"Churchill: Walking with Destiny" by Andrew Roberts: Some Reflections

I have just finished reading this massive 980+ page (before footnotes) biography of Winston Churchill.  I have read more than one biography of Churchill and read countless books referring to him, but never one which pulled his life together in such a comprehensive, judiciously balanced way as Roberts’ biography does.

It is striking to have read two very long biographies—the other being David Blight’s “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom” in one year that are among the handful of best biographies I have read in my life.

They both tell the story of unique, indomitable, brilliantly fluent (in speaking and writing) men. Individuals of irrepressible energy, indomitable will.  They had their flaws, in decisions they made and in how they treated others, but they made a unique contribution to his history.

Churchill’s unique contribution in World War II was not being willing to even consider reaching out to Germany to hear what they would offer by way of peace terms in 1940.  If Lord Halifax had assumed the premiership, which he might well have done following the fall of France, the world could have been different.  He would have been open to hearing Germany’s terms.  At that time, they might have been pretty attractive given Hitler’s desire to concentrate on fighting the Soviet Union.

Among Churchill’s unique strengths, none surpasses his ability to express himself eloquently in a way that fueled the spirit of the British people.  Much like my own (though it sounds presumptuous to write it), his guiding force was his ultimate belief in the British people and, yes, the British Empire.  So, for me, I have been unyielding in my belief in Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people and my conviction that, while we have faced and will face continued challenges, we will overcome them.

Like all great men, Churchill’s imperfections ring sharply, particularly with the benefit of hindsight.  His belief in “white superiority,” his opposition to women’s suffrage, his conviction that the peoples of India and other British possessions could not rule themselves all bore the mark of narrowly-viewed superiority.

The many diaries which Roberts has tapped into reveal extraordinarily negative comments and attitudes which the different leaders, including Churchill, had about each other. They attacked each other’s judgment, their integrity, and their civility.  Yet, they could be generous to one another.  In particular, Churchill’s eulogies to people he had opposed were eloquent and filled with deep feeling.

Giving tribute to Chamberlain at his funeral on November 14, 1940, Churchill uttered some of the words which I have often drawn upon.  “In paying a tribute of respect and regard to an eminent man who has been taken from us, no one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has expressed upon issues which have become a part of history; but at the lynch-gate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events.

History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and candle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this?   The only guide to a man is his conscious; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions.  It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations:  but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.”

Churchill offered timeless stirring calls for action and to never give up.

At the beginning of the battle of Britain in 1940, he spoke to the British people: “let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for 1,000 years, men will still say ‘this was their finest hour.’”

Churchill’s indomitable spirit was well expressed as he recalled that even in the “darkest times I never had any trouble sleeping.  I could always flop into bed and go to sleep after the day’s work as done. I slept sound and awoke refreshed, and had no feeling except appetite to grapple with whatever the next morning’s boxes might bring.”  What a statement of confidence and commitment.

After the war, there were many who lauded Churchill for his eloquency but faulted him for his strategic sense on how to win the war.  They were wrong on that judgment.  Yes, he made mistakes:  the foray to Narvik, working to hold Crete and Greece, among others; but he clearly wrote the basic outline of what proved to be the winning strategy for World War II in 1941.  He saw that the entry of the United States was critical; that Hitler had made a fatal mistake in attacking the Soviet Union; that in order to land in Belgium and France, it would be first necessary to soften Nazi resistance by attacking the under-belly in North Africa and Italy.  His mistake was calling it a “soft under-belly.”  It didn’t prove that.

One of Churchill’s great strengths was he always went to the front lines.  He wanted to be where the action was, whether that was at the battlefront or the streets of London during the Blitz.  He raised people’s morale.  They knew he was with them.

As the war ensued, in its most difficult moments, Churchill acknowledged his own role in constantly prodding and pestering his ministers.  He recognized that, far from being a “mutual admiration society,” he was more critical of them even than the government’s opponents.   “In fact, I wonder” he said “that a great many of my colleagues are on speaking terms with me.”  Nonetheless, “it is the duty of the Prime Minister to use the power which parliament and the nation have given me to drive others, and in a war like this that power has to be used irrespective of anyone’s feelings.  If we win, nobody will care.  If we lose, there will be nobody to care.”

