What Was Your Position When It Came Time to Decide Whether to Impeach President Trump?

It is striking for me to be reading right now Brenda Wineapple’s new book, The Impeachers:  the Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation.  I’m not far enough in it yet to be able to understand the tension which the members of the House of Representatives and then the Senate faced in whether to vote for impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  The substantive bases for voting for impeachment were readily apparent:  Johnson’s outright opposition (and vetoing; his vetoes were overriden) to legislation protecting the rights of the newly freed African-Americans and his violation of the Tenure of Office provision (by trying to remove Secretary of War Stanton from office).

However, quite apart from the substantive issue, there was the political issue,  a big one, as to whether, for the very first time, impeachment proceedings should be launched against the President of the United States. 

In due course, the charges were agreed to by a majority of the House of Representatives but ultimately failed in the Senate to achieve the required two-thirds majority—by a single vote.

Substantively, for me, there is no doubt that President Trump obstructed the investigation of Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in our election.   It is clear to most legal and prosecutorial authorities that, if the charges had been levied against anyone other than the President of the United States, that person would have been indicted.

The decision which Democratic legislators are facing appears in the main to be a political one.  That is would moving ahead with impeachment proceedings increase or lessen the likelihood of President Trump’s being re-elected in 2020?

As to what we can be virtually certain of, impeachment charges, if agreed to by a majority in the House, would fail in the Senate to achieve the required two-thirds majority.  

Thus, the question really is:  substantively (in terms of doing what’s right) and politically (in terms of increasing or decreasing the likelihood of Trump’s re-election), should impeachment proceedings be pursued in the House?

As to whether proceeding with impeachment proceedings would increase or decrease Trump’s chances of re-election, the short answer is:  we don’t know. 

 I would argue that almost all people who already support Trump will not be materially influenced by the impeachment proceedings.  They’ll stay with him.  

And those who are opposed to Trump—especially his character—will have their beliefs affirmed by the proceedings.  

As to those in the middle--of whom there are very few-- I don’t believe we can predict how many would move one way or the other.  I do not believe this should be a consideration.

Decades from now, people will be writing books like Brenda Wineapple is today about the debate and the outcome of that debate as to whether to impeach President Trump.  Individual names will be identified with the different positions and they will be acclaimed or declaimed based on the position they took. 

I would want to be one of those identified as having  advocated proceeding with impeachment proceedings. 

 Why?  Because I believe the evidence indicates that President Trump’s conduct falls within the guidelines justifying impeachment as provided in Article A II, Section 4, that “a federal officer can be impeached for treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor.”

I believe President Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice are so flagrant and so numerous as detailed in the Mueller report that failure to proceed with impeachment proceedings would be an ultimate abdication of intellectual and moral integrity. I say this especially knowing that for any other individual an indictment almost certainly would have been issued. 

I do not see any substantive or political rationale sufficiently important or persuasive to justify failure to proceed with this inquiry. 

Avoiding First Impressions--Giving Another Person the Benefit of the Doubt

I have often been reminded of a life-long lesson: we must beware of leaping to a judgment of another person based on initial, superficial impressions.

Most recently I was reminded of this by an eloquent perspective offered in one of the finest novels I have ever read: "A Gentleman in Moscow" written by Amor Towles.

Here it is:

In describing how his understanding of the actress, Anna Urbanova, changed as he, the Count Alexander Rostov came to understand her story, Towles writes: 

 “The Count had to acknowledge once again the virtues of withholding judgment.  After all, what can a first impression tell us about someone we’ve just met for a minute in the lobby of a hotel?  For that matter, what can a first impression tell us about anyone?  Why, no more than a chord can tell us about Beethoven, or a brushstroke about Botticelli.  By their very nature, human beings are so capricious, so complex, so delightfully contradictory that they deserve not only our consideration, but our reconsideration and our unwavering determination to withhold our opinion until we’ve engaged with them in every possible setting at every possible hour.”

What an eloquent, poetic, literary enunciation of why we must avoid reaching premature judgements on people and avoid falling prey to implicit bias.

What Is My Philosophy of Life?

The novel, "A Gentleman in Moscow"written by Amor Towles,  is one of the greatest novels I have ever read. 

The author offers what I found to be deeply thought provoking perspectives through the voice of the novel's main protagonist, Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov. 

Here is one of them:

“It is a fact of human life that one must eventually choose a philosophy…Whether through careful consideration spawned by books and spirited debate over coffee at two in the morning, or simply from a natural proclivity, we must all eventually adopt a fundamental framework, some reasonably coherent system of causes and effects that will help us make sense, not simply of momentous events, but all the little actions and interactions that constitute our daily lives—be they deliberate or spontaneous, inevitable or unforeseen.”

