabled by the opportunity to advance personally through personal effort.

They say “success breeds success,” and it does.  Being able to look back on revolutionary developments in this country from the creation of railroads to exploration of space to creation of modern retailing has provided a natural incentive to find the next breakthrough.  

To a degree that is generally underestimated, investments by the federal government, often stimulated by preparation for war, have led to major innovation in the private sphere.  This has also been by alliances with major universities, including the practical, utilitarian orientation of many of them.  

There was a separate, more contingent element that has been critical to the nation’s continued strength despite all of its changes and challenges.  And that is that, under pressure and with difficulty and uncertainty, we have in moments of crisis found the right way to relate to the rest of the world in a manner protecting our own and the world’s interests.  Here is what I mean by this.  

Through most of our history, the mindset of the United States can be best described as isolationist.  From the earliest words of George Washington, then John Adams, we have been warned not to involve ourselves in international conflicts.  We focused on our own Continental expansion, confident of our ability to do well on our own and reluctant to become concerned about being entangled in other countries’ messes.

We were dragged into World War I kicking and screaming.  We were dragged into World War II because we were maliciously attacked by the Japanese.  Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on a theme of keeping us out of war.

World War II and the Great Depression showed our nation’s leaders the danger of our stepping aside from the world around us.  What followed World War II, an era of unquestioned preeminence by the United States, was a series of institutional creations led by the United States that brought together countries of the world in a way that fostered a half-century of peace and economic prosperity.  This was evidenced in NATO, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and more.

NATO and the UN stood up to resist Communist expansion, especially in Korea.  To be sure, this expanded view of the proper role of the United States led to horrific errors in decisions, most particularly the Vietnam War and, much more recently, the commitment to more or less reconfigure the Middle East with a cataclysmic decision to invade Iraq.

Now, with the evidence of these missteps, to which could be added many more (the extended war in Afghanistan), there is a reversion by many to the isolationist instincts that preceded World War II and which I submit have characterized most of our history.

Once again, we must look to leaders in our nation and in the leading countries of the world to work together to resolve the several critical issues which can only be addressed by a global approach.  These issues include combatting terrorism, climate change, confronting the risk of nuclear annihilation and avoiding mutually destructive trade policies.  The United Nations has not yet shown itself capable so far of being the convening governance institution to come to grips with these issues.  The Trump administration is utterly unequipped to take the lead in creating the institutional framework to accomplish this.  Indeed, they are turning back efforts, such as the Paris Climate Accord and TPP, that offered the opportunity for progress.

In short, we need a foreign policy orientation which sees the United States as one of the leading countries that will have to carry responsibility for creating the conditions for the sustained health of not only our country but the world.  We must do this with an attitude that does not seek to impose our values on the rest of the world but does see the rule of law and the importance pragmatically of working together on critical global issues as fundamental to the future.

While all of these substantive factors which I cited have been of vital and controlling importance, one should not discount the importance of having the right individual present at the right time.  At no time has that been more true than our nation’s having President Lincoln at the time of the Civil War.  And never was the obverse of having the right individual more clear in the negative sense than having Lincoln succeeded by President Andrew Johnson.  There were powerful forces present post the Civil War that would have led to black Americans being disrespected and placed in subservient positions.  The belief in white superiority was deeply rooted (and, to an uncomfortable degree, remains) even amongst so-called liberal thinkers.  But there is no doubt that Andrew Johnson’s occupation of the presidency facilitated the reversal of views and initiatives that would have accelerated the advancement of black Americans.  This recognition of the importance of individual leadership makes each of us doing all we can to elect wise and principled leaders today at every level of government a supreme personal responsibility.  

Looking to the future, I believe that the United States will return to an orientation wedded to multi-lateral alliances and open trade and values, even if unevenly applied, much more aligned than is the case today, with the values that have guided the nation since World War II.  I hold this belief because I believe this will be seen to be in the interest of the United States economically and in terms of geo-political security.  The fact will remain that the population of the United States will represent only about 5% of the world population and there our economic vitality will be heavily dependent on not only exports but on U.S.-domiciled, multi-national companies successfully doing business in other countries.  

I believe we will renew our traditional alliances with Europe and Japan; we will continue to be challenged by instability in the Middle East and by an antagonistic Islam presence in some countries, most particularly Iran.  We will retain an intimate relationship with Canada and a difficult one with Mexico and Central America, primarily because of the controversy over immigration and importation of drugs.  We will be particularly challenged in forging a realistic but ultimately constructive relationship with China, the country which more than any other will be the greatest economic competitor to the United States.

Our relationship with Russia will be an open question.  Poisoned, as it is today, by mistakes by both that country and the United States/West over the last 20 years, I believe (and hope) that, in the latter part of the coming decade, we will find our way to pursue common interests and flush the most significant of the antagonisms and misunderstanding which have plagued us down the drain.  I have to acknowledge that this hope is surrounded by great uncertainty.

We can only hope that the next presidency and the presidency following that will bring forth leaders who can draw on this learning from the past.

Finally, it must be said that our progress and our future as a nation will be most importantly dependent on what we do in our own house on reconciling the racial divide which still exists and by, insofar as possible, giving everyone the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential through our educational, social support and taxation policies.