One of the most amazing things, for me, about Churchill was how in the midst of the greatest crises he was able to pull away and read a classic Jane Austen novel or see a classic movie like “Citizen Kane.”  His supreme self-confidence and unbounded capacity made this possible.

Edmond Burke, whom Churchill read and quoted, wrote of prejudicethat it “does not leave the man hesitating in a moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved.  Through such prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.” Churchill’s belief that the British were superior to every other nation in the world, including the Germans, was undoubtedly one of unquestioning prejudice, but it did not leave him hesitating in 1940 in the way that the crisis left others “skeptical, puzzled and unresolved.”

The Russian Ambassador to England, Ivan Maisky, whose diaries play such an important role in this book, noted in his diary in May 1941 that “I have no grounds not to believe him, that the British Empire is his alpha and omega.”

As I wrote earlier, in its own infinitely less world-changing way, my own belief in the ability of Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble people to prevail, has helped me avoid being “skeptical and unresolved” when it has come to my conviction that P&G will prevail against great challenges.

“Man is spirit,” Churchill told the ministers of his government in April 1955.  What he meant was that, given spirit—by which he met the dash, intelligence, hard work, persistence, and men’s physical and moral courage and, above all, willpower--it is possible to succeed despite material and other restraints.  He had succeeded despite a lot of restraints:  parental neglect, disapproval of contemporaries, a dozen close brushes with death, financial insecurity, military disasters, backstabbing colleagues and much more.

With enough spirit, he believed that we can rise above anything in creating something significant of our lives.  

I would only add we need some luckalong the way.  In fact, quite a bit of luck.  I am not sure where Churchill would have said he found his luck. Perhaps he would have said he didn’t need any.  And probably he didn’t need much.  But he did need some. Everybody does.  I don’t know what importance he would have attached to having convinced Clementine to marry him or how much he would attribute to his father, Randolph.  Perhaps quite a bit.  I don’t think he was given too much self-reflection on this.  That’s okay.  Maybe it was good.  It did not get in the way of his enormous achievements.

I have no trouble identifying my many sources of luck.  I have written about them and I won’t belabor them again here.  Other than to say that most important were my mother and, above all, Francie.  

Living by Our Conscience--Reflections on My Personal Life and Procter & Gamble

There will be several turning points in all our lives – and in fact we may have to reach this most important point many times. It is the point at which we make the decision: “I will live by my conscience from this time forward to the best of my ability. I will not allow my voice, social mirror, scripting, even my own rationalizing, to speak more clearly to me than the voice of conscience and, whatever the consequence, I will follow it!”

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles”.

Of all the principles that guide us, the two most essential to peace of mind are contribution –making a valuable difference – and conscience – being trustworthy – to oneself and to others.

We know that our Company will only be as strong as the intelligence, judgment and character of our employees.
Our people...our values...our principles...they are the one competitive advantage that cannot be duplicated. Technology can be copied, capital can be bought, and strategies can be gleaned from what we do and from what others write. But values...principles...these cannot be copied and picked up. They flow with the heritage and character of the people who have been with and are with the Company today...the way we work together and the expectations we have of one another.

It is most difficult and often most important for you to hold your ground when you are most alone. Only conviction, strength of character and courage will let you do this. But there will be times in your life when it will be all-important. Times when we must hold on to our convictions –not being swayed by others – even those of great repute.

(An excerpt from my personal memoir, "As Good as it Gets", 2018)

Our Nation: Past, Present and Future

My subject is to examine the reasons for how our nation has, despite its many challenges over time and today, manage to do so well…to survive and generally thrive. 

One could object:  “We’re not doing so well.”  After all, we have a populace split along political lines as sharply as most of us can remember.  We have a president whose values deny what’s expected of an organization leader, let alone the president.  Racism persists; so does vigorous debate on immigration and the challenge of climate change.  We debate the position the nation should play in the world with our allies and in confronting countries and movements that represent a threat.   With all of this, how can one say we’re “doing well?”  

Because, by almost any measure, we are.  How many people, I ask, would trade living in the United States by moving to another country?  Very few, I would say.  

