Our Nation in a Two Front War

Our Nation, indeed all Nations —and their people and governments-- have not been so challenged since WWII and the Great Depression. 

We must wage and win a simultaneous two-front"war"— for the health and economic sustainability of the nation's people .

All sectors of our nation:  business, education, religious, medical, media, public and private, government at all levels, the people at large, all of us, must work together decisively to win this "war". Moving fast and aggressively is of unique importance since the geometric spread of the coronavirus is rapid and a nation or any entity pays a gruesome price if it delays the containment measures (isolation; social distancing), allowing the virus to achieve critical levels of penetration. 

After a slow start, partly attributable to the President's denying the reality of this unique threat, I am encouraged by what I see the Federal government and our State of Ohio doing at this moment. Different sectors of the government are coming together. Private-public partnerships are forming as they did in WWII, for example to provide more test equipment, necessary medical supplies, expertise on communicationI and more.

 I see leaders being data driven and seeking and applying learning from other nations who experienced—or responded to-- this virus at an earlier date than we did. Most importantly, I see leaders with deep professional competence  at the Federal and State and Local levels stepping forward together to lead the effort. They are providing transparent, frequent updates on the reality and the impact of the health and economic of the virus

 As the experts and history of this virus tell us: we are still at the critical early stage. We know the health crisis will grow over the next several weeks. We don't know how far nor nor how long it will wake for the threat to dissipate to the extent we can relax the social isolation steps which have been and will continue to be implemented. But we do have a good idea scientifically and from what  has happened in other countries what actions the public—all of us—need to take to lower the curve of the spread and incidence of this serious infection. We also know the economic dislocation will be immense in lost jobs and income. 

On the economic front, we will need to implement what in historical terms might be described aa a modern Marshall Day plan in the need to take comprehensive and decisive action, the best analogy in my mind is the action the Nation had to take to address the devastating consequences of the Depression with its 25%+ unemployment. Fortunately, compared to the Depression, our economy entered this unexpected challenge far stronger than was at the time of the Depression. 

Our challenges at this moment in time seem to be to be three: 

1) Each of us following the best containment actions;

 2) Being ahead of the wave of more people needing hospitalization with adequate hospital beds, medical supplies and medical personnel.

3)  Putting in place dramatic and rapid economic support for individuals (cash supplements, assured free heath coverage ) and for the recovery of businesses, large like the airlines, and small and medium size business, where the loss of jobs will be greatest.

As I have written,  this war presents striking similarities to what out Nation faced and needed to do in the Great Depression and in WWII. It is often said—and it is true—that it takes a monumental existential threat to drive us to collective, decisive action. We have that existential threat today. 

We of course will get through this. The question is how fast and to what degree we will minimize the harm to people. 

By coincidence, I just started the new best-seller: "The Splendid and the Vile: a Saga of Churchill, Family and Defiance During the Blitz". I am lifted by Churchill's spirit and wisdom as he addressed the British people—this during the first month after becoming Prime Minster in the dark days of May, 1940.  "It would be foolish to disguise the gravity of the moment. It would be still more foolish to lose heart and courage." 

And then this shortly after the fall of France: "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour'". 

So may it be for us.

Raising Kids—The Role of Kindness

(This is a  letter I wrote to my four children and their spouses. I decided to post it on my blog)

I  read an interesting and important article in the recent issue of The Atlantic which I thought I would share with you.  It was written by Adam Grant and Allison Sweet Grant on the subject of raising kids.  It is well worth reading in its entirety.  In a nutshell, it presented persuasive evidence that “children who help others end up achieving more than those who don’t.”  As evidence, it cites academic progress in later years and overall success in life as relating closely to how the children were rated as being helpful or not by Kindergarten and early grade teachers.

The article draws on knowledge from psychologists and evolutionary biologists to explain this.  In part, it comes down to the reality that concern for other people promotes supportive relationships.  Students who care about others tend to see their education as preparation for contributing to society—an outlook that inspires them to persist when difficult studying is required.  Interestingly, research shows that “kindness can also make kids happy in the here and now.”  Psychologists call this “the helpers high.”  Economists refer to it as the “warm glow of giving.”  Neuroscientists find that generosity activates reward centers in our brains.

