"Reason and Faith--Only Together Will They Save Man"--Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

 

I read two opinion-pieces in the Wall Street Journal this weelk that came together for me in a surprising, sobering and meaningful way; likely in a way that the authors would not have expected.

 

The first opinion-piece, “America is a Sick Society—Literally” by William A. Galston lays out in graphic and sobering detail how sick the society in our country really is.  

 In life expectancy, we rank 29^th among the 38 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  We trail Germany by 2.5 years; Canada by 3.2 years; and France by 4 years. 

 

The pandemic made things worse.  The U.S. suffered 332 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with 240 in France; 194 in Germany; and 128 in Canada.

 

Over the last 20 years, deaths from overdoses of drugs rose from about 17,000 Americans in the year 2000 to 92,000 by 2020.  Here again, we lead all other high-income countries.  In 2020, our death rates from overdoses of 277 per million compared with Canada at 171 per million; Germany only 19 per million; and France even lower at 7 per million.

 

The invidious comparisons continue.  On obesity.  On gun violence.  We lead the world on both. On the latter, the rate of firearm homicides per million adults in the U.S. stands at 41, compared with only 5 in Canada, 3 in France, 2 in Australia and 1 in Germany.

 

Experts, divided among many lines including political party, argue about the causes of these invidious comparisons.  For my money, they have not been adequately studied or, if they have, I haven’t seen that study.  But it shouts out for comprehensive, data based answers.

 

The second column, this one written by Daniel Henninger, is about the legacy of Pope Benedict, who passed away this past week at the age of 95.  Henninger talks about Benedict's beliefs in the context of the conflict of values between President Xi and Putin in China and Russia and the West.  

Putin is arguing, disingenuously to be sure, that Russia stands for “moral historical truth…there is no higher power than love for one’s family and friends, loyalty to friends and comrades in arms”, he says.  This, coming from the man who cruelly invaded Ukraine.  Yet, this is the argument he is making and, yes, persuading many that he is right.  Xi talks about China creating a new choice for achieving “modernization.”

 

Here is where Pope Benedict steps in with the conviction which I have shared for most of my adult life.  And that is the role of religion and faith.  Pope Benedict summarized his views as Pope in his 2009 Encyclical Letter, “Caritas In Veritate” (Love and Truth) in which he argues that secularism will fall without the ballast of religion or faith.

 

“Reason and faith can come to each other’s assistance", he wrote.   "Only together will they save man. Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence.  Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life.”

 

For me, and I know this is a personal matter, this sums it up. 

 

Henninger writes that his personal solution to reducing the country’s problems is “go to church on the weekend.  To learn that, in fact, you’re not #1.  And not alone.” That captures what I feel in going to church.

 

I embrace Henninger’s closing thought.   “Perhaps the moment is right to revive Benedict’s argument for religion’s proper role in organizing a coherent, self-confident society, or nation.”

 

Yet, I have to confess that I am not optimistic of this actually happening in the near- or medium-term future.  The incidence of church-going, especially among the young, has been declining for years.  In a way I can’t define, I think religion needs to bring a new message to the public, with new messengers.  I have benefitted personally from having had close contact with a minister, Rev. Paula Jackson, for 30 years. She brought me, through her words and through her service, the recognition that my belief in God, as vague and changing as it has often been, and the teachings of Jesus Christ have been very important to my living the life I sought to live. 

 

 

Why Procter & Gamble and Institutions Like It Have Been Successful Over Time

 Yuval Levin’s book, A Time to Build:  From Family and Community to Congress and a Campus, How Recommitting to our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream provides deep insights as to to why P&G has been a successful, sustaining organization over time. 

 

Levin begins by documenting the well-established decline in faith in institutions, all kinds, excepting the military.  In losing faith, “We’ve lost the words of which to speak about what we owe each other.”  Institutions which were once formative in establishing who we are and in meeting our highest ideals of integrity, respect for others and excellence have become personal platforms for people to use to pursue their own purposes and establish their individual excellence and uniqueness. This lack of conviction in the role of institutions in helping set boundaries, provide a code of conduct and help individuals to achieve their highest aspirations is what accounts for this loss of faith, according to Levin. I believe there is much truth in this.

 

As Levin talks about what characterizes strong institutions, what enables them to be sustained over time, as he presents the benefits they offer, I think back again and again to what makes P&G special and what it must preserve.