 

So I found myself  asking as you might to:  what is the philosophy that I have chosen. Central to it is my belief that Everyone Counts.  And that we must do our level best to do the right thing, even knowing we won't always succeed. To never give up on a cause we believe in.  And to honor and support our family.  And seek to do what with careful thought we believe God would have us do. 

 

The Power of Community--A Procter & Gamble Reunion of Retiree Families

I write this from a particular Procter & Gamble perspective but with the thought that it is potentially relevant to other organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit.

In my book, "What Really Matters", I draw a distinction among an "Organization" (which might be any company or non-profit), an "Institution" (which I define as an organization which has achieved a sustained existence and defined, generally positive reputation, e.g. the Mayo Clinic, the Smithsonian, Procter & Gamble, Walt Disney ) and a "Community", which I define as an institution whose members have developed over time both shared and intimate contact with one another and a sense of shared purpose and values which leads to a high degree of mutual trust, admiration, respect and affection.

For me and many others, P&G is not only an institution but a community.

The benefits of being a community are many: greater loyalty, better retention, more open and honest communications, greater collegiality. Being a community does not suggest a lack of diversity. To the contrary, one of the benefits--and joys--of being a community comes in the full and authentic appreciation of diversity.

Which brings me to a recent reunion of P&G retirees in London England. Upwards of 60 P&G retirees and their spouses assembled for two days of renewed friendship. Most of us had been retired for 15-25 years. We came from around the world including  Canada, the United States, Australia, Germany, Austria,  France and Belgium.

We were treated to special events: a boat trip on the Thames; a tour of the Tower of London; a walk in London's East End; all wrapped up with a gala dinner at the Caledonian Club, described as a "little piece of Scotland in the heart of Belgravia".

However, what made these two days special, what explains why we made the trip, why we relished being there was the opportunity to renew friendships formed over many years, in fact over decades.

From start to finish the conversation was non-stop, animated, filled with broad smiles, stories of the past and stories of what everyone was doing now, and expressed satisfaction and pride that the company we still felt intimately part of despite our retirement more than a decade ago of was doing well.

How many retirees from an organization would travel so far and with such joy for a reunion, we asked ourselves. Surely very few.

We likened it to a "family" reunion. That's what it felt like.

I felt it would be worth trying to answer the questions: "what exactly accounts for this feeling? What enabled it to develop?"

Of course I can only speak with confidence for myself; but I believe I speak for many others.

1. We worked together and came to know one another over a long period of time in many different circumstances: many filled with challenge; many marked by great opportunity. For example, I worked with my good friend Wolfgang Berndt and came to know his wife, Traudl, first in Italy 45 years ago. Later, we worked together in the United States, Germany, the U.K., Belgium, Russia, Canada and Latin America. Similar stories could be told by almost everyone at our Reunion.

Clearly one of the benefits of most executives at P&G coming early in their career and staying for its entirety, in many assignments, is to provide the opportunity for this type of deep association.

2. The employees and their spouses had been together on many, many occasions. They had come to know one another. Strong personal relationships had formed. Though year end gatherings. By spouses accompanying their partners on many trips. Hence, it was no surprise that our reunion didn't simply see retired employees taking to fellow retirees. No, we saw spouses talking to spouses; couples deeply engaged talking to other couples.

This was a family affair.

3. We were united by a common set of personal values which we all believed had been nurtured by our time at P&G and which despite business challenges P&G has faced (as any company will over time) we believed were still alive and well. And we took great satisfaction and pride from that. A video message from P&G's current CEOl, David Taylor, underscored his commitment to these values--of excellence, of winning, of mutual respect and responsible contribution to the community.

In my brief remarks at dinner, I offered the point of view that in an era of eroding confidence in so many of our institutions, it is more important than ever that a business represent and provide a haven of good values with which people of principle want to be associated. Doing so will have multiple benefits: attracting and retaining strong women and men of high capability and values; and earning the respect of consumers and customers and government authorities.

It will do another thing which this P&G reunion in London amply affirmed.

It will create a lasting source of satisfaction and joy for men and women long retired from active service. That's a wonderful and consequential thing. In this respect it perhaps can be likened to a college reunion. And while hard to quantitatively  measure there are surely benefits for the organization whether that be loyalty to an organization's services or products or positive word-of-mouth in all things that matter.

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

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

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

(Gallup Poll)

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

Confidence_GallupPoll051419

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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