Reading this article brought me a smile because I thought of how many times I have seen personally and read reports from your children’s teachers of how they care for other classmates.
  

I was talking the subject of kindness with a fellow P&G alumni last week.  She quickly signaled her agreement with the thesis in raising her own two girls, but she took the conversation in an unexpected direction as she talked about the role of “kindness” in a workplace culture.  She applauded it; she felt it very important.  But she asked me for my perspective on what she described as the “soft under-belly of kindness”—that occurring if we do not bring candor and courage along with it.  I told her I knew exactly what she was driving at.  I experienced this challenge in my own life.

So, how do you try to ensure that kindness doesn’t lead to a lack of decisiveness and candor in a relationship?  Here is how I explained I have tried to resolve this.  

I have tried to keep three precepts in my mind, especially as I am dealing with a personal subject which could hurt the feelings of another person or be something, in hearing, they wish weren’t true: 

1.      I start by trying to answer the question for myself:  “what is the right thing to do?”  

2.      Is what I would say something that the other person needs to know for his or her own benefit?  They may not like to hear it, but they need to know it. 

3.      Do I convey it in a way which expresses my deep respect and caring for the other individual, so that I have a reason to believe they will understand that whatever I am saying is intended for their benefit?

Maggie (my daughter-in-law) once asked me a question the answer to which comes at this same subject in a different and perhaps simpler way.

 She asked me how do you think through what to say to someone with whom you disagree.  My response was to answer three questions:

1.      Is what I am going to say true?

2.      Is what I am going to say necessary; that is, will my communicating it lead to a better outcome?  Am I doing it for the benefit of achieving a better outcome, not just to make myself feel I have done something?

3.      Is this the time and place to have the communication or should I do it in a different place (perhaps one-on-one and fewer people or at a time better suited to achieve a constructive outcome)?

I hope this is helpful.

Why Brexit? What Comes Next?



Warning: This blog is long and in part contentious

The Politics of Pain:  Post-War England and the Rise of Nationalism by Fintan O’Toole

Fintan O’Toole spins a dizzying, intellectually bracing and mind-opening tale in his new book.

Explaining the “why” of Brexit, O’Toole traces its roots to deep British psychological traits, illuminated by rich perspectives from history (the 100 Years War to World War II) and literary references ranging from Shakespeare to post-World War II novels.  

From this often “sporty,” sometimes smile-producing and incisive history comes the compelling explanation for me of the “why” of Brexit.  It raises important questions and demands of the British people (and all of us) for the future.

At the outset, the book recounts Britain’s tentative, reluctant entry into the Common Market.  It recalls that it did not get off to a good start.  The decade after the U.K. joined was, in fact, “the most dreadful of the post-war era, a litany of racial conflict in England, nationalist discontent in Scotland and Wales, war in Ireland and perpetual strikes everywhere.”  The years in which Britain decided to join and then settled into membership of the Common Market were notably “panicky.”

A feeling grew that England had become a victim, and how unfair that was, with all they had done for the Continent.

Three conditions combined:  the disappointed expectations (the positives of belonging to the Common Market were not emphasized); the need for a scapegoat (the Common Market); and the erosion of the welfare state.  Together, they called out for an action that would set Britain free and reclaim its independent glory.

A feeling grew seeing the U.K. as a “vassal”—a vassal of the Continent, especially Germany—yet still imbued with pride.  

O’Toole asserts Britain was playing the role simultaneously of the “underdog” and the “over dog,” fueled by some by the idea of a reinvigorated Anglo empire.  

For many, Brexit came to be seen as imperial England’s last stand.  The Brexit campaign put together two fears:  the loss of Britain’s status after 1945, being the older one; losing the privilege of whiteness as immigration increased being the more recent.

For people who feel anxious about losing their status, self-pity is attractive because it contains righteous anger with assurance.  You are reassured because you know you deserve a great deal.  You’re righteously angry because, for some reason, you have not been getting what you so obviously deserve.  

This same dynamic explains the appeal of many of President Trump’s supporters.  

In Britain’s case, it was the EEC acting as a virtual colonial oppressor, preventing Britain from getting what it deserved, especially recognizing all that it had contributed to the victory in World War II.  Many imagined Britain as “a colony, with its own deep traditions that had been annexed by a European super-state.”