 

Institutions come in a lot of shapes and sizes, Levin writes, but they share two distinct elements:  They are durable; they keep their shape over time and so shape the realm of life in which they operate.  P&G has done this in its fundamental purpose of serving consumers, providing a place of employment where people can grow, delivering excellence in every dimension that matters (consumer acceptance of its brands, financial results etc.)

 

Another critical element is that strong institutions are forms of association in which people are not only willing but motivated to provide their best effort.  In P&G, I think of our unique Alumni group, which brings people back after years and decades of being with the company.  They do this for a lot of reasons, but a critical one is to share, once again, in the common values and the achievements that have grown from those values of the company.

 

This perception of the institution to which we belong will lead us to respond to the question of, “What should I do now?” by asking, “What is the responsibility I owe to this institution?”  This line of making a decision as to what one does permeates military culture.  It is what makes integrity and commitment to duty the highest priorities. 

 

Institutions can properly be defined as the durable forms of our common life.  For that to prove true, the institution must work to accomplish some socially important task, whether that be educating the young, making laws, defending the country, serving God, or in some meaningful way improving the lives of consumers—that, of course, is P&G’s commitment.

 

We come to trust and value an institution, as we have Procter & Gamble, to the extent that it delivers on this purpose over time and operates with an ethic and set of values that help individuals be their best selves.

 

Levin argues that strong institutions should be “formative” in the sense of helping us live in accordance with the highest values of integrity, pursuit of excellence, respect for one another and truth.  This has to be modeled in action, and this can only happen if leaders believe in and live these values.  This has been actualized in P&G for most of its history, through its leaders.  The company’s “promote from within” practice has helped achieved consistency in the choice of leaders who embody these values.  At the same time, our record has not been without blemish.

 

What is it that has led to and accounts for the decline of values and character as fundamental to the life of institutions and the life of individuals in them?  Part of it has certainly come from the growing predominance of the internet and social media as the conveyor of what makes for news.  It has led to a culture where multiple opinions have to a significant degree come to override the reality and importance of fundamental truths.  

 

Procter & Gamble’s succinct and concrete set of Principles and Values, combined with its Purpose, establish and demand adherence to such a broad, concrete set of values.  Living this, telling stories, showing their presence in the past and the present, are vital to preserving a culture built on these values.

 

In talking about institutions and their role, Levin makes the excellent point that, “The family is our first and most important institution.  It gives each of its members a role, a set of relations to others and a body of responsibilities.  The institution of the family helps us see that institutions in general take shape around our needs and, if they are well shaped, can help turn those needs into capacities.  They are formative because they add to us directly and they offer us a kind of character formation for which there is no substitute.  There is no avoiding the need for moral formation through such direct habituation in the forms of life.” 

 

We recognize that our role at any point should stem from what we view as our responsibility and opportunity to contribute to the purpose of the organization (supporting the development of children to be all they can be in the case of the family), and doing so in alignment with our highest moral aspirations.

 

Importantly, this view of the family as an institution flows directly into how I’ve viewed Procter & Gamble—as carrying out and, in many ways, being a family.  A family, too, in not unduly restricting the development of every individual in it. 

 

An important quality of a “good family” is to extend our “horizon of expectations and priorities” when it comes to our children.  So is this true in Procter & Gamble.

 

Levin notes that “the relationship between ideals and institutions must be fairly explicit—in the case of the most idealistic institutions, it must be very explicit—and it must be widely understood and clearly sustained in practice.”  This describes I believe the role that Purpose, Values and Principles have played and must continue to play in Procter & Gamble, even recognizing that we will not be perfect. 

 

The argument presented in this book and which I have attempted to extend into my perception of Procter& Gamble will not be easily applied to tackling the decline in trust in the institutions around us.  However, I agree that it describes what we need to do:  recognize our institutions are critical to accomplishing aspirational goals and purposes. 

 

This has to be done in a way that invites new learning on how this purpose and values must be better lived in the context of new knowledge and the environment in which the organization operates.  Only with this attitude will organizations be able to live the coda:  “Preserve the core; be prepared to change everything else.”

 Reply  Reply All  Forward

Personally Meaningful Reflections on Jon Meacham's New Biography of Abraham Lincoln

 There was much in this book which I find a guide post on how to live a good life. 

Jon Meacham’s Biography of Abraham Lincoln:  And There Was Light:  Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle.

