The Misbegotten Outcome of Dobbs v. Wade--Looking Back Two Years

 I am reposting a blog authored two years ago. The outcome is what I expected and feared. 

Chief Justice John Roberts Had It Right! If Only He Could Have Secured a Fifth Vote

JUNE 30, 2022

  

Any prospect that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Roe will remove the debate on abortion from the judiciary and courts will quickly go up in flames.  The legal suits are emerging as I write this on such pregnant issues as, can pills/medication inducing abortion be mailed to or taken in states banning abortion?; who is accountable for an abortion in a state banning it when a women decides to use medication to induce an abortion?; what takes precedence:  the FDA’s approval of a medication (which now exits) or a state’s outlawing an abortion that could be induced by such medication? What about local DA's who refuse to enforce bans in states banning abortion? What about a clinic located in a state authorizing abortion promoting its availability in that state to women in a state not permitting abortion? 

 

These and many other legal issues are already boiling to the surface.  They are going to be the subject for appeals, suits and judicial proceedings galore.

 

There really is no intellectual basis in my opinion for failing to establish a national standard defining what constitutes a legally permitted abortion.  Deciding the case before the Supreme Court as it was originally launched by Mississippi was the correct course.  This is what Chief Justice John Roberts advocated.  It would have substituted the hard-to-define parameter of viability (the basis for Roe) with a 15-week permissible threshold.  It is true, as Justice Alito asserted in his opinion, that doing this would result in continued litigation, with some states arguing that the limitation on abortion should be tighter, i.e., fewer weeks.  But the Court shouldn’t have flinched from that reality.  What it has brought on the country through its ruling will result in far more chaos and litigation than we even had before--not to mention the risk, uncertainty and harm brought to countless women's lives. 

 

Think of it this way.  What if we still had in this country the condition that existed before the Supreme Court provided a national ruling on the right for individuals of the same sex or of different races to be married?  We know what it would look like.  People would still be going from state-to-state to achieve the condition of living which they desired and were entitled to.  So it will be now with abortion, magnified because of the ability to easily secure abortion-inducing medication through the mail, across state lines.

 

It’s only a question of time before this issue will be back before the Supreme Court facing the need for the decision which the Court failed to make this time around, i.e., establishing a national standard.

 

Chief Justice Roberts had it right.  He worked for months to secure the fifth vote he needed to achieve the ruling which the State of Mississippi originally wanted.  Only later, as they saw an

opening produced by Trump's court appointments, did Mississippi  change its plea to call for the total elimination of Roe. That perversely is what the Court has decided. It will not stand. 

 

The Fall, The Recovery and The Renewed Fall of Globalization-Causes and What Does the Future Hold?

 

Professor Tara Zahra 's book, Against the World:  Anti-Globalism and Mass Politics between the World Wars traces the cause of the breakdown in globalization which existed prior to World War I.  A telling statistic: 30% of global GDP prior to World War I was represented by foreign trade.  That fell to 10% by the late 1930s and didn’t recover to the 30% level until the 1970s. 

 

The causes of the breakdown in globalization following WW I were complex. There was the fracturing of not only nations but empires. Sanctions and blockades pushed nations toward a commitment to self-sufficiency, just like today.  We also witnessed the formation of autarkies, marked by their expansion beyond national borders through "colonization" of other countries, seen by the conquering country as part of its natural orbit.  For example:  Britain with its Commonwealth of Nations; Japan, with its vision and commitment to control the economies of the countries of  Southeast Asia; Germany, as it took over Austria and then sought to do the same with the entire continent;  the Soviet Union, with its expanding empire (Comintern Pact), and the United States, already largely self-sufficient as a result of previous land acquisitions, including ones achieved through two wars (against Spain and Mexico). 

 

Interestingly, one side effect of this drive for self-sufficiency was that it led many companies to start building factories and install on-the-ground operations in other countries. Examples nclude Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble and Mars. 

 

The actions following World War II started to bring back a more global, integrated approach to the economy and, to a lesser degree, to governance in an effort to promote economic recovery and avoid another cataclysmic war. There was Bretton Woods, a forerunner for the United Nations, followed by the European Coal and Steel Community.  There was the United Nations, a more robust even if a still very imperfect articulation of what the League of Nations had tried to do.  There was the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented joined multi-nation program to rebuild the devastated countries of Europe.  Then very significantly came the European Common Market. 

 

One element which Professor Zahra does not explicitly recognize was the role of "individual agency" in achieving the progress enabled by these vital initiatives. The European Community, for example, would not have happened in my opinion if it were not for Konrad Adenauer. 