O’Toole makes it clear that “being angry about the European Union isn’t a psychosis—it is a mark of sanity.  Indeed, anyone who is not disillusioned with the EU is suffering from delusions.”  O’Toole calls the Union to task for moving away from “evidence-based economics”; for not recognizing there are 123 million people in the EU at risk of poverty, a quarter of the EU population.  

This has been allowed to happen because the fear of social and political chaos went out of the system.”

The EU had forgotten some of its founding precepts.  It knew at the beginning that, “if things are not held together by a reasonable expectation that life will get better for ordinary people, they will fall apart.”  

O’Toole continues, “Working class communities in England, like their counterparts in most of the EU, are absolutely right to feel they have been abandoned.  The distress is real, and Brexit gives the pain a name and a location—immigrants, and Brussels bureaucrats.  It counters their sense of powerlessness with a moment of real power—Brexit is, after all, a very big thing to do.”

But, O’Toole concludes, clearly showing where he stands:  “It’s still self-harm.  For the cynical leaders of the Brexit campaign, the freedom they desire is the freedom to dismantle the environmental, social and labor protections that they call ‘red tape.’  They want to sever the last restraints on the very market forces that have caused the pain.  They offer a jagged razor of incoherent English nationalism to distress then-excluded communities.  It is exhilarating and empowering.  It makes English hearts beat faster and the blood flow more quickly—even it’s their own blood that’s flowing.”

The most surprising thing I took away from the book is O’Toole’s well-documented assertion that underlying the drive for Brexit was the English people’s rapid drive to choose “to be English rather than British and, therefore, becoming alienated from British governance.”

He cites several research studies that show a dramatic turn in recent years on the English population prioritizing an English over a British identity.  These were not rogue studies.  In some parts of England, particularly the Northeast and Northwest, the contrast is overwhelming.  Not so much in London.  There was little recognition of this shift in the mainstream and political discourse even though it was going on in the minds and hearts of Englishmen.  Interestingly, the Scots and Welsh identified the layer of government most influencing their lives to be their own country; almost none the EU.  England for years was the exception.  

In part, O’Toole believes this has grown from the establishment of the Scottish parliament in 1999 and other “small nation liberation movements.”  I would note the same development occurred in Russia post 1989 as it drew back to its singular individual identity as Russia rather than being part of the Soviet Union.

With this as background, O’Toole reaches the rather unexpected conclusion that, unable to exit Britain, the English did the next best thing and left the EU.   “The long history of displacing on to the European Union the unresolved anxieties of England made possible a deft transference: if you can’t secede from Britain, secede from Europe.”  I am unable to judge the correctness of this conclusion. But it is worth considering.

Stepping back, O’Toole views Brexit as a “gesture based on something imaginary:  an enormous overstatement of the power of the EU on the governance of England.  Something big has been erased but nothing has really been revealed.  Englishness is no better expressed after the Brexit vote than it was before it.”

As an aside, there is an aspect of the support for Brexit which reminds me of the current situation in the United States.  O’Toole cites as a “great mystery of Brexit” being “the bond it created between working class revolt on the one side and upper class self-indulgence on the other.  There would seem to be an unbridgeable gulf of style and manner, let alone of actual economic interests” between the two groups.  

There is a similarity here between the support we’re seeing for Trump in the U.S. between many in the working class who believe he is the answer to their frustrations and many of the most wealthy who see what he is accomplishing economically through the elimination of regulations and tax reform, to be to their and the nation’s advantage.

There is another analogy between contemporary British and U.S. politics.  We’re seeing a showman arrive on the scene in Britain in Boris Johnson, just as we have in the U.S. with Donald Trump.  O’Toole explains the breakdown in the effectiveness of the major parties as an explanation for this.  The Tories and Labor in Britain; the Democratic and Republican Parties in the U.S.; at least the traditional wings.  This has allowed the emergence of populist leaders who would have been inconceivable in more stable eras.  In fact, the same thing occurred in Germany in the 1930s with Hitler and in Italy earlier than that with Mussolini.

*****

The final brief section of O’Toole’s book presents a spirited call to action.