 

I questioned whether it made sense to read this book, having read so many other biographies of Lincoln.  I decided to, mainly because it was written by Meacham, whose writing I greatly admire.  I’m glad I did.

 

While part of this may be a function of my fading memory, I came away with several poignant impressions which add to my understanding of Lincoln and leadership in general.  Here they are:

 

1.     The importance of Lincoln’s early reading and incredibly retentive memory.  Books he immersed himself in, including the Bible, writings of Theodore Parker and Douglass, too, proved to be tremendously influential in informing his foundational views.  I came away especially appreciating the influence of the preacher, Theodore Parker.  He wrote:  “As a man cannot serve two masters, antagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as God and man, no more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same time,” referring to slavery and non-slavery.  He continued:  “This is what I call the American idea…the idea that all men have unalienable rights, that in respect thereof, all men are created equal; that government is to be established and sustained for the purpose of giving every man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of all these unalienable rights.  This idea demands a democracy, that is, a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people, of course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God:  for shortness’ sake, I will call it the idea of freedom.”

 

Parker drew an all-important theological, political analogy:  As Jesus is to the Bible, so is the Declaration (of Independence) to the Constitution.  “By Christianity, I mean that form of religion which consists of piety—the love of God and morality—the keeping of His laws.” 

 

2.     I was moved by Lincoln’s increasing confliction as the war went on that he was an instrument in God’s plan who had the capability and responsibility to do what he believed to be right.  His growth appeared to be particularly driven following the death of his son in 1862.  As Meacham writes, Lincoln frequently speaks of “God and Providence.”  His theological quest is no small part of the story of his presidency.  His moral calculus had a discernible influence on public affairs.  A politician unburdened by conscience could have made different decisions and left us a different nation. “I may not be a great man,” Lincoln once remarked.  “I know I am not a great man—and perhaps it is better than it is so—for it makes me rely upon One who is great and who has the wisdom and power to lead us safely through this great trial.”  A true portrait of Lincoln as President must include our best, if necessarily imperfect and incomplete, effort to capture how he understood the concepts of God and Providence.  The mature Lincoln viewed the history of the American people and nation as mysteriously but inexorably intertwined with the will and the wishes, the vengeance and the mercy, and the punishments and the rewards of a divine force beyond time and space.

 

To Lincoln, people were obligated by conscience, informed by scripture and by experience, to pursue the ideals of love and of generosity—and each person would be accountable for action or inaction to the extent one undertook or impeded this pursuit.  The lives of individuals and of nations were thus defined by a moral drama.  Lincoln memorably said events had controlled him, but the man who ran for office on an anti-slavery platform, who affected emancipation, etc., viewed the world not as mechanistic but as moral.  Conscience and character were not incidental to human affairs, but instrumental.

 

3.     Lincoln’s deep conviction that the United States was a unique creation that had, at all costs, to be preserved.  That was his driving force.  That is what led him, again and again, to not accept compromise. 

 

Further, the book makes clear Lincoln’s growing belief that while the Union could be preserved for additional time by compromises similar to that of 1820 (the Missouri Compromise) and 1850 and 1854 (Kansas and Nebraska), it could not be sustained on the basis of being half slave and half free.  This was a conclusion he came to during the course of the war, it seems to me.  However, he had anticipated the issue.  In 1855, he had identified “our political problem now is ‘can we as a nation continue together permanently—forever—half slave and half free’?”  At the time that Lincoln wrote, “The problem is too mighty for me.  May God in His mercy superintend the solution?”  In 1858, he wasn’t sure.  By the middle of the war, by 1863, he was certain.  The answer was “no.”

 

Lincoln’s commitment to the words of the Declaration of Independence were what brought him again and again to resist compromise.  The offer of compromise that would have kept the Union together were abundant.  There was the Crittenden Proposal as the Southern states started to secede.  Even as late as 1864, a possible compromise was on the table which would have had the South come back into the Union, conceding the superior position of the Federal government but leaving slavery intact.  Lincoln refused.  There had also been a compromise proposal to extend the line to the Pacific Ocean which had demarcated the Missouri Compromise in 1820.  That would have permitted slavery in Texas and much of California, Arizona and New Mexico.  Lincoln refused.  He held fast.  He was defending the principle of “Liberty to all.” 

