Eroding Confidence in Our Institutions; Some Personal Observations on Its Implications

The chart below documents what most of us have been reading about..and feeling. Some personal comments follow the chart.

How Much Confidence do You have in….(%)

(Gallup Poll)

		Great deal/quite a lot	Very little/none
Church/Organized religion	2018	38	27
	1993	53	17
	1973	65	11
Supreme Court	2018	37	18
	1993	43	17
	1973	45	17
Congress	2018	11	48
	1993	18	39
	1973	42	14
Organized Labor	2018	26	25
	1993	26	29
	1973	30	24
Business	2018	25	30
	1993	23	31
	1973	26	29
Public Schools	2018	29	27
	1993	39	23
	1973	58	11
Newspapers	2018	23	40
	1993	31	25
	1973	39	18
TV News	2018	20	45
	1993	46	18
Military	2018	74	5
	1993	67	9
	1973	58	12
Presidency	2018	37	44
	1993	43	23
	1973	52	16
Police	2018	54	15
	1993	52	12

Confidence_GallupPoll051419

1. It is encouraging and appropriate that confidence in the military remains high, despite the challenge represented by the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a tribute to the men and women in our Armed Services. Also confidence in Police remains relatively high. 

2. The significant drop in confidence in the Congress reflects the bitter partisanship which has impeded collaborative action.This partisanship has been enabled in part by gerrymandering which leads to candidates not needing to meet the needs of the broad electorate to get elected. They need to win their party primaries which tend to push candidates to the extreme of their party's beliefs. Gerrymandering must be overturned. 

3. The sharp decline in confidence in the media (TV and newspapers) reflects the increasingly polarized reporting  made possible by the numerous media channels seeking discreet, loyal audiences. This contrasts to the days when the news was delivered through 3 or 4 major news networks each of which needed to appeal to a broad audience across the political spectrum. We urgently need media forms which objectively convey honest differences in points of view on key issues. 

4. The sharp decline in confidence in the Presidency in 2018 (especially the increase in negative comments) reflects the Trump presidency. 

5. The decline in confidence in public schools is deeply concerning, though separate research does show people to be significantly more positive about their OWN schools. 

6. The decline in confidence in church and organized religion mirrors a long term decline in people's attending religious services. I am not clear on the reasons for this. Scandals my account for part of it. More people (including some members of my own family) express the belief they are experiencing God and spirituality outside of church, for example in nature. 

7. Importantly, this broad decline in confidence in many of our institutions accentuates the importance of the family as the foundational institution  (which it has always been) for nurturing the sense of well being and community and mutual love and for conveying the values  of mutual respect which we aim to live by. 

We should take any and all action which bear on helping families achieve a sustainable existence. This will involve addressing the roots of poverty, support for early child care and development,  providing affordable health care for all, eliminating criminal justice policies which needlessly break up families and confronting the drug crisis. . 

I also believe this broad decline in institutional confidence, together with the desire of most if not all people to be associated with other people of high values, accentuates the importance of business leaders' pursuing a mission, and  taking actions and providing a value based environment which enlivens and realizes the commitment to do the right thing, for the business, the community and fellow employees. The role of business in promoting and actualizing the values by which we want to live is more important today than ever. 

William Burn's "The Back Channel" - The Finest Diplomatic Memoir I Have Ever Read

This is the best diplomatic memoir I have ever read. Informed, illuminating day-to-day events with amazing candor, including remarkably honest recognition of what the author (Burns) felt to be personal mistakes as well as those carried out by the State Department.

There were many confirmatory revelations for me.

The poorly considered and destructive impact of the expansion of NATO, the “killer” being the suggested expansion of the EU and likely then NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia. Putin and Russian’s of all stripes made it clear that this was a red line that could not be crossed.

Burns was in Moscow in 1995. He writes that Talbot as well as Secretary of Defense Bill Perry worried that starting down the road to form an enlargement of NATO would undermine hopes for a more enduring partnership with Russia undercutting reformers who would see it as a vote of no confidence in their efforts, a hedge against the likely failure of reform. “We shared similar concerns at Embassy Moscow. The challenge for us,” Burns wrote, in fall 1995, “is to look past the parent government of Russia’s often irritating rhetoric and the erratic and reactive diplomacy to our own long-term self interest. That demands, in particular, that we continue to seek to build a secure order in Europe sufficiently in Russia’s interests so that a revived Russia will have no compelling reason to revise it—and so that in the meantime the ‘stab in the back’ theorists will have only limited room for maneuver in Russian politics.” Sadly, we did not follow this advice.