“England can no longer afford an eccentric ruling class.  The harm is all too real:  the indulgence of eccentricity brought clownish absurdity and self-centered recklessness into the heart of political power.  Figures who would have been enjoyably ridiculous in a Dickens novel now get to determine a nation’s fate for a generation.

The other toxic waste from the fated myths of English character is pain—as—redemption.”  

There is an antidote, O’Toole writes.  “There is nothing innately shameful about the idea of England as a distinct political community—why should it not be one?  Indeed, it is perfectly possible to see the re-emergence of England as the final stage in the dismantling of Empire.  There is surely enough in the English radical, socialist and liberal traditions to inspire a more positive sense of national belonging.  There is surely in one of the world’s great cultures, enough wit and energy and creativity and humor to infuse Englishness with hope and joy instead of pain and self-pity.”

“A nation state is, first and foremost, a shelter.  In the hard rain of neo-liberal globalization, people know they cannot be fully protected.  But they do reasonably expect an umbrella over their heads.  The problem is that the umbrella is broken...for too many, hollow.  Brexit is part of a much larger phenomenon and it speaks to two much wider truths.  One is that it is not possible simultaneously to ask people to trust the state and to tell them that the state has no business in any part of their lives in which the market wants free rein.  The other is that the gross inequality produced by neo-liberalism is increasingly incompatible with democracy and, therefore, in liberal democracies, with political stability.”

O’Toole concludes that “what we’ve seen with the lid off is the truth that Brexit is much less about Britain’s relationship with the EU than it is about Britain’s relationship with itself.  It is the projection outwards of an inner turmoil.  A part of that process of change must be reserved for a more sense of Englishness.  In order to move forward, England has to move on.  It has to dismantle the archaic political system that effectively disenfranchises millions of voters, to rid itself of the vestiges of feudalism, to generally allow communities to ‘take back control’ of their lives.  It has to reanimate the spirit of social reform that created its great liberal and social democratic movements.  If there is ever to be a time after Brexit, it will come when the people who share the current British state really do begin to negotiate with each other, collectively and honestly, who they are and where they belong.”

This short summary could serve as a coda, I believe, for much of what we need to do in the United States, today and tomorrow and in the years ahead.

It is no small task.  It will require us to re-establish trust in one another and between our parties.  It will require strong people to step up and brave the challenge and vicissitudes of seeking and gaining public office and then work together to implement improvements that benefit all the peoples 

Timeless Truths: Timeless Life-Changing Experiences

I’m reading a book of literary criticism, written by George Steiner, a long-term columnist of The New Yorker.  In introducing his book,   Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky, which was published in 1959, Steiner sheds light on the rewards and requirements of literary criticism.  

 

In reading this introduction, I find a great deal that brings me back to the importance of never forgetting those foundational kernels of truth and principles of living which emerge from our most life-changing experiences.

 

There are more than 100 great books, more than 1,000, Steiner tells us.  But their number is not inexhaustible.  The same comment applies to the principles of living and truths.  There are a lot of them.  But the number is not inexhaustible.  And the most important are ones we must always cling to, including the commitment to excellence, to truth and integrity, to never giving up in the pursuit of what is right,  and to respect for one another.  

 

Steiner points out, correctly, that in today’s world a more diffident view of what is timeless prevails.  “With the decline of Europe from the pivot of history, we have become less certain that the classical and Western tradition is preeminent.  Our minds are shadowed by the wars and bestialities of the 20^th century.  We grow weary of our inheritance.  But we must not yield too far.  In excess of relativism lie the germs of anarchy.”  

 

The “ancient recognition and habits of understanding run deeper than the rigors of time.  Tradition and the long ground-swell of unity are no less real than that sense of disorder and vertigo which the new dark ages have loosed upon us.”  (Steiner wrote this in the 1950s.  The shadow of World War II still lingered.  I feel certain that his thoughts would be no different in today’s troubled world.)

 

Even as we know that change is unending, that circumstances change, and that new opportunities and challenges arise, we must hold fast to those truths and learnings which have come down through time and which we believe in our hearts represent guides to our doing the best we can in the world we live in today.