 

4.     I gained respect for Lincoln’s attitude toward persuasion and working with other people.  He was an enemy of self-satisfaction and any “know it all” attitude.  He advocated showing respect for others.  As Meacham writes, Lincoln believed that to hector or condemn another person, to tell them that they are wholly wrong, was not a path to agreement or reform but to intransigencies.  “If you would win a man to your cause,” Lincoln wrote, “first convince him that you are his sincere friend.  Therein this drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to reach and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment to the justice of your cause.  On the contrary, assuming to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart and although your cause be naked truth itself, transformed the heaviest lance…you shall now more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a wry straw.”  I love this.    

 

5.     Finally, I left this book conscious of how qualities that marked Abraham Lincoln similarly marked John Smale whose biography by Rob Garver has recently been published.  Meacham writes:  “Truth, resolution, insight, faithfulness, courage, hopefulness:  such was Lincoln at his best.”  I can think of no more succinct listing of qualities to summarize the character of John Smale than these words.

 

In total, Meacham’s contribution here as I see it within the galaxy of biographies I’ve read rests on articulating the origin and strength of Lincoln’s devotion to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which it supports and his deep belief in the moral truth that indeed all men are created equal and are endowed by God with natural rights that cannot and should not be denied by any other person.

 Jon Meacham’s Biography of Abraham Lincoln:  And There Was Light:  Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle.

 

I questioned whether it made sense to read this book, having read so many other biographies of Lincoln.  I decided to, mainly because it was written by Meacham, whose writing I greatly admire.  I’m glad I did.

 

While part of this may be a function of my fading memory, I came away with several poignant impressions which add to my understanding of Lincoln and leadership in general.  Here they are:

 

1.     The importance of Lincoln’s early reading and incredibly retentive memory.  Books he immersed himself in, including the Bible, writings of Theodore Parker and Douglass, too, proved to be tremendously influential in informing his foundational views.  I came away especially appreciating the influence of the preacher, Theodore Parker.  He wrote:  “As a man cannot serve two masters, antagonistic and diametrically opposed to one another, as God and man, no more can a nation serve two opposite principles at the same time,” referring to slavery and non-slavery.  He continued:  “This is what I call the American idea…the idea that all men have unalienable rights, that in respect thereof, all men are created equal; that government is to be established and sustained for the purpose of giving every man an opportunity for the enjoyment and development of all these unalienable rights.  This idea demands a democracy, that is, a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people, of course, a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God:  for shortness’ sake, I will call it the idea of freedom.”

 

Parker drew an all-important theological, political analogy:  As Jesus is to the Bible, so is the Declaration (of Independence) to the Constitution.  “By Christianity, I mean that form of religion which consists of piety—the love of God and morality—the keeping of His laws.” 

 

2.     I was moved by Lincoln’s increasing confliction as the war went on that he was an instrument in God’s plan who had the capability and responsibility to do what he believed to be right.  His growth appeared to be particularly driven following the death of his son in 1862.  As Meacham writes, Lincoln frequently speaks of “God and Providence.”  His theological quest is no small part of the story of his presidency.  His moral calculus had a discernible influence on public affairs.  A politician unburdened by conscience could have made different decisions and left us a different nation. “I may not be a great man,” Lincoln once remarked.  “I know I am not a great man—and perhaps it is better than it is so—for it makes me rely upon One who is great and who has the wisdom and power to lead us safely through this great trial.”  A true portrait of Lincoln as President must include our best, if necessarily imperfect and incomplete, effort to capture how he understood the concepts of God and Providence.  The mature Lincoln viewed the history of the American people and nation as mysteriously but inexorably intertwined with the will and the wishes, the vengeance and the mercy, and the punishments and the rewards of a divine force beyond time and space.

 

To Lincoln, people were obligated by conscience, informed by scripture and by experience, to pursue the ideals of love and of generosity—and each person would be accountable for action or inaction to the extent one undertook or impeded this pursuit.  The lives of individuals and of nations were thus defined by a moral drama.  Lincoln memorably said events had controlled him, but the man who ran for office on an anti-slavery platform, who affected emancipation, etc., viewed the world not as mechanistic but as moral.  Conscience and character were not incidental to human affairs, but instrumental.

 

3.     Lincoln’s deep conviction that the United States was a unique creation that had, at all costs, to be preserved.  That was his driving force.  That is what led him, again and again, to not accept compromise. 