With all the challenge of the gap between the “haves and the have not’s,” our economy and standard of living is as strong as or stronger than any other nation in the world.  Our military strength is greater than other country by far, and the dedication of the men and women of our armed forces beyond question.  Our government can be extraordinarily dysfunctional, especially at the federal level (it is shut down as I dictate this), but it’s been shut down before and we have survived.   And, while there is no guarantee in the future, especially in a life that is as short as the life of our nation, there is more than hope—there is learning to be gained by understanding what has enabled us to survive and, more often than not, thrive over the course of our history.

So what explains this?  

There is the famously stated balance of power that was built into our government from the very beginning of the Constitution through the executive, legislative and judicial branches.  Yes, the executive branch has assumed increasing power over the years, but we still have the three branches and while, on occasion (e.g., during the post-Reconstruction period), they have worked together to impede progress, much more often one branch contested another branch, which, if not thwarted, would have imperiled the development of the country.  The positive role of the Supreme Court in combatting discrimination in the 1950s and the action of Congress during FDR’s presidency to block his intention to pack the court are examples.  

Frederick Douglass said it well in the 1860s.  Lamenting the “disgraceful” presidency of Andrew Johnson, he left, as Douglass biographer David Blight records, a “timeless maxim for republics:   ‘Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man.  When in the hands of a good man, it is all well enough.  We ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man, we shall be safe.’”  

At no time has this maxim been more relevant than today.  

There was another structural dimension of our government which was created by our founders that, on balance, has been of great importance in advancing the welfare of the nation.  I refer to the distinction among governance at the federal, state and local levels.  

Of course, it was the bitter argument over the rights of a state to secede from the Union which led to the Civil War, that argument being motivated by the desire of Southern states to retain and be able to expand slavery.  But, more often than not, the role of states’ rights and the debate about what is the proper province of the federal, state and local governments on key issues affecting the welfare of the country has been of great benefit.  

For example, the ultimate passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave voting rights to women only happened after a large number of states had already approved it.  The federal recognition of same-sex marriage was driven by states which recognized that right earlier.  The long-delayed recognition of the importance of preschool education is being driven at the state level, I hope to the point where it will be appropriately supported at the federal level.  

To be sure, virtually every country has distinct governance roles played at the federal, regional and local levels.  But, it seems to me, this has been a particularly lively and, on the whole, productive source of dynamic innovation in our nation.

Beyond that, we have the Bill of Rights and, within them, the particular commitment, even if not always honored, to the freedom of speech and with it the freedom of the press.  Nothing is more important than this.  

Underlying these points is something more basic, and that is the respect with which our written Constitution and the beliefs of the founders of this country (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison), as well as presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, are held.

Ask yourself:  In what other countries do the people today look back to and argue over the meaning of the founders and the founding constitution like we do?

To be sure, other countries have deeply embedded histories in which they take pride and which inform them.  China certainly does.  So do Russia and England and France and Israel and other countries, too.  But I believe we’re unique—unique also in the reality that the different views, often contrary views, expressed by these founders (the role of states’ rights; and federal government rights) still form the basis for significant debate today.  

So the construction of our government and the memory in which we hold our Constitution and founders’ beliefs matter.  In particular, I don’t think we can overemphasize the importance of those simple words in the Declaration of Independence which begin:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”  While too often honored in their absence (slavery, expropriation of Native American lands, the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II), we have never lost sight of their clarion call to fulfill our originating vision.  

There is more that explains the longevity of our nation’s success.  There is our geographical breadth and the fact that we have been protected by two oceans.  This has not only shielded us from invasion and the immediate threat of the invasion like no other major nation in the history of the world.  It has also contributed to a vigorous debate from the earliest of times as to what role our nation should play in the world:  To what degree should we look to our own affairs; to what degree do we see our own affairs being inextricably intertwined with the world around us?  I suspect, this debate will go on forever.

Then there is not only the breadth of our land, there is its richness.  As one example, the fact that, with all the oil in the Middle East and Russia, we are now the largest producer of oil is remarkable.

There is also the entrepreneurial character of the people of this nation.  That was undoubtedly fostered in its earliest stages by the ability of immigrants to create sustainable lives by going across this country and establishing farms and businesses.  The diversity of our population (ethnically and racially) has had and continues to have enormous influence and, while we have fought bitterly the inclusion of people of different nationalities and races at different stages of our history, there has been for most (even if taking a long time), the opportunity to not only participate but to lead the economic development of this nation.  One only has to look today at the founders of most of our major tech companies who are first-generation immigrants to see this.