************************************ 

 Today, we see another push back against the global economic order. 

 

The invasion of Ukraine has been of extraordinary importance in upsetting the geo-political environment and the sanctions that have followed have reset the economic environment. 

 

The same political and economic repercussions are now flowing from the increasing divide between China and the U.S. and the West.  

 

On top of this, has been the impact of COVID.  Ideally, given the fact that this epidemic posed a global threat, it could have led to a global response.  But with few exceptions it did not.  Instead, it became a "blame game". What characterized the response was a commitment to secure self-sufficiency by each country in taking care of its own citizens. 

 

Another significant factor putting a brake on globalization traces to the gigantic increase in immigration driven by the refugee crisis in the Middle East,. Africa and Central America. This strong push back on immigrants is similar to what occurred in the 1920s, which was accentuated by the the Great Depression. 

Most important, perhaps, in explaining the push back against globalization is the too easily underestimated attraction and bias to favor what we are closest to physically and culturally, whether that be our family, or nation or region or religion or ethnic group. 

 

Having said all this, I believe there are important differences today compared to the inter-war period which favor a continuation of a "global economic structure.”  There is an awareness and a broad commitment to the cause of preserving the environment. This can be a unifying force, though its impact thus far has been relatively small. 

 

While trade has been reduced through sanctions and tariffs, so far you have to a high degree the continuation of capital flows, with the exception of Russia, that didn’t exist in the inter-war period.  Also the existence of multi-national corporations like Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Boeing and Apple provide an integration of supply chains and the opportunity for personal relationships which did not exist at anything like the same level post-1920.

 

With all its weakness, we have the United Nations.  There are blocks like the European Common Market, which didn't exist in the 1930s, and alliances among countries in Asia and Latin America. 

 

Yet, we have great overhanging threats and challenges. Some are similar to pre-1914. Some are radically new, including the emergence of new technologies which carry great risk to mankind.* Others are geo-political including whether and how the West and China create a stable peaceful relationship which recognizes their and the world's mutual long-range interests. Also on the list is how to resolve the tinder box in the Middle East including the role  of Iran and the relationship of Israel and Palestine. And there is the still unresolved tragedy of   Russia's misbegotten war to subvert Ukraine's independence. 

As always, our future will depend on wise and courageous leadership. Nothing is foreordained. It never has been.

 

*The threats that are different as a result of the destructive potential of new technology are

 1) the threat of nuclear disaster, and 2) the capability of harming other countries through the use of AI and cyber-warfare. Both these threats will demand global agreements and monitoring if they are to be contained, just as will combating the deterioration of our environment. 

"The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Liberal Order" by Gary Gerstle--An Incisive Sobering Picture of the Decline in Trust

 The Rise and Fall  of the Neo-Liberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era overviews in a fresh and convincing way the history of the past 100 years, 1920-2022 in less than 300 pages.  Deeply researched and fluidly written, the story reveals dimensions of this history that I found incisive and in many ways new, despite having lived through most of it. 

 

Gerstle channels his story on the foundation of two movements which he describes as:  the New Deal, implemented on the run by FDR following the Great Depression.  It lasted through the 1960s and 1970s, brought down eventually by a combination of the Vietnam War (which split the Democratic Party), race relations and the economy, which went into a steep decline in the 1970s.  From that sprang the second movement, Neo-Liberalism, propelled along by the peaceful demise of the Soviet Union and the opening up of China and the rest of the world to commerce.  Neo-Liberalism, a broad term often used in a dismissive and derogatory way today, embraced a belief in open markets, individual initiative, de-regulation of finance (elimination of Glass-Steagall; growth of mega-banks), communication (elimination of "fairness doctrine," creation of Fox News, MSNBC, etc., Twitter, etc.), businesses (opening the road to creation and expansion of tech giants like Google; Facebook and consolidation of businesses like airlines) and education.  Like the New Deal, it captured the support of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including, for example, Eisenhower who continued many of the policies instituted by FDR). 

 

Neo-Liberalism turned out to be a defining and unifying order of political economy, which was embraced by Republicans and Democrats from Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Obama. 

 

Its breakdown has been caused by a tremendous decline in trust and polarized cultural relationships in the United States including among the political parties.  These differences have morphed into moral differences in their character, not just differences in policy. The decline in trust from a level of 75% of the public trusting the government "to do the right thing all or most of the time" in 1958 to 20% in May 2022 traces to many factors, including the disclosure of Nixon's break-in of the Democratic Headquarters and subsequent resignation (trust declining to 36% at the end of his presidency) and then further declining due to the misbegotten invasion of Iraq (declining to 25% at the end of G.W. Bush's administration). 