 

Further, the book makes clear Lincoln’s growing belief that while the Union could be preserved for additional time by compromises similar to that of 1820 (the Missouri Compromise) and 1850 and 1854 (Kansas and Nebraska), it could not be sustained on the basis of being half slave and half free.  This was a conclusion he came to during the course of the war, it seems to me.  However, he had anticipated the issue.  In 1855, he had identified “our political problem now is ‘can we as a nation continue together permanently—forever—half slave and half free’?”  At the time that Lincoln wrote, “The problem is too mighty for me.  May God in His mercy superintend the solution?”  In 1858, he wasn’t sure.  By the middle of the war, by 1863, he was certain.  The answer was “no.”

 

Lincoln’s commitment to the words of the Declaration of Independence were what brought him again and again to resist compromise.  The offer of compromise that would have kept the Union together were abundant.  There was the Crittenden Proposal as the Southern states started to secede.  Even as late as 1864, a possible compromise was on the table which would have had the South come back into the Union, conceding the superior position of the Federal government but leaving slavery intact.  Lincoln refused.  There had also been a compromise proposal to extend the line to the Pacific Ocean which had demarcated the Missouri Compromise in 1820.  That would have permitted slavery in Texas and much of California, Arizona and New Mexico.  Lincoln refused.  He held fast.  He was defending the principle of “Liberty to all.” 

 

4.     I gained respect for Lincoln’s attitude toward persuasion and working with other people.  He was an enemy of self-satisfaction and any “know it all” attitude.  He advocated showing respect for others.  As Meacham writes, Lincoln believed that to hector or condemn another person, to tell them that they are wholly wrong, was not a path to agreement or reform but to intransigencies.  “If you would win a man to your cause,” Lincoln wrote, “first convince him that you are his sincere friend.  Therein this drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to reach and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment to the justice of your cause.  On the contrary, assuming to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart and although your cause be naked truth itself, transformed the heaviest lance…you shall now more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a wry straw.”  I love this.    

 

5.     Finally, I left this book conscious of how qualities that marked Abraham Lincoln similarly marked John Smale whose biography by Rob Garver has recently been published.  Meacham writes:  “Truth, resolution, insight, faithfulness, courage, hopefulness:  such was Lincoln at his best.”  I can think of no more succinct listing of qualities to summarize the character of John Smale than these words.

 

In total, Meacham’s contribution here as I see it within the galaxy of biographies I’ve read rests on articulating the origin and strength of Lincoln’s devotion to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which it supports and his deep belief in the moral truth that indeed all men are created equal and are endowed by God with natural rights that cannot and should not be denied by any other person.

 

A Chance Encounter Leads Me To a Mind-Opening and Spirit-Lifting Book

 A Chance Encounter Leads Me To A Mind-Opening and Spirit-Confirming Book

 

I was walking out of one of the Sloan Kettering buildings with Francie a couple of weeks ago, following a chemotherapy session, and encountered this sign:  “Kindness Matters.”  It struck me deeply for I have always believed that.  I posted a photograph of this poster on my Facebook page.  I have had over 300 responses, all of them affirming belief in this conviction.  

 

Then I received a note from the head of learning at P&G. She recommended a book to me:  Compassionomics:  Revolutionary Scientific Evidence That Caring Makes A Difference, written by Stephen Trzeciak and Anthony Mazzarelli.  I read it in two days.  It will go down as one of the handful of books that changed the way I think the most.  It did this by providing compelling scientific data based on 1,000 scientific abstacts and 250 research papers that caring really does matter.  

 

This research takes something I’ve long recognized experientially—the impact that caring has on another person and also the person providing that caring—to a biological level.  It shows that practicing compassion can change our brains—our brainwaves, brain structure and brain function.  The research shows that this in turn can actually change our behavior in meaningful ways as well as the perception of our caring as seen by the receiver’s perspective.  And there is a reciprocal, cumulative effect that comes from that behavior, as C. S. Lewis once observed, “When you are behaving as if you love someone, you will presently come to love him.”

 

The research shows the impact on a person exhibiting compassion on health care patients, health care providers and the health care culture.  What struck me as I went through all of these data is how relevant the conclusions are to the business world.  I refer here to the influence compassion, i.e. connecting to another person in a way that shows you care, matters to their own expectations of success (or failure) and the formation of trust--the great liberator of an individual’s willingness and ability to act and be their authentic selves.

 

One of the things that makes this book so powerful is the way it uses carefully designed research studies to show differences in outcomes, including physiological impacts on the patient (heart rate, blood pressure, survival rates after trauma) and psychological effects.