I believe this entrepreneurialism has been fostered to an important though not uniform degree by the religious heritage of this nation, in what can perhaps be fairly summed up as the “Protestant work ethic.”  That ethic, too, was enabled by the opportunity to advance personally through personal effort.

They say “success breeds success,” and it does.  Being able to look back on revolutionary developments in this country from the creation of railroads to exploration of space to creation of modern retailing has provided a natural incentive to find the next breakthrough.  

To a degree that is generally underestimated, investments by the federal government, often stimulated by preparation for war, have led to major innovation in the private sphere.  This has also been by alliances with major universities, including the practical, utilitarian orientation of many of them.  

There was a separate, more contingent element that has been critical to the nation’s continued strength despite all of its changes and challenges.  And that is that, under pressure and with difficulty and uncertainty, we have in moments of crisis found the right way to relate to the rest of the world in a manner protecting our own and the world’s interests.  Here is what I mean by this.  

Through most of our history, the mindset of the United States can be best described as isolationist.  From the earliest words of George Washington, then John Adams, we have been warned not to involve ourselves in international conflicts.  We focused on our own Continental expansion, confident of our ability to do well on our own and reluctant to become concerned about being entangled in other countries’ messes.

We were dragged into World War I kicking and screaming.  We were dragged into World War II because we were maliciously attacked by the Japanese.  Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on a theme of keeping us out of war.

World War II and the Great Depression showed our nation’s leaders the danger of our stepping aside from the world around us.  What followed World War II, an era of unquestioned preeminence by the United States, was a series of institutional creations led by the United States that brought together countries of the world in a way that fostered a half-century of peace and economic prosperity.  This was evidenced in NATO, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and more.

NATO and the UN stood up to resist Communist expansion, especially in Korea.  To be sure, this expanded view of the proper role of the United States led to horrific errors in decisions, most particularly the Vietnam War and, much more recently, the commitment to more or less reconfigure the Middle East with a cataclysmic decision to invade Iraq.

Now, with the evidence of these missteps, to which could be added many more (the extended war in Afghanistan), there is a reversion by many to the isolationist instincts that preceded World War II and which I submit have characterized most of our history.

Once again, we must look to leaders in our nation and in the leading countries of the world to work together to resolve the several critical issues which can only be addressed by a global approach.  These issues include combatting terrorism, climate change, confronting the risk of nuclear annihilation and avoiding mutually destructive trade policies.  The United Nations has not yet shown itself capable so far of being the convening governance institution to come to grips with these issues.  The Trump administration is utterly unequipped to take the lead in creating the institutional framework to accomplish this.  Indeed, they are turning back efforts, such as the Paris Climate Accord and TPP, that offered the opportunity for progress.

In short, we need a foreign policy orientation which sees the United States as one of the leading countries that will have to carry responsibility for creating the conditions for the sustained health of not only our country but the world.  We must do this with an attitude that does not seek to impose our values on the rest of the world but does see the rule of law and the importance pragmatically of working together on critical global issues as fundamental to the future.

While all of these substantive factors which I cited have been of vital and controlling importance, one should not discount the importance of having the right individual present at the right time.  At no time has that been more true than our nation’s having President Lincoln at the time of the Civil War.  And never was the obverse of having the right individual more clear in the negative sense than having Lincoln succeeded by President Andrew Johnson.  There were powerful forces present post the Civil War that would have led to black Americans being disrespected and placed in subservient positions.  The belief in white superiority was deeply rooted (and, to an uncomfortable degree, remains) even amongst so-called liberal thinkers.  But there is no doubt that Andrew Johnson’s occupation of the presidency facilitated the reversal of views and initiatives that would have accelerated the advancement of black Americans.  This recognition of the importance of individual leadership makes each of us doing all we can to elect wise and principled leaders today at every level of government a supreme personal responsibility.  