For a time, we pursued the “Partnership for Peace,” a kind of NATO halfway house, but we did not pursue it aggressively, nor did Russia.

Putin’s increasing inclination to see a plot against him and Russia from almost every event, including protests about his decision to continue as president, is made abundantly clear.

Burns rightly describes Putin’s (and many Russians) intent as he writes “often as preoccupied with their sense of exceptionalism as Americans were, they sought a distinctive political and economic system, which would safeguard the individual freedoms and economic possibilities denied them under Communism, and ensure them a place among the handful of world powers.”

Burns continues with these personal words that I would echo: “I like Russians, respected their culture, enjoy their language and was endlessly fascinated by the tangled history of U.S.-Russian diplomacy.”

The history of our invidious inclination to pursue regime change is honestly described. Starting with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Iraq which Burns and most of the State Department vigorously opposed, including the war that precipitated it. He sadly writes: “Having lost the argument to avoid war, we had two main goals in shaping it and managing the inevitable risks.” They were going about “choosing between a smart way and a dumb way of bringing it (the regime change) about.” The Pentagon had taken over leadership from the State Department, together with Vice President Cheney and his office. 

The regime change went on in Libya with the overthrow of Kaddafi, not intended, but likely inevitable with the actions we took. A slippery slope it turned out to be. Not for the first time. 

Then we went on, with phone calls from Obama, telling Mubarak to step down in Egypt.

Elsewhere, Burns writes about his growing recognition of “the quality and increasing self-confidence of Chinese diplomacy.” That does not surprise me. It is exactly how I felt about Chinese leadership in the government and in business.

Burns tells the story of the negotiations which led to the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty with Iran in great detail. It was an extraordinary journey. Building of trust on both sides. Not perfect in the outcome, as Burns described it. They should have pushed for a longer period. But the best that could be obtained. This saga makes me doubly sorry that Trump pulled out of it. What a hit to our credibility, not just with Iran; but with our allies. 

Burns is brutally honest in his assessment of how he sees the state department needing to change in the future. He confesses to its being too “cautious, reactive and detached,” too bureaucratic, not effectively tied to the Hill, not adequately conveying the importance of diplomacy to the American public through illumination of the specific accomplishments it has enabled.

He advocates greater “candor and transparency (in describing)” the purpose and limits of American engagement abroad. “It is more effective to level with the American people about the challenges we face and the choices we make than to wrap them in the tattered robe of untampered exceptionalism or fan fears of external threats. Over promising and under delivery is the surest way to undermine the case for American diplomacy.”

Or anything else for that matter.

He advocates the importance of aligning our policies with “ensuring that the American middle class is positioned as well as possible for success in a hyper competitive world, that we build open and equitable trading systems, and that we don’t shy away from holding to account those who do not play by the rules of the game.”

I applaud his summation of our relationship with Russia. “A more durable 21st century European security architecture has alluded us in nearly three decades of fitful attempts to engage post-Cold War Russia that is not likely to change any time soon—certainly not during Putin’s tenure. Ours should be a long game strategy, not giving into Putin’s aggressive score settling, but not giving up on the possibility of an eventual mellowing of relations beyond him, nor can we afford to ignore the need for guardrails in managing an often adversarial relationship—sustaining communication between our militaries and our diplomats, and preserving what we can of a collapsing arms control architecture.” This is essential for the future of the world. 

I believe very much in what he wrote next. “Over time, Russia’s stake in healthy relations with Europe and Americana may grow, as a slow-motion collision with China and Central Asia looms.”

Burns’ book shares a lot of sad tales. Beyond those I have already mentioned, there is the description of the thwarted efforts to bring the Palestinians and Israelis together. Once again, Burns and most of the state department saw our policies which favored Israel and demoted the interests of Palestine as making the creation of a two-state solution unlikely to impossible. 

Here is a question which looms large to me in reading this memoir which Burns touches on but does not address directly: why were the State Department and its leaders unable to play a stronger role in making happen what they thought should happen.