 

In showing that compassion builds trust in patient experience, the studies go on to show a lower incidence of serious complications from, for example,  diabetes.

 

The research underscores the importance of “non-verbal immediacy” in building trust and evidencing compassion.  This underscores the importance of not only being physically close as one is talking to an employee, but it helps me better understand why the most memorable instances of people providing trust (and confidence) in me were not obviously planned but were, rather, spontaneous. 

 

 For example, I recall Jack Clagett, my first two-up boss, telling Francie, after I had only been in the company for four or five years, that he wouldn’t be surprised if “someday, all of us might be working for John.”

 

Or, I recall, Ed Harness passing me in the hall one day and telling me in the most friendly voice, “you better take care of yourself, a lot of people are going to be depending on you.”  Or something as simple as John Smale turning to me in a car asking me “what do you think of that idea?”.

 

The research also shows the importance of a person having a purpose in life to their recovery from disease and, therefore, how important it is that a physician take the time to know what a person’s purpose is.

 

The authors address the response:  “But I don’t have enough time to exhibit compassion.”  They use sample conversations to show how compassion can be exhibited in less than a minute.  I actually believe, and I think they recognize, that the development of a trusting relationship will  take longer than that, but it needn’t take long if it is authentic and genuine.

 

The book also underscores the importance of workplace culture.  While they do this in a health care setting, it is obviously relevant to a business setting. 

 

Bearing on this is an article written by Emma Seppala, the Science Director of Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education.  “A new field of research,” she writes, “is suggesting that when organizations promote an ethic of compassion rather than a culture of stress, they may not only see a happier workplace but also an improved bottom-line.  Consider the important—but often overlooked—issue of workplace culture.  Employees in positive moods are more willing to help peers and to provide customer service on their own accord.  In doing so, they boost co-workers’ productivity levels and increase co-workers’ feelings of social connection as well as their commitment to the workplace and their levels of engagement with their job.”

 

The truth of this is reflected in elements in our P&G employee attitude studies which probe employees’ satisfaction with their workplace, their respect and regard for their boss and their intention to continue to work at P&G.

 

Just as I have often made the point that the quality of mutual trust is vital in one-to-one relationships, it is vital that it become a characteristic of the entire culture.  This is well-documented in this book as applying to a health care environment.  A workplace culture, a part of which involves a caring attitude in one another and where senior leadership is seen as caring about the welfare of fellow employees on a personal level,  will produce better results than one that doesn’t do this.

 

The authors also offer compelling evidence that compassion can be learned.  

 

Turning again to the business environment, this suggests that showcasing the fact that having caring relationships in a caring environment improves outcomes would  be worthwhile.  Most important would be providing examples of exactly what caring behavior looks like.

 

In total, the authors make a persuasive case that compassion matters in not only meaningful ways, but also in measureable ways.  Compassionate care is more effective than health care without compassion, by virtue of the fact that human connection confers distinct and measureable benefits.  The authors argue that it is important to know that the conclusions of this book are not based on what the authors think nor that what they believe.  Rather, they are based on what they found clinically and statistically.

 

The authors conclude by writing that “this book was aimed to change your mind, to help open your eyes to the scientific basis of what you already know to be the right thing to do.”  The book did that for me.  It has affirmed and brought greater commitment to my longstanding belief that the most important thing we leave behind is not what we said, what we wrote, even what we did but, rather, how we made other people feel.  

Richard Hofstadter: Champion of the Values of Irony and Balance- But Relentless Passion is Often Essential to Make Breakthrough Progress

 

David S. Brown’s book, Richard Hofstadter, An Intellectual Biography reminded me why I so appreciated Hofstadter’s writings and political beliefs in my younger days.  He takes a balanced and appropriately ironic view to both the Left and Right when they plant themselves in ideological certainties, which he dismisses.  He found himself “oppositional” and “skeptical” by nature throughout his career, from different vantage points in terms of emphasis, including being no fan of Roosevelt, even though he agreed with many of his policies’ and, of course, being bitterly opposed to McCarthy and the far Right.

 

He would be dismayed by what exists today, a too-far-left progressive wing of the Democratic Party and an entrenched right wing of the Republican Party fueled and caricatured by Trump himself, with an eroding middle in the values he most appreciated:  “Intellectual autonomy, scientific enquiry, individual freedom, and cultural latitude,” or, in my words, open-minded consideration of different cultural views. 