 

Steiner’s subject is the challenge of literary criticism returning “with passion and awe and a sense of life renewed.   At present, there is grievous need of such return,” Steiner writes.  “All about us flourishes a new illiteracy, the illiteracy of those who can read short words, words of hatred and tawdriness, but cannot grasp the meaning of language when it is in a condition of beauty or truth.”  

 

This may sound too highfalutin, too detached from the rigors of everyday life, but I don’t think it is.    I think it calls upon us to honor those truths gained from our experience and learning which, put simply, helps us be our best selves.

 

 

Why We're Polarized and What We Can Do About It

The newly published book Why We’re Polarized by Ezra Klein underscores what I and all of us have come to see as a reality and does so with very compelling statistics.  Most of all, it shows how a number of reinforcing systemic changes have led to where we are today.  It’s going to be very difficult to change.  

The degree of cross-party voting has gone way down. As one indicator of this: from 1972-1980, the correlation between the Democratic share of the House vote and Presidential vote was only .54. In other words not very tight, indicating a lot of ticket splitting. By 1982-1990, the correlation had increased to .65 and by 2018 it had soared to .97, indicating almost no ticket splitting. 

Access to media is increasingly selected to support one’s current views. For example, self-identified conservative Republicans say they get 47% of their news from FOX; liberal Democrats have a greater variety of sources, but they line up with their ideological bent to CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and NPR.  

While not specifically cited in Klein's book, but of greatest importance as far as I am concerned, 
several key policy issues have morphed from policy differences to absolute moral judgments. These are inherently more irreconcilable.  The most important are race relations, immigration, women’s rights (abortion) and gun control.  

Gerrymandering has resulted in districts intentionally being drawn to ensure an easy win for one party or the other. In recent years this has tended to favor Republicans, but both parties have participated.  As a result, many if not most primary elections determine the outcome of the General Election designed to favor one party. As a result, primaries in which a relatively small number of voters show up (averagely 30%) bring out the most-intense voters.  That’s pushing candidates in both parties further to the right or to the left.

At the same time, the number of truly independent voters has plummeted in recent elections, going from, in analyst's Matthew Dowd's calculations, about 22% to 7%.  A result of this is that candidates are putting more of their effort against getting out their base and pummeling the other side rather than persuading a small number of undecideds. 

Composition of the parties by race has changed dramatically.  In 1952, 6% of Democrats and 2% of Republicans were self-identified as non-white.  By 2012, those numbers changed to 43% Democrats and only 9% Republicans self-identifying as non-whites.  

Attitudes toward the importance of racial discrimination, not surprisingly, varied correspondingly.  In 1994, 39% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans said that discrimination was the main reason "black people can't get ahead these days.”  By 2017, 64% of Democrats believed that, but only 14% of Republicans. To note, much of this trend has been driven by white liberals who, one research study shows, have moved further left on this issue than the typical black voter. 

No statistic more clearly documents the increased polarization of the two parties than this one.  In 1960, 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats indicated they would be concerned about their child marrying a person of another party.  By 2010, 49% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats said they would be concerned if their child was to marry a person of the other party.  

As Klein indicates, he is a lot better at analyzing the reality of the polarization and its causes than what to do to narrow it.  Some of his suggestions are sound conceptually but impractical, e.g., eliminate the Electoral College.  The actions I believe are most practical are:

1.     End gerrymandering.  Construct districts which have intentionally a good balance of Republican and Democratic voters. 

2.     Run open primaries; that is, allow people from either party to choose to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary.  That will presumably result in candidates who have paid attention the views of the other party.  

3.     Make access to voting easily available to all.  Make voter registration automatic as one gets their driver’s license, for example. 

4.     Personally, learn the full stories from individuals who have a different policy point of view than we do.  A striking example for me was gun control regulation.  A blog I wrote on this, advocating universal background checks and banning of automatic weapons, drew a sharp response from a number of people.  I invited them to have breakfast with me to discuss the issue.  Two people did.  One breakfast proved particularly productive.  Why?  We came to understand each other’s stories and what led us to our current beliefs, on gun control and other matters.  We came away finding we agreed on much more than I expected.  I learned some things about the challenge of legislation on automatic weapons.  My friend, I hope, learned something from me.  We don’t spend enough time understanding each other’s stories when it comes to genuine policy disagreements.  