Looking to the future, I believe that the United States will return to an orientation wedded to multi-lateral alliances and open trade and values, even if unevenly applied, much more aligned than is the case today, with the values that have guided the nation since World War II.  I hold this belief because I believe this will be seen to be in the interest of the United States economically and in terms of geo-political security.  The fact will remain that the population of the United States will represent only about 5% of the world population and there our economic vitality will be heavily dependent on not only exports but on U.S.-domiciled, multi-national companies successfully doing business in other countries.  

I believe we will renew our traditional alliances with Europe and Japan; we will continue to be challenged by instability in the Middle East and by an antagonistic Islam presence in some countries, most particularly Iran.  We will retain an intimate relationship with Canada and a difficult one with Mexico and Central America, primarily because of the controversy over immigration and importation of drugs.  We will be particularly challenged in forging a realistic but ultimately constructive relationship with China, the country which more than any other will be the greatest economic competitor to the United States.

Our relationship with Russia will be an open question.  Poisoned, as it is today, by mistakes by both that country and the United States/West over the last 20 years, I believe (and hope) that, in the latter part of the coming decade, we will find our way to pursue common interests and flush the most significant of the antagonisms and misunderstanding which have plagued us down the drain.  I have to acknowledge that this hope is surrounded by great uncertainty.

We can only hope that the next presidency and the presidency following that will bring forth leaders who can draw on this learning from the past.

Finally, it must be said that our progress and our future as a nation will be most importantly dependent on what we do in our own house on reconciling the racial divide which still exists and by, insofar as possible, giving everyone the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential through our educational, social support and taxation policies.

"So Close But Oh So Far": Immigration Reform and the Government Shutdown

It doesn't have to be this hard. It really doesn't.

There is so much that (just about) everybody agrees on:

1. Don't use a government shutdown as a crude club for negotiation, hurting people and the end objective by doing so.

2. Don't allow political symbolism to get in the way of a "good deal" which advances the Nation's interest.

3. We are not going to come up with a "forever" answer to what are the right immigration, path to citizenship and border security policies today, partly because the issues and "right answer" will change over time just as has been the case in the past. BUT we can come up with a comprehensive set of policies which bring us to a much better position than we are today and it is our responsibility to do so.

So--what to do?

1. Vote to re-open the government.

2. With the proviso that a bi-partisan group of leaders from the Senate and House will meet non-stop to craft legislation including funding to send to the President which includes provisions covering:

a. Enhanced border security including all means (e.g. personnel; technology; extended barriers) to accomplish it as justified by data and experience.
b. Giving "Dreamers" a clear path to citizenship.
c. Providing other undocumented workers who meet specific criteria (e.g. absence of criminal records) a path to securely staying in the U.S. if not to full citizenship.
d. Other enhancements to our visa and green card policies as presented in the "Border Security. Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" which passed the Senate in April 2013 by a vote of 68-32, but was never taken up by the House. (See below).
e. Consideration of action to properly address asylum seekers who, usually as families,  constitute a much greater percentage of people seeking entry today than was the case 10 years ago. (Legislation on this portion of the agreement might require more study)

Implicit in this proposal is the belief that we are not far from reading agreement on key elements thencomprehensive immigration reform we desperately need and that we should use the current government shutdown as a lever to get to "yes".

I am greatly encouraged by our ability to do this by the agreement which was reached in 2013 by the so called "gang of eight" in the Senate.

Here is a synopsis of the legislation I referred to:

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Full title	To provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Colloquial name(s)	The "immigration bill"
Introduced in	113th United States Congress
Introduced on	April 16, 2013
Sponsored by	Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Effects and codifications
Act(s) affected	Immigration and Nationality Act, Social Security Act, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 and others.
U.S.C. section(s) affected	8 U.S.C. § 1101, 8 U.S.C. § 1184, 8 U.S.C. § 1182, 8 U.S.C. § 1153, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, and others.
Agencies affected	U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Science Foundation, Army National Guard, United States Sentencing Commission, International Development Association, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Government Accountability Office, United States House of Representatives, United States Agency for International Development, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (United States), General Services Administration, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Internal Revenue Service, National Archives and Records Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, United States Forest Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Inspector General, National Park Service, International Organization for Migration, Legal Services Corporation, Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Comptroller General of the United States, Executive Office of the President, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Judicial Center, United States Department of Labor, United States Congress, Farm Service Agency, Office of Management and Budget, Director of National Intelligence, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of State, United States Department of Commerce, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Transportation, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Department of the Interior, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, United States Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Small Business Administration, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Supreme Court of the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of the Census, United States Senate
Authorizations of appropriations	At least $1,970,500,000 with an additional unlimited amount
Appropriations	At least $62,020,000,000 with an additional unlimited amount
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S.744 by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on April 16, 2013 Committee consideration by: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Passed the Senate on June 27, 2013 (Roll Call 168: 68-32)