 

Late in his career, probably close to his death in 1970, Hofstadter wrote presciently in terms of our current moment:  “The United States began with the heritage of slavery and with White Anglo-Saxon Protestant domination…”  “The upsurge of new immigrants, the Catholics and now finally the Negroes has made our 20^th century history into a story of ethnic wars of various kinds, war incidental to transforming the old America into a multi-ethnic, multi-religious urban society.” 

 

The arc of Hofstadter’s career in thinking was in effect a pilgrimage from the Left to the liberalist center.

 

Late in his career, Hofstadter raised the issue of violence.  He, together with a number of other historians, contributed original essays to the New York Times magazine on the topic, “Is America by Nature a Violent Society?”  Hofstadter’s brief piece, produced only days after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, saw more darkness than light.  He lashed out at the “feebleness of our efforts at gun control” and the ease with which “any zealot, any maniac, could purchase a firearm.”  Disturbed by the New Left posturing, and concerned with the fate of pluralism and a political system crippled by sharp ideological divisions, Hofstadter saw little promise for a peaceful society.  Quoting from D.H. Lawrence, he concluded that, “The sacred rites of American manhood” to arm oneself have led to a deeper and more ominous truth—“The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic and a killer.”  This is going too far.  Yet, 54 years later, sadly and truthfully these words ring with more truth than we wish, as we witness the even greater prevalence of guns, outbreak of mass shootings, and the removal by the Supreme Court of the state’s right to control the concealed carrying of handguns.

 

Irony permeated Hofstadter’s writing and thinking.  He used irony to shed light on the confusing and often absurd episodes of the past.  This struck many scholars as a strategy of careful detachment or evasion—imposing an artificial sense of complexity as a means of avoiding or rationalizing away conflict.  That’s not how he intended, nor do I; it’s to show the reality of conflict and, yes, the absurdity of unintended consequences which pursuit of ideals often produces.

 

Hofstadter lamented unreflecting, all-knowing and close-minded pronouncements on both the Left and Right.  He saw the irony in student protests on campus at a time when they had more freedom and more rights than ever before.

And yet, knowing where to draw the line on this is difficult.  For if it were not for what Hofstadter probably would have called intemperate protests, progressive social change of which he approves would not have taken place, certainly not on the timing that it did.  That’s true when it comes to women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the approval of fair labor and childcare policies, securing the right to vote.  Progress, like it or not, will often depend, if not always, especially when it comes to the big changes on what those in the middle (and I am often there) would describe as intemperate.

President Biden's and the Nation's Lost Opportunity--Restoring the "Soul of America"

Whatever the future brings, we must never forget the eternal debt we owe President Biden. He enabled our country, as only he at the time could have, to avoid the damage and scourge which another four years of Donald Trump would have inflicted on our Nation and the world. And with the confidence foreign leaders had in him,  President Biden has brought together an allied front to thwart Russia's invasion of Ukraine as few if any other leader could have done. And there is much more he will be recognized for in the retrospect of history, including the bi-partisan infrastructure bill which has been too little celebrated and expanded health care. 

But it could have been so much more!

Biden campaigned under the banner of  restoring the "Soul of America". There was never any doubt he meant it; that he intended to do it. Nor was there any doubt how urgent is was to do just that. Yet that vision of restoring a unified view of what we aspire to as a Nation is more distant today than perhaps any time in my 80+ year life. And that makes me very sad. 

I don't know if was possible to have made progress against that vision. It was certainly an uphill battle from the start, given the Republican election deniers, led by Trump himself,  asserting in the face of all the facts that Trump should be President. And, equally, given those countless Republicans who knew better, like Rob Portman of Ohio and so many others, who failed to step up publicly, emphatically and repeatedly to assert the truth. 

Still, recognizing all those realities and I could cite many more, I don't believe President Biden gave it his best shot. I attribute this to two things.

1. He moved forward immediately with an agenda which was too varied and revolutionary; an agenda which failed to recognize the very slim Democratic majorities in Congress; an agenda which was too beholden to the interests of the Left wing of the Democratic party and which did not benefit from and reflect sufficient consultation with the middle of the Republican party. Again, I am not sure such consultation would have resulted in a better outcome. But I am convinced it should have been tried. 