To be sure, the outcomes were not totally bleak. While it has been unwound by the U.S, (but not the other signatories), the Iranian treaty was a diplomatic victory. So was the Paris Climate Treaty and, while he doesn’t talk about it at length, I’d imagine the Trans-Pacific Partnership was another. Tragically, all three of these accomplishments have been dismissed by the Trump administration. However, on other truly crucial events, the invasion of Iraq, the expansion of NATO with its impact on U.S.-Russia relations, Libya (though the state department as split on this), and Egypt, the beliefs of our most trained, experienced diplomats failed to carry the day.

One thing for sure. This argues for an extraordinarily strong Secretary of State. We had that in Jim Baker.

And that Secretary of State has to be respected by and aligned with a wise President. Again, we had that with Jim Baker and George H.W. Bush.

We need this in the next Administration. 

The Mueller Report--My Two Cents

I have spent about 3 hours reading the report. For what it is worth, here's my take:

1. It is extremely thorough and clearly presented. Balanced in its assessment.

2. While there are some redacted portions that one would like to see because of the context in which they occur, I come away believing we probably have enough information to form conclusions. 

3. The report convincingly established the direct and concerted involvement by Russia (GRU) in driving systematic interference in the 2016  Presidential election through a social media campaign favoring Trump and disparaging Clinton and by a computer-intrusion campaign against employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign. 

4.  While there were numerous points of contact between members of the campaign and various Russian leaders and while the members of the campaign did nothing to call attention to the Russian's interest in finding dirt on Hillary to be shared, I buy the conclusion that there is not evidence of outright collusion. 

5.  The instances of Trump trying to thwart the investigation and lying about doing it are numerous, intentional and deliberate and without pretending to render a legal judgment on criminality, they clearly show an intention by Trump to obstruct a proper investigation and therefore to obstruct justice. 

Viewed from the perspective of how I or any corporate leader would treat an executive who had done what Trump is shown to have done, the answer is clear. He/she would be terminated immediately.

Among the most flagrant actions, are these:

1. Repeated efforts made by Trump to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to remove the Special Counsel. This on top of this strong direction to McGhan to remove the Special Counsel in the first place. 

2. Trump's efforts to influence Manafort's testimony by offering him the prospect of a pardon.

3. Repeated efforts by Trump to have Sessions take control of the investigation, including by reversing his recusal, with the only logical intent being to achieve an outcome more likely to be in Trump's interest. 

4. Trump's efforts to have the investigation only concern itself with interference in future elections. 

It is hard for me to imagine facts emerging from further interviews with the principals that would materially change these conclusions.

Impeachment will not occur given the make-up of the Senate. Attempts to achieve it will not likely be productive against the main goal: getting Trump out of office in the 2020.  

I doubt if the general public will read this report in detail. 

I do not believe Trump supporters will change their  view of the situation based on any more information. 

Nevertheless, I believe that the cause of justice calls for doubling down through Congressional testimony on the one or two key areas of greatest Trump malfeasance which I would say are the interactions with McGhan. I would be focused. 

The candidates will be well served to stick as Biden has to the overall issue of character, a unifying vision for the country and the key issues such as health care and jobs and education impacting every day lives. 

Mind Opening and Challenging - Harari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

I’m literally amazed at the breadth of Harari’s knowledge and the number of mind-opening perspectives and insights he offers.  Some of them challenged my deepest beliefs and made me reconsider them. 

 

On the other hand, the book came to a disappointing close for me.  His final chapter on Meditation did little for me to offer a path forward that would accommodate itself to his virtual demolition of so many of the belief systems that, in many ways, he properly presents as our own mentally constructed stories.

 

As I say, there were many mind-opening perspectives for me in the book:  His illumination of the challenge that automation is going to provide to the number of meaningful jobs, the way this will impact everything from healthcare to truck drivers.  The need to, in one way or the other, do a better job of providing support to allow everyone to cover their basic needs.  The global challenge of nuclear proliferation and climate change which requires a global or near-global response.  The degree to which we overestimate the impact of terrorism, though it’s hard to mention that with what’s just happened in Sri Lanka.  (And Harari does note properly the altered dimension of the risk terrorism produced by nuclear capability.)