 

I believe two other causes of the breakdown in public trust and confidence trace to 1) the adversarial, non-stop denigration in broadcast and print media and on social media platforms of the motives, efficacy and moral worth of the opposition, and 2) from the breakdown of the makeup of the family.  Gerstle marshals sobering statistics to demonstrate this. Nationally, a staggering 30% of babies are now born into single-parent homes, up from only 10% in 1965. *

 

The decline of trust in every institution (other than the military) has been well documented and I won’t rehearse the data here.  However, I would state that my two greatest concerns about this country--concerns that I find the hardest to to overcome—are the decline of trust in our institutions* and in each other and in the breakdown of the American family.

 

 

While Gerstle makes the case compellingly that the two parties have been united in their view of the right "political economic order,”  he fails to provide enough emphasis on the nuances of their differences on cultural issues. For example, how Democrats placed greater emphasis on a spirit of cosmopolitanism, open borders and an attachment to diversity compared to a greater attachment among Republicans to family, patriotism, religion and other so-called traditional values. 

 

I also believe he should have brought more emphasis to how dramatic geo-political changes post-2000 have fractured the free trade, cosmopolitan ethos that prevailed in the immediate post-1990 spirit of Neo-Liberalism.  The passage of MFN for China, the WTO, all were premised on China’s adopting the practices of the Free World to a far greater degree than is obviously happening. And the spirit of democracy which in 1990 showed signs of animating much of what was developing in Russia has disappeared at this moment.

 

I also wish Gerstle had spent more time addressing the totality of what was happening on the global front and, as part of that, recognized that our illusory belief post the fall of the Soviet Union that the world was aligning almost as one behind our view of the right political-economic order led us to retreat in the commitment to forge better diplomatic understanding with our potential adversaries, Russia and China in particular.   Instead, we pretty much put aside what their future interests and fears might be. 

 

Finallym  Gerstle’s treatment of the last 40 years should have put more emphasis on the importance of human agency.  He does emphasize, correctly, the decisive role of Gorbachev.  But he doesn’t touch on the importance of the different roles played by Chinese leaders, from Deng Xiaoping and Zhu Rongji to now President Xi or to President Putin in Russia .

 

*Another sobering set of data showing the decline in spirit of the American public emerges from this recent WSJ-NORC poll. The percentage of people who say these values are important to them, have declined from 1998 to 2023 as follows:

 

Patriotism: 70%-38%

Religion: 62%-39%

Having Children: 59%-30%

Community Involvement: 47%-27%

Everyone Combines Strengths and Blind Spots. We Can Learn From Both

  

Jon Meacham’s "American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House" brings alive as well as any biography I’ve ever read the reality that great men (and women), in this case Andrew Jackson, bring together great strengths and virtues with blind spots which as we see the world today, make us cringe.  For Jackson, those blind spots were slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. 

 

Meacham's book gave me a new appreciation of Jackson’s strength of character and how he held the Union together during the Nullification crisis of 1830-31 which came close to seeing South Carolina secede from the Union.  But he held it together.  And he fought the “good fight” for the small man as he battled the consolidated financial interests of the National Bank.  As Meacham says, Jackson “proved the principle that the character of the President matters enormously.”  

 

“Jackson had many faults,” said Theodore Roosevelt, “but he was devotedly attached to the Union and he had no thought of fear when it came to defending his country. The course I followed regarding the Executive is subject only to the people…it was substantially the course followed by both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.” 

 

“He wanted sincerely to look after the little fellow who had no pull and that is what a President is supposed to do,” Truman said of Jackson.

 

Meacham writes.  “The great often teach by their failures and derelictions.  The tragedy of Jackson’s life is that a man dedicated to freedom failed to see liberty as a universal, not a particular, gift.”  Meacham was, of course, referring to Jackson’s repeated assault on Native Americans, abrogating treaty after treaty, pushing them west, feeling that, in my words, they were a breed apart.  He also refers to his support for the institution of slavery, being a slave owner himself, and fighting the abolitionists during the 1830s, including their fight against the Gag Rule in Congress.

 

“The triumph of (Jackson’s) life,” Meacham continues, “is that he held together a country whose experiment in liberty ultimately extended its protections and promises to all—belatedly, it is true, but by saving the Union, Jackson kept the possibility of progress alive, a possibility that would have died had secession and separation carried the day.”