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744) was a proposed immigration reform bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the United States Senate ^[1]and co-sponsored by the other seven members of the "Gang of Eight", a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who wrote and negotiated the bill. It was introduced into the Senate of the 113th United States Congress on April 16, 2013.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the bill in April 2013.^[2] The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013 and was placed on the Senate calendar.^[3] On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.

If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas had been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.^[4] It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this reform bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US$197 billion over the next ten years and by $700 billion by 2033.^[5] Its report also states that, if the bill had been passed, U.S. wages would have been 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than under current law.^[6] The Social Security Administration said that it would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion.^[7]

The Resignation of General James Mattis--Following the Call of George Marshall.

A just published article in "The Atlantic" magazine (reference link below) provides an eloquent tribute to the character and career of General James Mattis and thoughtfully assesses why he reached the decision to resign as Secretary of Defense. 

This had to be a very difficult decision for Mattis. The case for staying on in the Administration to minimize damage from policies which Mattis found wrong I am sure weighed heavily on his mind. And it certainly could not have been obvious to him that Trump would find anyone more likely to persuade him to follow the directions which Mattis found to be correct. Probably Mattis' reason was as he stated: the President, being the nation's constitutional leader deserves a Secretary of Defense more aligned to his beliefs. That would be a difficult decision, but one of integrity.

Speaking of integrity,  reminds me of something a supreme hero of mine, George Marshall, said in the middle of World War II, in the spring of 1943. He was talking to General John Hilldring as he was giving Hilldring the job of organizing military governments for countries to be liberated or conquered.

"I'm turning over to you a sacred trust and I want you to bear that in mind every day and every hour you preside over this military government and civil affairs venture. Our people sometimes say that soldiers are stupid. I must admit at times we are. Some (people) think we are extravagant with the public money, that we squander it, spend it recklessly. I don't agree that we do...But even though people say we are extravagant, that in itself isn't too disastrous.

BUT, we have a great asset and that is our people, our country men (they) do not distrust us and do not fear us.They don't harbor any illusions that we intend to alter the government of the country or the nature of this government in any way.

This is a sacred trust that I turn over to you today. I don't want you to do anything and I don't want you to permit the enormous corps of military governance that you are in the process of training..to damage this high regard in which the professional soldiers in the Army are held by our people--and it could happen, it could happen, Hilldring, if you don't understand what you are about".

I believe that with his decision General Mattis has preserved the sacred trust which General Marshall raised to   the highest plain.

Talk about a timeless, unblinking  statement of principle. A principle which applies to the leader of any organization or to anyone holding a covenant of trust with others, above all one's family.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/mattis-proved-you-cant-serve-both-trump-and-america/578902/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5c22eb2d1adf6400019ac42f_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

It's Up To Every Generation-The Responsibilities of Leadership

We recently celebrated the 100th Anniversary of Nelson Mandela's birth. We celebrate his life; his heroic journey from humble beginnings, to being imprisoned for 27 years, to emerging as President of his country, forgiving and uniting whose who had opposed him and threatened his life.

He inspired his country and much of the world in the hope for a better future based on a common respect for others and integrity.

Yet, we sadly read this week a series of deeply researched stories in the New York Times with headlines like this:

"'They Eat Money: How Mandela's PoliticalHeirs Grow Rich Off Corruption"

"Corruption Gutted South Africa's Tax Agency. Now the Nation is Paying the Price"

"South Africa Vows to End Corruption. Are Its New Leaders Part of the Problem?"