 

The chapters which I found most provocative and challenging were those on God and secularism.  While Harari makes the irrefutable case that it would be a supreme mistake to assert that there is only one valid religion, and while he makes the irrefutable case that many bad things have been done in the name of religion alongside good ones (and I must say, he makes this case very compellingly for every religion, including his own, Judaism), and while he acknowledges that religious beliefs have been an impetus to leading countless millions to pursue what he properly describes as the secular ethical code—a code which “enshrines the values of truth, compassion, quality, freedom, courage and responsibility,”— I believe he underestimates the degree to which religious beliefs have made the pursuit and activation of these values a reality.

 

Harari notes that the degree to which “human violence” caused human deaths has dropped significantly in modern times from up to 15% of all deaths during early agricultural periods to, he asserts, 1% today.  I personally believe that the pursuit of religious beliefs, as imperfect as that pursuit has been, may account for a significant portion of that reduction.

 

Related to this, there are two of Harari’s view that I believe, sadly, are in error.  He asserts, referring to religious beliefs, that, “We do not really need such complex, long-term theories to find an actual basis for universal compassion.”  He goes on to explain, writing that “Emotions such as greed, envy, anger, and hatred are very unpleasant.”  My marginal note on this reads:  “That’s not true for some, not always.”  

 

In the same vein, he continues, “As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to lead a moral life.  Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.”  My marginal note here reads:  “I’m not so sure.” 

 In fact, I’d go beyond that; I doubt it. 

 In theory, yes, if lived faithfully by virtually all, the secular values would carry the day.  But they aren’t going to be lived that way, because humans aren’t built that way. I believe that properly founded religious beliefs, especially for me personally as expressed in the words of Jesus, can help us live these secular values which Harari properly celebrates. In fact, Harari acknowledges this at one point. 

 

In the end, each of us comes back to try to decide how to live a meaningful, purposeful life.  I’ve reached my age knowing that I like all of us occupy a sliver of time in an amazing, bountiful universe which we’ll never fully understand.  I’ve come to believe that ultimately the difference we make will lie in whatever positive contribution we’ve been able to make to others in their journey of life, especially those we’re closest to, our family.

 

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

I posted this just two weeks ago after the Cohen hearings.

I re-post it today following the release of the Mueller Report which, sadly but not surprisingly, confirms what we already knew about President Trump in yet one more context.

We must return the values of truthfulness and mutual respect to the Presidency.

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

MARCH 7, 2019

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.  

Tiger Woods at the Masters--A Win Carrying Many Morals

I woke up very early Monday morning vividly recalling Tiger Woods striding up the fairway, a picture of unflappable, stoic discipline, red shirt, cap on, he looked no more than 30.

Striking his iron shot which slowly but surely curled to four feet from the hole on the 71st; the birdie followed.

Tapping in for a safe bogey to win by one stroke on the 72nd hole; millions roared. Off with his cap, revealing graying hair and the reality that, yes, this man is in his 40's.

Walking briskly to hug his young son and daughter and his mother with unbridled joy and love as we were reminded by TV footage of how he had hugged his now deceased father when he won this same tournament in 1997.

These are pictures in my mind. You may have your own.

For me, there is a good deal wrapped up in this win by Tiger Woods.

It is a story of redemption, as he came back incredibly from the physical and personal setbacks of the last 15 years.

It is a story of persistence and courage. .How many people could have survived four back operations and come back to win this tournament against players almost two decades younger?

It is a story of stamina and resolve. The practice was unending:  Even yesterday, Woods got up at 3:45 AM  to prepare for a 9 o'clock tee time.  The margin of victory was incredibly small: one stroke out of 275: less than 1%. Such is the difference between being first and second.

It is a story of forgiveness, as millions of fans, indeed the general public, looked past his earlier self-admitted personal mistakes to not only cheer him on but share in the joy of his recovery.

It is a story of artistic excellence. Great performance in golf seems to me to deserve the descriptive "artistic excellence". It requires a special combination of sheer talent and strength, finesse and boldness and discipline . And we observe all these things, as they happen in the instant stroke snd flight of the ball and then as we observe how the player reacts,  emotionally and physically, as he goes on to  next shot.

Perhaps most simply, it is a story of how the world loves a hero,  especially a come-back hero, a hero who shows his humanity and love of family, especially today when cynicism and examples of flawed standards surround us. Stories like this remind of what is possible and in their own way of what we at our best can accomplish.