I argued from the start that Biden should have appointed some Republicans to the Cabinet and Senior Adviser positions, as Lincoln did in 1860 and as Churchill did in 1940 and as FDR did as well. I argued from the start that Biden should have started his Administration on Day 1, by bringing the Congressional leaders together in the Oval Office to start to define the key issues (economy, immigration, Covid, health care, etc) that needed to be tackled and how he hoped they would work together to make progress to resolve them.

2. He has failed to address the Nation as OUR PRESIDENT, not just as the head of a political party or strong advocate of specific issues such as abortion, the integrity of the Supreme Court, gun control, immigration, etc. To be sure any President must speak out and advocate strongly for the specific measures he or she believes are essential to the future of the nation's citizens. But they must do more if they are are to have any hope of bringing the country together, of building confidence, of "restoring the Soul of America". 

They need to speak to the American public as THEIR PRESIDENT. They need to explain the state of the Nation, realistically, warts and all. They need to articulate a coherent and non-partisan vision of where we want to be.They need to recognize the polarization of views objectively without demonizing either side  (even while not agreeing with them). They should try to explain the origins of this polarization and what each of us can to to address it. They need to put key issues, like inflation and crime and immigration in context and relate them to a common vision for the country. 

I am under no illusion. Done as well as possible this will not result in some golden era of all people being together. There will always be outliers. But we dare not allow this fact to deter us from pursuing a bold uniting vision. A majority of people, perhaps a vast majority will unite behind a leader who they are confident has a vision worthy and befitting the nation we love, a credible set of prioiites to achieve that and who above all knows and believes that it will require ALL of us working together and respecting one another to achieve it. 

I write thinking of the future not simply to lament missed past opportunities. I write this  continuing to be convinced that President Biden has it in his mind and heart to lead this way. It will undoubtedly be even harder to lead this way in the next two years given the likely Republican leadership of the House and maybe Senate after the mid-terms only ten days away. But I hope he will try. He still is our President. Like no one else, he can bring people together. He can speak in a different way to the Nation; "fire side"chat conversations if you will. He can act as the People's President. 

Our nation desperately needs this. Of that I am sure.

John Pepper

Confronting the Risk of This Precarious Moment

 Over the course of the last nine months, I have posted several blogs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  The first dealing with the threat of that invasion was on January 27; title:  Whether Ukraine.  I expressed the deep belief then that it was in no one’s interest, including not Russia’s, for Putin to invade Ukraine. 

 A month later, he did exactly that, in what I went on to describe 8 months later, in September, as a “cruel, tragic and misbegotten war.” 

I believe Putin's misguided and misinformed decision will go down in the annals of history as one of the worst decisions ever made by the leader of a major country. 

 

The killing continues.  Coverage of this war today has faded some, but it’s still a “top of the news” item, as it should be.  However, I find that it is being reported on now almost like it is a football game.  It secures its space among coverage of the baseball playoffs, discussion of inflation and the upcoming mid-term elections in the United States. 

 

On October 15, a Wall Street Journal article written by Peggy Noonan echoes what I have been saying for some months. 

 “As the stakes got higher, leaders have become all too casual—unserious and sloppy.  Part of it is social media, on which the whole world is hooked.  Ambassadors launch taunting tweets like rockets and getting high-fives. What is needed is a serious, weighty, textured document that reflects the gravity of the moment we are in; a full Oval Office address that doesn’t emote but speaks rationally to a nation of thoughtful people.  A big definitional statement.  Where are we?  Are we communicating with the Kremlin?  How should the American people be thinking about all this?”

 

Almost every columnist now is comparing the current moment to the Cuban Missile Crisis. And rightly so.  Yet Noonan aptly writes, “We are not addressing this the way JFK did.  When JFK spoke, it was in a studied, careful way and to the entire nation.”

 

I fear that leaders, including our leaders, are failing to give enough attention to the consequences here.  I don’t think Putin is.  I’m not sure Biden is.  I hope I am wrong. I hope we have serious back-channel, quiet discussions going on. 

 

 As Noonan writes, “There are times in life and diplomacy when silence must be maintained as circumstances evolve and new options emerge.  But we’re not maintaining silence.  I ask for the efficiency of thoughtfulness, sometimes it can cool things down or slow them down.  If we’re traveling toward Armageddon, the slow route is best.”

 

I pray for the kind of wisdom that prevailed with Nikita Khrushchev and JFK at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  They thought of options with imagination and with an eyes-wide-open, realistic view of the consequences of making the wrong decision.  Leaders need to do that today.