5.     Recognize the hole we have dug ourselves into.  Sharing this knowledge broadly will hopefully result in more voters selecting candidates of their party who can work across the aisle.  

Why would they do this? Because they have come to recognize that this is the only way we’re going to get effective legislation on the key issues in front of us accomplished.  The failure in the last several years to achieve sensible gun control or immigration legislation shows the sad outcome of being so polarized.

WhyWe’rePolarized021220

The Perilous Assault on Ethical Standards and Integrity—At Least Vote to Formally Censure The President's Conduct

The Perilous Assault on Ethical Standards and Integrity—At Least Vote to Formally Censure The President's Conduct

February 4, 2020

(This is an update on my post of 1/31)

The Trump trial has been draining.

It has now become depressing as I witness the abandonment of integrity.

Why do I say this?  Because all the Republican Senators , excepting Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, voted "no" on having witnesses. Several Senators including Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander, explain that they  arrive at this decision even though they acknowledge that the President did indeed use the power of his office to hold up duly authorized aid in order to try to get the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation of his principal opponent, Joe Biden.

Trump has repeatedly denied this charge.  In other words, These and other Senators acknowledge he has lied in addition to having  done what the Impeachment charge states.

 And beyond all that he has sought to cover it up.

These  Senators explain their decision to vote "no" by in essence saying the evidence of his guilt is so clear to them that witnesses  would not add anything to it even if they confirm what has been alleged.

They assert that while the President's actions were "inappropriate",  they do not rise to the level of being an impeachable offense.

For me this is impossible to accept.  If  pressuring a foreign nation to stain the reputation of a leading opposing candidate seeking to unseat him as President isn't an impeachable "abuse of power", what is?

I search for an analogue in Corporate life which presents an example of the abuse of power for personal benefit--and contrary to that of the institution.

Imagine a CEO of a company learns that a subordinate employee is poised to disclose an act of serious sexual impropriety on his part. The CEO goes to the employee promising a big promotion in return for his not making the disclosure.

The Board of Directors learns of this. The CEO vehemently denies it happened. Do you think any Board Member determining the allegation was true would describe this as "inappropriate" and stop there? No, that CEO would be summarily  fired.

But what if some board members were uncertain of the truth of the allegation?  After all the CEO (like President Trump) is denying he made this proposition. Now,  however, the Board learns there were two first hand witnesses to the CEO's conversation with the employee. One of the witnesses has said they are ready to talk to the board. Do you think the Board would decline to hear from these witnesses?  Of course they wouldn't. They would demand that all the facts be  put on the table. 

The  positions of these Senators  fly in the face of all I have learned, believe and tried to honor when it comes to ethical behavior.

 At a minimum, they should have sought first hand witnesses to confirm or deny the charges forwarded by the House of Representatives. The Senate should have taken every step to allow the "truth" of the matter to fully emerge. They owed that to the American public so they could  better assess the merits or de-merits of  candidates in the next election. They owed that to history. They owed that to the reputation of the Senate as an independent body. They owed it to their personal legacies.

Last week,, I read something Teddy Roosevelt said in response to sharp criticism he  received for having asked Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House in October, 1901. He was affirming his conviction that he did the right thing.

"I say that I am 'sure' this is the right solution. Of course I know that we see through a glass dimly and, after all, I may be wrong; but if I am then all my thoughts and beliefs are wrong, and my whole way of looking at life is wrong. At any rate, as long as I am in public life, however short a time  that may be, I am in honor bound to act up to my beliefs and convictions".

Roosevelt speaks for me. 

If as appears virtually certain, the Senate will not vote to remove Trump from office, it should at least hold a formal vote on censuring the President's conduct.

 Let history not be silent on how his conduct was viewed. Let history not be silent on his failure to act in good faith and in line with the values that  have made this Nation what it aspires to be.

Make no mistake: if the Senate's record remains silent or ambiguous,  there will be many, likely including the President, who will assert he did nothing wrong. That will result in a devastating crippling of the standards of ethical behavior. And that would present a grave risk to our Nation's future. A vote should be taken on censoring the President's conduct.