It has so often been this way. The examples are legion. Take the aftermath of the Civil War. Slavery at long last outlawed. Yet, in a matter of less than a decade it is virtually reimposed as Reconstruction folds and new forms of "slavery" are created. Yet, leaders like Frederick Douglass continued the fight for justice and new leaders would emerge, leaders like Martin Luther King, abolitionists of their own day and some unlikely partners, like Lyndon Johnson, who were persuaded at long last to open their eyes and take action which only they could take. And, yet--still--the fight for justice for all goes on.

All of this underscores the truism that justice and freedom and respect for others do not operate on automatic pilot. They have to be continually fought for. The human tendency for self aggrandizement and pursuit of the convenient path will always exist.

It us up to each generation, to each of us, to demand of ourselves and our leaders that we do what is right even knowing we will not do so completely. I return to the words of the Talmud: it is not required of us that we complete the task, but nor are we permitted to desist from it.

We and our government face this challenge today with our President. We should recognize it is not a new challenge. We have faced it many times before; for example in the Presidencies  of Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to name just two.

What has "saved us"in these times it seems to me is the constitutional underpinning of our government--one ingeniously created by our Founders lodging specific responsibilities in three entities: the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. It is critical that the leaders of these entities carry out their responsibilities with courage and integrity.

 It is this structure combined with the Bill of Rights including freedom of speech and freedom of  the press and respect for the rule of law that gives me hope for the future.

Too often we have seen one of these entities abdicate their responsibility. We have seen this in recent years in the legislature abdicating its decision making role in declaring war and on key foreign relations matters.  The judiciary has a special role to play. We have seen that recently on matters of immigration policy and healthcare policy.

To be sure, there will be fierce debates as to where the line of responsibility should lie. Courts will be accused of improperly assuming a legislative role; presidents will argue for more latitude in their decision making.

 It will always be this way. It will be messy at times. But everyone needs to step up to carry out what they see as their responsibility to the best of their ability, recognizing the roles they have been charged to carry out.

This is the only way we can preserve our heritage and make the most of a form of government which even if  imperfect and never fully settled is to my mind the best that has yet been conceived in our world

WHAT WE HAVE TO LEARN FROM TREES: WE ARE ALL CONNECTED

I have written in several places about the “plague of the other”; how often, usually out of fear or suffering from a lack of self-confidence, we choose to see ourselves as separate from each other and as superior to “the other.”

In the book, “Everyday Bias,”* which develops the reality that we all possess implicit biases, I came across a metaphor by the author, Howard J. Ross, that I found extremely compelling in this regard.  

Here it is.

Many of us have seen the magnificent forests full of aspen trees that grow in large “stands” throughout the northern areas of North America.  The trees are extraordinary, ramrod straight, and often standing nearly one hundred feet tall.  There can be thousands of them in just one stand.  Still, we look at each of these trees and see it in its solitary magnificence.

But there is something interesting under the surface of these forests.  These trees are not at all separate.  Underneath the soil, they are connected by a common root system, and that makes each of these clusters of trees among the largest organisms on Earth.  A new tree grows because the root sends out a runner that then grows into another tree.  The largest of these is called “Pando” (Latin for “I spread”), and is located in the Fishlake National Forest in south-central Utah.  Pando covers more than 106 acres and has been estimated to collectively weigh almost seven thousand tons, making it the heaviest organism in the world.  It also is thought to be more than eighty thousand years old, making it one of the world’s oldest known living organisms.

And yet we see it as a lot of single trees.

The trees brings us to a perfect metaphor for we who are as human beings.  We look at the “other” as if he or she is separate from us.  We see the other group as a threat.  And yet, we are all deeply connected.   We share a common destiny on this planet.  We all seek pleasure and do our best to avoid pain.  We want what is best for our children and grandchildren.  All of us are the products of that which we have seen before.  And we are all (for the most part) unconscious about the “programming” that runs our thoughts and our lives.

We can transcend.  We can, through discipline, practice and awareness, find a new way to relate that honors our differences, yet also build upon our similarities.  While the potential for mass destruction looms broadly in the world and our global community expands, we are more and more invited to recognize, as R. Buckminster Fuller said, that “we are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully, nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common.  It has to be everybody or nobody.”  

That is the path before us.  It is indeed the “road less traveled” when we look at our common history.  But it is a road that is worth paving clear.

What could be a greater journey?

*”Everyday Bias, Identifying and Navigating Unconscious Judgments in our Daily Lives”