In many ways, this commitment--preserving the Union and finding a way to strengthen it--is what has characterized the great leaders in Procter & Gamble’s history.  The intent has always been the same:  building on the strengths of the past, responding to the exigencies and opportunities of the present, not only adhering to our values but finding a fuller way to live them, and, in all ways, seeking to make Procter & Gamble a more successful and vibrant institution in the future.

The Miracle of the Human Face

 

One of the many times when I have been mesmerized by simply looking at the faces of people passing by occurred  almost 20 years ago.  I was being treated for bladder cancer at the Sloan Kettering  Hospital,  observing passers by from a window in the restaurant where my wife, Francie, and I were having dinner.   I looked at them, one by one, as they walked by, grateful for and taking pleasure from the health and joy I saw in their faces. 

 

Eight years ago, I recall standing in a circle holding hands with about 30 fellow parishioners before taking Communion at my church.  As I wrote then, “I looked at the faces of the children, women and men around me. I only knew a few of them personally but I knew that virtually every one of them faced challenges beyond those I will never know.  Looking at them, individually, made me appreciate once more the miracle of the human face.  The individuality of each one of us in what a face conveys and what remains hidden".

 

This short experience, no more than 2-3 minutes, reminded me that we are all in this together on the journey of life, each in our own individual ways yet, as we held hands together, we were affirming even if silently that we do it together and, in doing that, hold the opportunity, and indeed the responsibility, to help one another on that journey of life whenever and wherever we can.

 

 

In Search of Heroes--George H.W. Bush--"Does Character Count?"--A Cherished Talk I Gave 25 Years Ago

 

Sat, Jun 1 at 3:42 PM

Jean Becker’s book, “Character Matters,”is a treasure-trove of stories which bring to light, in an incredibly luminous way, President George H.W. Bush's uniquely courageous, decent, and kind leadership.

It would be impossible to pick out the favorite stories; in a way, you don’t need to:  there is such a consistency in how people experienced the President.  He was the same with everybody—empathetic, considerate, involved personally, yet never losing his decisiveness and stature that he recognized went with the office.

There was one compelling story that impacted me personally.  On Friday, January 12, 1990, we were honored to welcome President Bush in Cincinnati to recognize the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative as a “point of light” and give a talk to the Chamber of Commerce.  I wrote in my journal that I “briefed him at lunch, all too briefly, but it went well and, needless to say, it was a great honor.  He did a great job with the children, talking to about 20 of them in a library, and then addressing all the Taft students in the auditorium.”  I am sure they will never forget it.

Little did I know that something else was happening that day.  The President's chief of staff, Andy Card tells the story in Jean Becker’s book.  Before the trip, Card noted a letter from the Cincinnati zip code sent by a woman who might approach the President.  She wanted to meet with him to call him a murderer to his face because her son had been killed in Panama.  He was told not to do that.  He disagreed and met with her.  The story that follows is spine-tingling. It made me choke up as  the President read the a letter the boy's mother gave him. He had written it before going into battle. He told his mother he wanted her to know he volunteered because he loved his country. 

The President and his mother cried together.

Oh, how we miss President Bush and his qualities of leadership. 

I can’t recall a time when the stories illuminating that “character matters” are as urgent and timely as today.  I don’t need to provide my emphasis to that.  

It is ironic that 25 years ago, I was asked to give a talk to students at Miami University.  I asked, “What topic would you like me to address?”  The answer was:  “Does character count?”  My initial response was, “That’s too obvious a question to address.  The answer is clear.”

The response I received surprised and alarmed me.  “No, it’s an issue on our campus.”  I can only imagine that issue being even greater today given the absence of character in so many of our leaders, including our former President.  I’m including a copy of the talk I gave on that occasion.  It is lengthy and some  of the examples are dated, but the principal points it makes stand as tall and true today as they did then. 

Oh, how we miss President Bush and his qualities of leadership. 

 I pray for our families.  I pray for our nation. I pray that we honor the mandate: "without character, nothing counts". 

 

• Speech_DoesCharacterCount_MiamiU_031599.pdf

  3.9MB

Democracy as a Force for the Common Good

 

In a short 250 or so pages James Miller makes clear in hjs book, Can Democracy Work?  A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to our World  that the efforts that have been made to put in place “pure democracy,” meaning that theoretically every person is involved in a decision, has too often led to perverse outcomes, denying the stated purpose of its pursuit.

 

While democracy is said to have been operative in ancient Athens, the fact remained that a large percentage of the population in so-called democratic Athens were slaves.  Many could not vote.   

The success and failure and the tension that rests within each attempt at democracy has been impacted by many human tendencies and instincts:  the desire for power, for money; the inherent conviction by most people, that some people (meaning “we”) are better than others. 

 

The creation of our own Constitution in 1781 reflected the inherent distrust of the capacity of ordinary citizens to make decisions.  There was the belief that had been reflected in previous political arrangements that decisions need to be made by a “meritorious elite who would govern on behalf of all, with a dispassionate regard for the common good.”

 

Of course, what people view as the “common good” has varied and always will vary.  Therein lies the source of conflict.

 

Communism, brought to reality by the 1917 Revolution in Russia, was premised on the idea that everyone is equal and should have a say in what the government should do.  It didn’t take long for that to devolve into Lenin’s and other leaders’ deciding that they needed to decide what was right for the common people.  Greed and the quest for power took over.  The same thing happened in the French Revolution.  It started as quest for everyone to be involved in decision-making; it quickly descended into chaos and then the creation of an autocratic dictatorship. 

 

We see these same instincts in our own democracy today.  Differences in what people see as the common good.  The drive by officeholders to stay in office. The reversion to autocratic methods.

 

Robespierre centuries ago captured the reality in addressing the Convention debating the French Constitution.  The challenge faced by every great legislator, he declared, is to “give to government the force necessary to have citizens always respect the rights of citizens and to do it in such a manner that government is never able to violate these rights itself.”  Rarely had this challenge been met, Robespierre said, because history was generally a story of “government devouring (individual) sovereignty” and of the rich exploiting the poor. 

 

This deep-seeded conviction that the “common man” is not able to decide individually or in the aggregate what the right thing to do is has been prevalent throughout history, to this very day.  Walter Lippmann wrote almost 100 years ago, “The individual man does not have opinions on all public affairs.  He does not know how to direct public affairs.  He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen.”  As a result, the common interests, he concludes, “can be managed only by a specialized class,”  by informed commentators (like Lippmann himself, in Lippmann’s haughty opinion) with an in-depth knowledge of the facts pertinent to formulating reasonable public policies.  This attitude, driven by self-interest yet, to some degree, the recognition of reality has been the governing force in the development of political systems everywhere over time. 

 

Joseph Schumpeter, in the 1940s, said it only a bit differently:  “Democracy in modern societies like America, as it has come to actually exist, involves voters selecting the least objectionable of the available candidates chosen by rival political priorities to rule over them.”  Here again, this greatly oversimplified view of reality captures an uncomfortable degree of truth. 

 

Certainly it has been proven that it is unrealistic and undesirable to attempt to rule totally by consensus.  Ultimately, there needs to be a structure of decision-making.  That is true in business and it’s true in political life, but at the same time, I insist, that it is possible for business or government to reflect, if not perfectly, largely the common good. 

 

Our experience with participatory democracy teaches the limits of any regime of consensus, which risks silencing disagreements over alternatives that are important to debate openly, I believe.  I am convinced that modern  institutions can do more to appeal to an engaged people’s capacity for reflection and collective deliberation.  As one American philosopher wrote, “We sometimes expect too little” from our democracies “precisely because” we prematurely give up on an “aspirational theory,” one that realistically faces the question “of whether more can realistically be expected.” 

 

I believe this line of thought permeates the Purpose of  the where I spent my career, Procter & Gamble.  It recognizes the need for balance in the stakeholders whom we serve and in how we carry out the responsibility we have to these stakeholders.  It does this with the humility of recognizing while we won’t ever achieve perfection, we can and must continue to learn how to do better.

 

I return, as Miller does and as I always have, to Vaclav Havel who, as much or more than any other philosopher, guides my thinking.  He posits that the view that democracy “is chiefly the manipulation of power and public opinion and that morality has no place in it” means the unacceptable loss of “the idea that the world might actually be changed by the force of truth, the power of a truthful word, the strength of a free spirit, conscience and responsibility—with no guns, no lust for power, no political wheeling and dealing.”

 

When Havel wrote his essay in 1991in “Summer Meditations,” he was overseeing Czechoslovakia’s reformation as its first freely elected president.  “I am convinced,” he remarked, “that we will never build a democratic state based on rule of law if we do not at the same time build a state that is—regardless of how unscientific this may sound to the ears of a political scientist—humane, moral, intellectual and spiritual and cultural.”  “The best laws and best conceived democratic mechanisms will not in themselves guarantee the legality or freedom or human rights—anything in short, for which they were intended—if they are not underpinned by certain human and social values.”  He concludes as I do:  “I feel that the dormant good will in people needs to be stirred.  People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently and help others, to place common interests above their own, to respect the elementary rules of human coexistence.”

I hope and pray this conviction will guide the majority of the American public as it chooses its next president in November, 2024.